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Amendment to the claims was submitted on 02/13/2026, the objection to claim 8 is withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are under consideration
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroi (US20100266951A1, published 2010).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 7-14,
Hiroi teaches a resist underlayer film forming composition comprising of a solvent and a linear polymer which may have the following structure with formula (7), where Y may be H or a C2-C10 alkyl, m1 is 1-4, n1 may be 0, Q may be a structure with formula (13), and t1 may be 0 [abstract, 0019], aligning with the instant polymer (X), reading on instant claims 1-3 and 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
149
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
145
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The polymer of Hiroi would also be expected to include the rightmost aromatic group at at least one end (terminal) of the polymer chain, reading on instant claim 8.
Hiroi teaches further including a crosslinker (crosslinking agent, instant film material (Z)) [0024], reading on instant claims 9-10.
Hiroi teaches further including a compound exhibiting acidity and/or a thermoacid generator as an additive [0025], reading on instant claim 11.
Hiroi teaches further including a surfactant [0026], reading on instant claim 12.
Hiroi teaches their solvent may be γ-butyrolactone (boiling point of 204 °C) [0022], reading on instant claim 13.
Hiroi teaches heating their coated composition to form a resist underlayer film [0058], reading on instant claim 14.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogata (WO2020184642A1, published 9/17/2020, references made to related US publication US20220155686A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee and two common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claims 1-14,
Ogata teaches a resist underlayer film-forming composition comprising of a crosslinking compound and a solvent [abstract], where the compound may be the following [0055], reading on instant claims 1-7.
PNG
media_image3.png
131
433
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The polymer of Ogata would also be expected to include the rightmost aromatic group at at least one end (terminal) of the polymer chain, reading on instant claim 8.
Ogata teaches further including additional crosslinking agents [0376], reading on instant claims 9-10.
Ogata teaches further including an acid generator and a surfactant [0061], reading on instant claims 11-12.
Ogata teaches the solvent may be γ-butyrolactone (boiling point of 204 °C) [0120], reading on instant claim 13.
Ogata teaches applying and curing the resist underlayer film-forming composition on a semiconductor substrate to form a resist underlayer film [0390], reading on instant claim 14.
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.
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 15-16 are 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 Tokunaga (WO 2018186310 A1, published 2018, references made to provided translation).
Regarding claims 15-16,
Hiroi teaches further steps of coating an overlying photoresist film, which is then exposed and developed [0067].
However, Hiroi fails to teach forming a hard mask or further processing or etching the underlayer or substrate.
Tokunaga, analogous art, teaches forming a lower layer film (underlayer film) using their composition onto a substrate, forming a hard mask layer, forming a resist film, patterning their resist film using exposure to light and development, etching the hard mask layer, etching the underlayer, and processing the semiconductor substrate [page 5 paragraph 10], reading on instant claims 15-16.
As both Hiroi and Tokunaga teach underlayer film forming compositions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the additional processing steps of Tokunaga with the composition and method of Hiroi.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroi (US20100266951A1, published 2010) and Tokunaga (WO 2018186310 A1, published 2018, references made to provided translation) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Minegishi (US 20120252217 A1, published 1012).
Regarding claim 17,
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 17.
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).
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (WO2020184642A1, published 9/17/2020, references made to related US publication US20220155686A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tokunaga (WO 2018186310 A1, published 2018, references made to provided translation).
Regarding claims 15-16,
Ogata teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film; forming a resist pattern by irradiation with light or an electron beam and development; etching the underlayer film through the resist pattern; and processing the semiconductor substrate using the patterned underlayer film [0045-0048].
Ogata fails to teach forming a hard mask or further processing or etching substrate.
Tokunaga, analogous art, teaches forming a lower layer film (underlayer film) using their composition onto a substrate, forming a hard mask layer, forming a resist film, patterning their resist film using exposure to light and development, etching the hard mask layer, etching the underlayer, and processing the semiconductor substrate [page 5 paragraph 10], reading on instant claims 15-16.
As both Ogata and Tokunaga teach underlayer film forming compositions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using the additional processing steps of Tokunaga with the composition and method of Ogata.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (WO2020184642A1, published 9/17/2020, references made to related US publication US20220155686A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Minegishi (US 20120252217 A1, published 1012).
Regarding claim 17,
Ogata 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 Ogata would form an expected and comparable underlayer film, reading on instant claim 17.
That is, the substitution of the nanoimprint method of Minegishi for the underlayer formation method of Ogata 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 02/13/2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hiroi and Ogata.
Conclusion
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 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, 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights