DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are pending. Claims 4 and 6 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No.2021-182853 filed on November 09, 2021 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 04, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “1 to4” in claim 1, line 15 has to be corrected to read “1 to 4”.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-20 are objected to as being dependent on the objected claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. (JP 2009-014816, with machine translation made of record on June 05, 2025).
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 5, Nomura et al. teach a resist lower layer film-forming composition comprising a resin (A) which includes a group of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
54
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(abstract).
Nomura et al. teach that a 1-naphthol/divinylbenzene condensate has a group of formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
54
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
derived from propargyl bromide introduced in an amount of 67% of the hydroxyl groups (Synthesis Example 4 in Table 1, par.0116).
The unit comprising the group derived from propargyl bromide is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0054).
The resin of Synthesis Example 4 is a resin (A) having a structural unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein wherein p=1, m=0, n=1, R02 is a hydrogen atom or a group of formula
PNG
media_image3.png
28
82
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(unsaturated monovalent organic group with 3 carbon atoms), a=0.33, b=0.67, and X is a divalent organic group of formula -CH(CH3)-C6H5-CH(CH3)- (see Table 1 in par.0116).
This resin does not meet the limitations of claim 1 for p=0.
However, Nomura et al. teach that the resin (A) may comprise a structural unit with benzene skeleton instead of the naphthalene skeleton (par.0048-0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a phenol/divinylbenzene condensate in place of the 1-naphthol/divinylbenzene condensate in the Synthesis Example 4 of Nomura et al.
A phenol/divinylbenzene condensate having a group of formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
54
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
derived from propargyl bromide introduced in an amount of 67% of the hydroxyl groups is a resin (A) comprising a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein p=0, m=0, n=1, R02 is a hydrogen atom or a group of formula
PNG
media_image3.png
28
82
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(unsaturated monovalent organic group with 3 carbon atoms), a=0.33, b=0.67, and X is a divalent organic group of formula -CH(CH3)-C6H5-CH(CH3)- (see Table 1 in par.0116).
The ranges for “a” and “b” are within the ranges in claims 1 and 3.
The value for “n” meets the limitations of claim 5.
Nomura et al. teach that the resin (A) is obtained from a hydroxy-comprising resin having a weight average molecular weight preferable between 1,500 and 10,000 (par.0044). It would be expected that the weight average molecular weight of the resin (A) at least overlaps the claimed range.
Nomura et al. further teach a resist lower layer film forming composition comprises a solvent (B) (par.0055), and the solid content of the composition may be up to 30 mass% (par.0061).
Therefore, a resist lower layer film forming composition may comprise 30 mass% of the resin (A) and 70 mass% of the solvent (B). This amount of resin (A) is within the claimed range of 20 mass% or more.
The limitation of claim 1 “used in a multilayer resist method” is an intended use and adds no patentable weigh to the claim.
Therefore, the resist underlayer film materials in claims 1, 3, and 5 are obvious over the resist lower layer film forming composition of Nomura et al.
With regard to claim 2, the resin (A) of Nomura et al. comprises a structural unit of the general formula (1) wherein R02 are hydrogen atom and a structure of formula
PNG
media_image4.png
48
156
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein * represents an attachment point to the oxygen atom, RA is a divalent organic group having 1 carbon atom, and RB is a hydrogen atom.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Nomura et al. teach that the composition for forming a resist underlayer may further comprise an acid generator and a crosslinking agent (par.0062).
With regard to claim 9, Nomura et al. teach a process comprising the steps of:
-step (1): applying the composition for forming a resist underlayer onto a substrate to form a resist underlayer film (par.0087);
-step (2): applying a resist composition onto the resist underlayer film to form a resist film (par.0098);
-steps (3) and (4): exposing the resist film to light exposure using a photomask and then developing the exposed resist film (par.0103-0104);
-step (5): sequentially dry-etching the resist underlayer film and the substrate using the resist pattern as a mask thereby sequentially transferring the pattern to the resist underlayer film and the substrate (par.0107).
Nomura et al. further teach that the step (1) includes heating (par.0092).
With regard to claim 10, Nomura et al. teach a process comprising the steps of:
-step (1): applying the composition for forming a resist underlayer onto a substrate to form a resist underlayer film (par.0087);
-step (1a): forming an intermediate layer on the resist underlayer film (par.0094), wherein the intermediate layer may comprise a polysiloxane (par.0097);
-step (2): applying a resist composition onto the intermediate layer to form a resist film (par.0098);
-steps (3) and (4): exposing the resist film to light exposure using a photomask and then developing the exposed resist film (par.0103-0104);
-step (5): sequentially dry-etching the intermediate layer, the resist underlayer film, and the substrate using the resist pattern as a mask thereby sequentially transferring the pattern to the intermediate layer, the resist underlayer film, and the substrate (par.0107).
Nomura et al. further teach that the step (1) includes heating (par.0092).
An intermediate layer comprising a polysiloxane is a “silicon-containing resist middle layer” film in claim 10.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, Nomura et al. teach that the composition for forming a resist underlayer is coated onto the substrate and it is baked at 250oC for 60 second in an air atmosphere (par.0119).
The temperature and the duration of the baking step are within the ranges in claim 15.
The air atmosphere is an atmosphere with about 20% oxygen. This value is within the range in claim 16.
With regard to claims 12, 13, 18, and 19, Nomura et al. teach that the substrate may have trenches formed in advance (par.0089).
Nomura et al. do not specifically teach the aspect ratio of the structures forming the trenches. However, there are only four possible choices: to have a substrate with shallow narrow trenches, shallow wide trenches, deep narrow trenches, and deep wide trenches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate with deep narrow trenches in the process of Nomura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success.
Deep narrow trenches have high aspect ratios, as evidenced in column 1, lines 7-8 of Harmon et al. (EP 0 450 302). It would be expected that a high aspect ratio at least overlaps the claimed range.
Claims 11, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura et al. (JP 2009-014816, with machine translation made of record on June 05, 2025) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogihara et al. (US 2011/0177459).
With regard to claim 11, Nomura et al. teach the composition for forming a resist underlayer of claim 1 (see paragraph 7 above), and further teach that the underlayer formed by the composition is capable of transferring a resist pattern with satisfactory fidelity and reproducibility to a substrate to be processed because the composition has superior dry etching resistance and film curing property (abstract).
However, Nomura et al. fail to teach the process in claim 11 of the instant application.
Ogihara et al. teach a resist underlayer film-forming composition (abstract), and further teach a process comprising the steps of:
-forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate;
-forming an inorganic hard mask intermediate film selected from among a silicon oxide film, a silicon nitride film, and a silicon oxynitride film on the resist underlayer film;
-forming an organic antireflective film on the inorganic hard mask intermediate film;
-forming a resist upper layer film on the organic antireflective film by using a resist composition;
-conducting exposure and subsequently developing the resist upper film to form a resist pattern;
-etching the organic antireflective film and the inorganic hard mask layer by using the resist pattern as an etching mask;
-etching the resist underlayer film by using the obtained inorganic hard mask intermediate film pattern as an etching mask;
-etching the substrate by using the obtained resist underlayer film pattern as etching mask to form a pattern onto the substrate (par.0061-0068)
The step of forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate includes a baking step (par.0144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition for forming a resist underlayer of Nomura et al. in the process of Ogihara et al., in order to take advance of the superior dry etching resistance of the composition.
With regard to claim 17, Nomura et al. teach the composition for forming a resist underlayer of claim 1 (see paragraph 7 above), and further teach that the underlayer formed by the composition is capable of transferring a resist pattern with satisfactory fidelity and reproducibility to a substrate to be processed because the composition has superior dry etching resistance and film curing property (abstract).
However, Nomura et al. fail to teach the process in claim 17 of the instant application.
Ogihara et al. teach a resist underlayer film-forming composition (abstract), and further teach that a resist underlayer composition may be applied onto a substrate and baked in an atmosphere with as low as 0.1% oxygen (par.0144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the composition for forming a resist underlayer of Nomura et al. in the method of Ogihara et al., in order to obtain a film with good curing property.
With regard to claims 14 and 20, Nomura et al. teach that a substrate to be processed may have trenches formed in advance (par.0089).
Nomura et al. and Ogihara et al. do not specifically teach the aspect ratio of the structures forming the trenches. However, there are only four possible choices: to have a substrate with shallow narrow trenches, shallow wide trenches, deep narrow trenches, and deep wide trenches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate with deep narrow trenches in the process of Nomura et al., with a reasonable expectation of success.
Deep narrow trenches have high aspect ratios, as evidenced in column 1, lines 7-8 of Harmon et al. (EP 0 450 302). It would be expected that a high aspect ratio at least overlaps the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Nomura et al. teach a resin (A) comprising a structural unit of formula (1) wherein b=0.71 and p=1, but fail to teach a resin (A) comprising a structural unit of formula (1) wherein b=0.71 and p=0.
In addition, Nomura et al. requires to lower the hydrogen content in the resist underlayer (par.0021-0023), so one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to replace the naphthalene skeleton with a benzene skeleton which increases the hydrogen content.
The examiner would like to note that par.0021 of Nomura et al. teaches that the hydrogen content in the resist underlayer film is reduced by introducing a group of formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
54
238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and aromatic hydrocarbon groups in the resin (A). Par.0023 teaches that the hydrogen content may be high due to crosslinking groups, such as hydroxy groups, but such groups provide the composition with etching resistance.
However, par.0048-0049 of Nomura clearly teach that the resin (A) may have a structural unit containing a benzene skeleton instead of a naphthalene skeleton.
Additionally, the examiner would like to note that a less preferred embodiment is still a teaching of the prior art.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP 2123.II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART)
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace a naphthalene ring with a benzene ring in the resin (A) of Nomura et al.
On page 10 of the Remarks the applicant argues that when p=0 the in-plane thickness uniformity is superior to the case wherein p=1, as shown in par.0170.
The examiner would like to note that the resins X-15 and X-16 in Table 2, par.0162 are resins (A) comprising a structural unit of formula (1) wherein p=1. The resins X-15 and X-16 are used in UL-15 and UL-16 (Table 5 in par.0156).
Table 9 in par.0166 shows that the film thickness difference for UL-16 is 50 nm. The same film thickness difference is measured for resist underlayer compositions UL-12 and UL-13, which comprise the resins X-12 and X-13 and the resins X-12 and X-13 are resins (A) comprising a structural unit of formula (1) wherein p=0 (see Table 2 in par.0152).
Therefore, the examples presented in the specification do not show the criticality of the value p=0.
On page 11 of the Remarks the applicant argues that for p=0 and a and b outside the ranges in claim 1 result in occurrence of voids as filing defect and peeling due to insufficient adhesiveness, as shown in par.0164 of the specification.
The examiners agrees that the compositions comprising resins wherein a and b are within the range of claim 1 have superior results when compared to compositions comprising resins wherein a and b are outside the ranges in claim 1.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the evidence presented in the specification is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, so it is not sufficient to prove unexpected superior results of the claimed invention.
The examples in the specification show the resins X-1 to X-14, which are resins with the scope of claim 1. These are resins (A) having a structural unit of general formula (1) in claim 1 wherein p=1, m=0 or 1, when m=1 R01 is a methyl group (saturated monovalent organic group with 1 carbon atom), n=1, and X is a divalent organic group of formulas -CH2- or
PNG
media_image5.png
32
98
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. (see Table 1 on pages 72-73 of the specification).
However, claim 1 allows for m to be an integer from 0 to 3, for n to be an integer from 1 to 4, for R01 to be a saturated or unsaturated monovalent organic group having 1 to 30 carbon atoms optionally having a substituent, and for X to be a divalent organic group having 1 to 30 carbon atoms.
Examples of groups R01 are shown in par.0050-0052 of the specification and examples of groups X are shown in par.0054-0055 of the specification.
Therefore, the structural unit of general formula (1) may be represented by a large number of structural units.
Additionally, the resist underlayer film materials UL-1 to UL-14 comprise the resin (A) in an amount of 25wt% and the resist underlayer film materials UL-17 and UL-18 comprise the resin (A) in an amount of 23wt%. Claim 1 recites the range “20mass% or more”.
Therefore, the evidence presented in the specification is not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention).
On page 11 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Nomura et al. do not specifically teach the claimed weight average molecular weight of the resin (A) in a range of 3,000 to 9,500.
The examiner would like to note that Nomura et al. teach that the resin (A) is obtained from a hydroxy-comprising resin having a weight average molecular weight preferable between 1,500 and 10,000 (par.0044). It would be expected that the weight average molecular weight of the resin (A) at least overlaps the claimed range. Additionally, the examples presented in the specification do not show the criticality of the range for the weight average molecular weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kobayashi et al. (US 2025/0004378) teach a composition for a resist underlayer film, wherein the composition comprises a resin (A) having a unit of formula (1):
PNG
media_image6.png
106
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, a phenol group contained in the resin (A) has a proportion “a”, a group in which the phenolic hydroxyl group is modified has a proportion “b”, a is between 0.1 and 0.5, b is between 0.5 and 0.9, a+b=1 (par.0023-0024).
Kobayashi et al. is not available as prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights