DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 6-10 have been added.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
28
50
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and claim 7 recites
PNG
media_image2.png
28
78
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. The quotation marks should be omitted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwayama et al. (JP2015135522) in view of Hirano et al. (U.S. 2018/0299774). Translation previously provided.
Iwayama et al. teaches a positive photosensitive resin composition of the present invention contains an epoxy resin, a phenol resin, a cationic photopolymerization initiator, and a heterocyclic compound. The heterocyclic compound is preferably a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, and more preferably an imidazole-based compound [0009-0010] (claim 1) and examples include imidazole [0027] which is equivalent to formula (E4) of instant claim 10 when R31-R34 are hydrogen atoms; and in the case of containing the heterocyclic compound, any known epoxy resin can be used, such as EOCN-1020 [0022] which is equivalent to an epoxy compound containing on average at least 4 epoxy groups per molecule of instant claim 1 represented by formula (D1) of instant claim 9 when m is 1, R11 is a C1 saturated hydrocarbyl group, L1 is a C1 saturated hydrocarbylene group, and n is an integer of at least 2. Iwayama et al. also teaches as the phenol resin, a known phenol resin can be used. Examples thereof include a phenol novolac resin, a cresol novolac resin, a bisphenol A type novolac resin, a bisphenol F type novolac resin, and a naphthol novolac resin. Among these, a phenol novolac resin and a cresol novolac resin are preferable, and a phenol novolac resin is particularly preferable. These phenol resins may be used alone or in combination of two or more thereof [0023] which is equivalent to the alkali-soluble resin having a phenolic hydroxy group of instant claim 1. Iwayama et al. further teaches examples of the photocationic polymerization initiator include diphenyliodonium tetrafluoroborate, triphenylsulfonium hexafluoroantimonate, 2,4,6-triphenylthiopyrylium hexafluoro phosphate [0025] which is equivalent to the photoacid generator of instant claim 1. Iwayama et al. also teaches the positive photosensitive resin composition of the present invention can be used in the form of a dry film having a positive photosensitive resin composition layer formed by applying and drying the photosensitive resin composition on a film such as polyethylene terephthalate (thermoplastic film) in advance [0037] (claim 1). Iwayama et al. also teaches in the positive photosensitive resin composition of the present invention, a binder polymer may be used for the purpose of improving the set-to-touch property and the handling property. Examples of the binder polymer that can be used include a polyester-based polymer [0029].
Iwayama et al. does not explicitly teach a plasticizer containing a polyester, specifically a polyfunctional carboxylic acid polyester having 2 to 6 carboxy groups.
However, Hirano et al. teaches a laminate comprising a thermoplastic film and a positive resist film is provided, the positive resist film comprising (A) a novolak resin-naphthoquinone diazide (NQD) base resin composition, (B) a polyester, and (C) 3-30 wt % of an organic solvent [abstract] wherein the polyester as component (B) is the condensate of a polyfunctional carboxylic acid with a polyhydric alcohol or the condensate of a polyfunctional carboxylic anhydride with a polyhydric alcohol. The polyfunctional carboxylic acids are preferably those having 2 to 6 carboxyl groups [0057-0058] for example Polycizer W-230-H [0095] used in the examples which is equivalent to a plasticizer containing a polyester, specifically a polyfunctional carboxylic acid polyester having 2 to 6 carboxy groups of instant claims 1 and 2, more specifically a condensate of adipic acid and a polyhydric alcohol of instant claims 7 and 8. Hirano et al. also teaches an object of the invention is to provide a positive resist film laminate which ensures that a positive resist film is transferred to a stepped support without forming voids [0007]. It also should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, a polyester resin such as Polycizer W-230-H is known in resist compositions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the specific teachings of Iwayama et al. to include a specific polyester resin such as those taught by Hirano et al. and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention in order to avoid forming voids.
Claim 1 recites “negative resist film” which has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Thus, the composition atop a PET film of Iwayama modified by Hirano is the same as the instantly claimed composition and thermoplastic film.
Claim 1 recites “an epoxy compound…which functions as a crosslinker” which refers to the function of the epoxy compound. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed composition is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed composition from a prior art composition satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2, USPQ2d 1647 (1987). This recitation of the composition is drawn to intended use; therefore, this limitation does not add any patentable weight to the claim (MPEP 2106). Thus, the epoxy compound EOCN-1020 of Iwayama et al. is the same as the instantly claimed epoxy compound having at least 4 epoxy groups.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunami et al. (U.S. 2003/0165776) in view of Hirano et al. (U.S. 2018/0299774).
Yasunami et al. teaches A negative resist composition comprising: (A) an alkali-soluble polymer; (B) a cross-linking agent that forms a cross-link between the alkali-soluble polymers (A) by the action of an acid; and (C) an acid generator that is represented by the following formula (I) and is capable of generating an acid upon irradiation with one of an actinic ray and a radiation [0009-0012] in which the alkali-soluble polymers usable in the invention include a wide variety of polymers containing phenol skeletons, which use in negative resists of chemical amplification type has so far been disclosed, such as phenol novolak resins, polyvinyl phenol resins, copolymers having structural units derived from vinyl phenols and resins obtained by partially protecting or modifying polyvinyl phenol resins [0034] (claim 1); a compound capable of forming cross-links by the action of an acid (hereinafter referred simply to as an acid cross-linking agent or a cross-linking agent as appropriate) is used in combination with the alkali-soluble polymer as recited above. Herein, known acid cross-linking agents can be utilized. Of known agents, compounds or resins which each contain at least two hydroxylmethyl, alkoxymethyl, acyloxymethyl or alkoxymethyl ether groups, and epoxy compounds are suitable in the invention [0086-0087] and besides the phenol derivatives, the following compounds (i) and compounds (ii) are usable as cross-linking agent: (i) Compounds having N-hydroxymethyl groups, N-alkoxymethyl groups or N-acyloxymethyl groups, and (ii) Epoxy compounds [0098-0100] and examples of Compound (ii) include at least one epoxy group-containing monomeric, dimeric, oligomeric and polymeric epoxy compounds. For instance, these compounds include the products obtained by reaction between phenol-formaldehyde resins having low molecular weights and epichlorohydrin [0107] which is equivalent to an epoxy compound which functions as a crosslinker of instant claim 1, specifically formula (D1) of instant claim 9 when m is 1, R11 is a C1 saturated hydrocarbyl group, L1 is a C1 hydrocarbylene group, and n is an integer of at least 2. Yasunami et al. also teaches the present negative resist composition can further contain nitrogen-containing basic compounds, dyes, surfactants, plasticizers, photo-decomposable base compounds and photo-base generators, if needed [0180] and examples of the nitrogen-containing basic compound included imidazole [0188] which is equivalent to an imidazole compound of instant claim 1, specifically formula (E1) of instant claim 10 when R31-R34 are hydrogen. Yasunami et al. further teaches the cross-linking agent is used in a proportion of 3 to 65 weight %, preferably 5 to 50 weight %, to the total solids in the resist composition. This is because the cross-linking agent added in proportions lower than 3 weight % causes reduction in remaining film rate, and the addition in proportions higher than 65 weight % lowers the resolution, and besides, it is hardly appropriate from the viewpoint of resist solution stability upon storage [0101]; the suitable proportion of the compound(s) of Component (C) in the present negative resist composition is from 0.1 to 20 weight %, preferably from 0.5 to 10 weight %, far preferably from 1 to 7 weight %, based on the total solids in the composition [0170]; and the appropriate ratio between acid generators and nitrogen-containing basic compounds used in the composition is from 2.5 to 300 by mole [0190] (claim 6). Yasunami et al. also teaches examples of plasticizers usable in the present negative resist composition include the compounds as disclosed in Japanese Patent Laid-Open Nos. 212960/1992 and 262720/1996, European Patent Nos. 735422, 416873 and 439371, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,846,690, specifically di(2-ethylhexyl)adipate [0199] which is equivalent to a plasticizer containing a polyester having 2 carboxy groups of instant claims 1 and 2, specifically a condensate of adipic acid and a polyhydric alcohol of instant claims 7 and 8. Yasunami et al. further teaches the present negative resist composition is coated on a substrate (e.g., silicon/silicon dioxide coating, a glass substrate, a metal substrate) directly or an antireflective coating as recited above, which is formed in advance on a substrate, and then the resist coating thus formed is irradiated with an excimer laser, electron-beam or X-ray drawing apparatus, and further subjected sequentially to baking, development, rinsing and drying treatment [0208] and developers usable for the present negative resist composition are aqueous solutions containing inorganic alkalis [0209] (claims 3-5).
Yasunami et al. does not teach the negative resist composition is applied to a thermoplastic film and then subsequently transferred to a second support.
However, Hirano et al. teaches a laminate comprising a thermoplastic film and a positive resist film is provided, the positive resist film comprising (A) a novolak resin-naphthoquinone diazide (NQD) base resin composition, (B) a polyester, and (C) 3-30 wt % of an organic solvent [abstract]. Hirano et al. also teaches the novolak resin-NQD base positive resist film of the resist film laminate may be bonded to a second support, typically semiconductor substrate using a suitable laminator such as vacuum laminator or roll laminator. The thermoplastic film is peeled off, whereby the resist film is transferred to the second support. The support may be of a stepped structure. In this case, the resist film having an appropriate thickness corresponding to the height of steps is used so that the resist film may be buried in steps. The resist film is advantageously applicable to a support having steps of the order of 0 to 200 μm. The transfer step may or may not be followed by heat treatment. When heat treatment is performed, the assembly may be prebaked on a hotplate or in an oven at 60 to 150° C for 1 to 30 minutes, preferably at 80 to 130° C for 1 to 10 minutes. Next, the resist film is exposed to radiation through a mask having a desired pattern, the radiation being selected from UV, deep UV and EB, preferably radiation with a wavelength of at least 300 nm, more preferably 350 to 500 nm. The exposure dose is preferably in the range of about 10 to 5,000 mJ/cm2, more preferably about 30 to 2,000 mJ/cm2. If desired, the film may be baked (PEB) on a hotplate at 60 to 150° C for 1 to 10 minutes, preferably at 80 to 120° C for 1 to 5 minutes. Thereafter the resist film is developed in a developer in the form of an aqueous alkaline solution, for example, 0.1 to 5 wt %, preferably 2 to 3 wt % aqueous solution of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) for 0.1 to 60 minutes, preferably 0.5 to 10 minutes by a conventional technique such as dip, puddle or spray development [0080-0082] (claims 1 and 3-5). It also should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, both Yasunami and Hirano are directed to semiconductor manufacturing. Although Yasunami et al. is directed to negative resists while Hirano et al. is directed to positive resists, the addition of temporary films for either application is well known in the semiconductor art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yasunami et al. to include additional components such as the thermoplastic film taught by Hirano et al. and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of combining equally suitable components in the manufacturing of semiconductor devices.
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed January 9, 2026 of instant claim 1, the 103 rejection of claims 3-5 over Iwayama in view of Hirano has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Iwayama in view of Hirano have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Iwayama and Hirano disclose positive photoresist while the present invention relates to a negative resist which are fundamentally different. The epoxy resin contained in the positive resist undergoes a reaction that is fundamentally different from the crosslinking reaction required of negative resists. The exposed areas undergo a crosslinking reaction that increases the molecular weight, thereby making the material insoluble in the developer.
The Examiner acknowledges that there is a difference between positive and negative resists in the method of forming pattern. The Examiner also agrees that the crosslinking function of the epoxy compound matters for the method steps of exposure and development. However, the Examiner does not agree that the function matters in claims 1 and 2. Claims 1 and 2 (and new claims 7-10) are merely directed to a resist laminate (and thermoplastic film), so whether the film is called positive or negative does not hold any patentable weight for said claims, see In re Hirao and Kropa v. Robie regarding preamble and see Ex Parte Masham regarding functional language. Thus, the epoxy compound EOCN-1020 of Iwayama et al. is the same as the instantly claimed epoxy compound having at least 4 epoxy groups and therefore the resist film and thermoplastic film of Iwayama modified by Hirano is the same as the instantly claimed negative resist film laminate comprising a thermoplastic film as a first support and a negative resist film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2005/0095527 and U.S. 2003/0064319.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 EST M-F.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
/Anna Malloy/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights