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, 2, 4, 6-18, and 20-23 are pending. Claims 3, 5, and 19 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “one or more crosslinking agents comprising crosslinking function having imidazole rings” in claim 14 should be amended to read “one or more crosslinking agents comprising imidazole rings and crosslinking function groups attached to the imidazole rings” (see par.0036 of the specification and claim 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the gray-tone photoresist of claim 1”. However, claim 1 is directed to a method, not to a photoresist.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the novolak resin" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, it is not clear what is the joint inventor claiming as the invention in claim 18.
For the examination on the merit it is considered that claim 18 depends on claim 14.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and recites that the one or more crosslinking agent include a heterocyclic compound or an aromatic compound.
However, claim 14 has been amended to recite that the one or more crosslinking agents comprises imidazole rings, which are heterocyclic compounds.
Claim 16 depends on claim 14, and recites that the one or more crosslinking agents may include:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
214
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
192
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
172
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
98
304
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
116
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, claim 14 has been amended to recite that the one or more crosslinking agents comprises imidazole rings, and an imidazole ring is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
490
292
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
The compounds above do not include imidazole rings and they are not derived from imidazoles.
Therefore, claims 15 and 16 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igawa et al. (US 2006/0057468) in view of Yasunami et al. (US 2004/0033441).
With regard to claims 14 and 16, Igawa et al. teach a resist comprising a novolak resin, a naphthoquinone diazide derivative; and Cymel 300 as crosslinking agent (Example 1 in par.0045-0048).
Cymel 300 is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
170
344
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, wherein R is-CH3 (as evidenced in column 14, lines 45-60 of Swarup et al. (US Patent 6,087,464)), and it is not the claimed crosslinking agent.
However, Yasunami et al. teach that Cymel 300 is functionally equivalent to the compound of formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
128
374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
as cross-linking agent in a photoresist composition (par.0088, par.0093).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to replace Cymel 300 with the compound of formula CL-8 of Yasunami et al. in the resist composition in Example 1 of Igawa et al.
The compound of formula CL-8 above is a crosslinking agent comprising imidazole rings and crosslinking functions configured to thermally crosslink the novolac resin at an elevated temperature to increase a glass transition temperature of the gray-tone photoresist and/or lower an etch rate of the gray-tone photoresist, as defined in par.0005 and par.0036 of the specification of the instant application.
The compound CL-8 above meets the limitations of claim 16.
The resist composition of Igawa modified by Yasunami comprises the same compounds as the photoresist of claim 14, so it would be expected to function as “gray-tone photoresist”. Therefore, the resist of Igawa modified by Yasunami is equivalent to the photoresist in claim 14 and 16 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 15, the compound CL-8 above is a crosslinking agent comprising a heterocyclic compound and alkoxy crosslinking function groups.
With regard to claim 17, Igawa et al. teach that the crosslinking agent represents about 4wt% based on the total weight of the solid components of the resist composition (par.0048).
With regard to claim 18, Igawa et al. teach that the novolac resin has a weight average molecular weight of 15,200 (par.0045). It would be expected that the number average molecular weight of the resin is within the range in claim 18.
Claim 20 refers only to the intended use of the photoresist (crosslinking upon heating), and these limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claim.
Therefore, the resist of Igawa modified by Yasunami is equivalent to the photoresist in claim 20 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, and 21-23 are allowed.
The prior art does not teach the method in claim 1 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-18, and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is moot after the cancelation of claim 3; and
-the rejection of claims 14-18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Igawa et al. (US 2006/0057468) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 14.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 14-18 and 20 are shown in paragraphs 4-9 above.
Conclusion
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