DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 7/09/2026, the following rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are under consideration.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi (US20100266951A1, published 2010).
Regarding claims 1-11,
Hiroi teaches a composition for forming a resist underlayer film comprising of a polymer and a solvent [abstract], where the polymer may have the following structure with formulae (7) or (12), where n1 may be 0, m1 may be 2-4, R1 may be —CH2—O—Y, each Y is independently H or a C1-C10 alkyl group (where at least one Y may be a C1 alkyl and at least 1 other Y may be H or a C2-C10 alkyl) [0019],
PNG
media_image1.png
139
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
118
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where Q may be the following formula (13), t1 may be 1 to 4, and R2 may be a hydroxy group [0019],
PNG
media_image3.png
143
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
reading on instant claim the instant polymer (X) where the left -CH2- group may read on the instant linking group and the remaining structure may read on the instant more than one structural unit, reading on instant claims 1-3.
Examiner notes the nitrogen moieties of the above formula (12) may be interpreted as substituted amino group, reading on instant claim 4.
Given that Hiroi discloses the polymer that encompasses the presently claimed polymer (X), including the requisite aromatic ring having a phenolic hydroxyl group, methoxymethyl group, and ROCH2- group, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the polymer, which is both disclosed by Hiroi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hiroi teaches including an additional crosslinker such as hexamethoxymethyl melamine (containing a substituted amino group) [0024], reading on instant claims 5-6.
The examiner notes that the composition containing both the above polymer and the above crosslinker would be expected to contain at least a small amount of crosslinking, resulting in at least one of the more than one structural units to contain a substituted amino group, further reading on instant claim 4.
Hiroi teaches their composition may further contain a compound exhibiting acidity and/or a thermoacid generator as an additive [0025], reading on instant claim 7.
Hiroi teaches further including a surfactant [0026], reading on instant claim 8.
Hiroi teaches the solvent may be γ-butyrolactone (with a boiling point of about 204 °C) [0022], reading on instant claim 9.
Hiroi teaches applying their composition onto a silicon wafer (substrate) and heating the composition to form a resist underlayer film [0058], reading on instant claim 10.
Hiroi teaches coating a photoresist solution onto the resist underlayer film, then exposing (to light with a wavelength of 193nm) and developing the photoresist film [0066-0067].
Hiroi teaches that the resist underlayer film obtained from the resist underlayer film forming composition of the present invention has a large selection ratio of dry etching rate relative to a photoresist. Therefore, it can be said that the time required for removing the resist underlayer film by dry etching can be reduced, and thus, it is possible to suppress an undesired phenomenon that the film thickness of the photoresist layer decreases with the removal of the resist underlayer film by dry etching [0063], reading on the instant step of etching and patterning the resist underlayer film through the formed resist pattern.
Hiroi teaches a semiconductor substrate in which a film to be processed is formed on a surface of the substrate is used, and the resist underlayer film is formed on the film to be processed [claim 13], reading on the instant step of processing a semiconductor substrate through the patterned resist underlayer film, reading on instant claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi (US20100266951A1, published 2010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatakeyama (US20160358777A1, published 2016).
Regarding claim 12,
Hiroi teaches the above limitations set forth.
Hiroi fails to teach a hardmask layer formed over the underlayer film.
Hatakeyama, analogous art, teaches a resist underlayer film forming composition, where to suppress substrate reflection, a multi-layer antireflection film is effectively formed under the resist. A 3-layer (tri-layer) structure in which a hydrocarbon film (a resist under layer film) with high carbon density is formed on a substrate, a silicon-containing resist middle layer film is formed thereon (hard mask layer), and a resist upper layer film is formed thereon can prevent the substrate reflection by the two layers of the hydrocarbon film and the silicon-containing middle layer film. Thus, the application of this technique has been rapidly spreading with use of the liquid immersion lithography [0004-0006].
As both teach underlayer film forming compositions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form a hard mask layer in between the underlayer and upper photoresist layer as taught by Hatakeyama with the method of Hiroi for the benefits disclosed by Hatakeyama, reading on instant claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi (US20100266951A1, published 2010) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Minegishi (US20120252217A1, published 2012).
Regarding claim 13,
Hiroi teaches the above limitations set forth.
Hiroi fails to teach using a nanoimprint method to form their underlayer film.
Minegishi, analogous art, teaches a resist underlayer film forming composition, where a nanoimprint method may be used in forming their underlayer film [0094].
As both teach resist underlayer film forming compositions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the nanoimprint method of Minegishi with the composition of Hiroi would form an expected and comparable underlayer film, reading on instant claim 13.
That is, the substitution of the nanoimprint method of Minegishi for the underlayer formation method of Hiroi, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an underlayer film. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/09/2026 with respect to the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hiroi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights