DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16 and 19-30 are pending. Claims 16, 19-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 have been amended, claims 1-15 were originally canceled, and claims 17 and 18 have been canceled.
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 .
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 16 and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP2018109701). U.S. 2019/0339614 is being used as the English translation.
Suzuki et al. teaches a chemically amplified positive type photoresist composition according to the present invention comprises: (A) a polymer which reacts with an acid to increase its solubility in an alkaline aqueous solution, (B) an organic solvent, (C) a first photoacid generator selected from the group consisting of XA-ZA, XB-ZA, XB-ZB, XB-ZC and XC-ZA, and (D) a second photoacid generator selected from the group consisting of XA-ZB and XC-ZB [0007] in which a specific example of polymer (A) includes Polymer A, which is a p-hydroxystyrene/styrene/t-butyl acrylate copolymer having a mass average molecular weight of 12,000 (polymerization ratio: hydroxystyrene 60%, styrene 20%, and t-butyl acrylate 20%) seen in the Examples [0102] wherein hydroxystyrene is equivalent to formula (A-1) of instant claim 16 when R12-R14 are hydrogen, p11 is 0, and p15 is 1, styrene is equivalent to formula (A-2) of instant claim 16 when R22-R24 are hydrogen and p21 is 0, and t-butyl acrylate is equivalent to formula (A-3) of instant claim 16 when R32-R34 are hydrogen and p31 is a C4 alkyl in which the cLogP of Polymer A is 2.79 according to page 14 of the instant specification (claim 16) and nA-1 is 60%, nA-2 is 20%, nA-3 is 20%, and nA-4 is 0% (claim 21). Suzuki et al. also teaches preferred examples of the first photoacid generator includes the following [0059]:
PNG
media_image1.png
170
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0059] which is equivalent to a photoacid generator (B) represented by formula (B-1) of instant claim 16 when Bn+cation is represented by formula (BC1) when each nb1 is 0 and Bn-cation is represented by formula (BA2) when Rb6 is a fluorine-substituted C4 alkyl which has a pKa of -5.5 (claim 22). Suzuki et al. further teaches the composition according to the present invention can contain other components as necessary. Such components include (E) a basic organic compound, (F) the third photoacid generator, and (G) a weak acid [0067] (claims 16 and 19) and preferred examples of the third photoacid generator are as follows [0073]:
PNG
media_image2.png
382
188
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0073] which are all equivalent to a photoacid generator (D) represented by formula (D-1) of instant claim 16 when each Dm+cation is represented by formula (DC1) when each nd1 are 0, the first and last Dm-anion is represented by formula (DA1) when nd3 is 1, nd4 is 0 or 1 respectively where Rd3 is hydroxy, and X is a C1 hydrocarbon or C6 hydrocarbon respectively, and the middle Dm-anion is equivalent to formula (DA2) when Rd4 is a C10 alkyl which forms a ring and -CH2- is replaced with -C(=O)-. Suzuki et al. also teaches the composition according to the present invention optionally contains a surfactant [0075 (claim 20). Suzuki et al. further teaches the composition according to the present invention comprises an organic solvent (B). The organic solvent is not particularly limited as long as it can dissolve the components to be formulated, and can be freely selected from those commonly used in lithography method. Specific examples include ethylene glycol monoalkyl ethers such as ethylene glycol monomethyl ether and ethylene glycol monoethyl ether; ethylene glycol monoalkyl ether acetates such as ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate and ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate; propylene glycol monoalkyl ethers such as propylene glycol monomethyl ether (hereinafter sometimes referred to as PGME) and propylene glycol monoethyl ether; propylene glycol monoalkyl ether acetates such as propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (hereinafter sometimes referred to as PGMEA) and propylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate; lactates such as methyl lactate and ethyl lactate (hereinafter sometimes referred to as EL); aromatic hydrocarbons such as toluene and xylene; ketones such as methyl ethyl ketone, 2-heptanone and cyclohexanone; amides such as N,N-dimethylacetamide and N-methylpyrrolidone; lactones such as γ-butyrolactone; and the like. These organic solvents can be used alone or in combination of two or more kinds of them [0032] (claims 16 and 24). Suzuki et al. also teaches the formulating ratio of the organic solvent is adjusted in accordance with the coating method of the composition and the targeted film thickness, and is, for example, 100 to 900 parts by mass, more preferably 100 to 700 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of the polymer component [0033], the formulating amount of the first photoacid generator and the second photoacid generator with respect to the composition is preferably 0.5 to 10 parts by mass, more preferably 1 to 10 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass [0063], and the third photoacid generator is used in an amount that does not impair the effect of the first photoacid generator and the second photoacid generator. Specifically, the amount of the third photoacid generator is preferably 0.05 to 5 parts by mass, more preferably 0.05 to 1 parts by mass, based on 100 parts by mass of the polymer component [0074] which overlaps the claimed ranges (claim 23). Suzuki et al. further teaches if the cross section of a resist pattern is not a rectangular shape, the precision of a device to be manufactured using the resist pattern may be deteriorated. Further, the thicker the film thickness becomes, the more remarkable the problem becomes. Therefore, a composition capable of forming a pattern having a cross-sectional shape which is nearer to a rectangular shape even when the film thickness is thick has been desired [0006].
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 specific teachings of Suzuki et al. to include additional compositions such as the one described above and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable first photoacid generators in order to achieve a rectangular shape pattern.
With regard to claims 25-30, Suzuki et al. also teaches using a coater/developer (Mark 8, manufactured by Tokyo Electron Limited), the prepared resist solution was dispensed onto an 8-inch silicon wafer and spin coated. Subsequently, baking was carried out on a hot plate at 150° C for 130 seconds to obtain a resist film. When the thickness of the obtained resist film was measured using a spectrometric film thickness measurement system (M-1210 type, manufactured by Dainippon Screen Co., Ltd.), the thickness of each resist film was 4.3 μm [0105] The obtained resist film was exposed using a KrF stepper (FPA3000-EX5, manufactured by Canon Inc.). Then, after post-exposure bake was carried out on a hot plate at 110° C. for 160 seconds, development was carried out for 60 seconds with a 2.38% TMAH aqueous solution (product name: AZ300MIF, manufactured by Merck Co., Ltd.) to form a resist pattern having a line width of 1 μm [0104-0105] (claims 25-27). Suzuki et al. further teaches using the pattern obtained as a mask, the substrate and the like can be etched. Therefore, a semiconductor device can be manufactured by using this method [0100] (claims 29 and 30). The composition of Suzuki et al. is the same as instantly claimed. Therefore, the film produced using the above composition is expected to have the same properties as Applicant’s claims, e.g. Tr/T of 0 to 25%, absent any evidence to the contrary (claim 28).
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment filed December 24, 2025 of instant claim 16, the 102(a)(1) rejection over Suzuki has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments with regard to this rejection have been considered but are moot due to the amendment of instant claim 16. However, Suzuki is still being used as prior art because it continues to teach the claimed composition.
Applicant argues regarding Suzuki, Suzuki does not disclose or suggest all elements of amended claim 16, particularly the combination of photoacid generators (B) and (D). Suzuki only mentions TPS-SA as an optional component and provides no teaching or motivation for combining it with a photoacid generator falling within the scope of (B). Further, the subject matter of claim 16 yields unexpected technical effects, i.e. Tr/T values, further distinguishing from Suzuki. There is no rational basis for a person skilled in the art to combine photoacid generators (B) and (D) based on Suzuki’s disclosure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 16 recites open language “comprising” and can therefore comprise additional photoacid generators other than (B) and (D). Suzuki et al. requires a first and second photoacid generator [0007] but also teaches a third acid generator may be included [0067]. Specific examples of Suzuki’s first and second acid generators encompass claimed photoacid generator (B) [0059-0060] while the third acid generator of Suzuki encompasses claimed photoacid generator (D). Suzuki et al. also teaches the objective is to obtain a rectangular shaped pattern [0006] which appears to be the same objective as the instant application albeit obtained through a different calculation. Nevertheless, the prior art is not required to seek out the same benefits as Applicant for a prima facie case of obviousness. “A claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences in fact in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, appellant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art”. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Additionally, the strongest rationale [for combining references] is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the instant case, Suzuki teaches a resist composition comprising a resin, at least two acid generators, and a solvent in which additional components such as a third acid generator may be included. Suzuki also teaches the object of the invention is to obtain a rectangular shaped pattern. It is also well known in the art to make simple substitutions of the inventive components, e.g. substituting a first photoacid generator for another. 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 specific teachings of Suzuki et al. through routine experimentation and arrive at the instant claims with a reasonable expectation if success. Furthermore, the prior art is not required to provide explicit motivation to choose from each and every embodiment disclosed therein. DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir 2006) recites “The motivation need not be found in the references [sought to be combined], but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.” In the instant case, Suzuki et al. teaches a small list of preferred first and second photoacid generators in which of 12 of the 18 preferred compounds are equivalent to Applicant’s claimed photoacid generator (B) [0059-0060] while all three of the third photoacid generator of Suzuki et al. are equivalent to Applicant’s claimed photoacid generator (D) [0073]. As noted above, it is also well known in the art to make simple substitutions of inventive components in a prior art reference, e.g. substituting a first photoacid generator for another, which is a commonly used rationale for determining a prima facie case of obviousness. 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 specific teachings of Suzuki et al. through routine experimentation and arrive at the instant claims with a reasonable expectation if success.
Due to the amendment of the specification, the objection has been withdrawn.
Due to the amendment of instant claim 16 and cancelation of claims 17 and 18, the objections have been withdrawn.
Due to the amendment of instant claim 16, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Due to the amendment of instant claims 19-23, 25, 26, 29, and 30, the 112(d) rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2020137921, U.S. 2021/0200084, U.S. 20180299777, U.S. 2014/0349225, U.S. 2011/0014570, U.S. 2008/0090179, U.S. 6,465,150, and U.S. 5,861,231.
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