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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are under consideration
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [48] of the specification is incorrectly number as paragraph [8].
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.
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 1-9 are 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.
Regarding claim 1,
The claim limitation “X and Y form a single bond” is unclear. If interpreted as “X and Y are connected by a single bond”, then when “n” is 0, a single bond could not be formed. If interpreted as “X and Y are a single bond”, then X and Y could not be fluorine or C1-C5 alkyl.
Claims 4 and 8 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.
Regarding claim 4,
If the limitation of “X and Y form a single bond” is interpreted as “X and Y are connected by a single bond”, the compounds bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro-1-propanesulfonyl)imide, bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluoro-1-butanesulfonyl)imide, and bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide each fail to contain a single bond between the X and Y groups.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20190250515A1, published 8/19/2019).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9,
Yamamoto teaches a method to manufacture a semiconductor device [0039] comprising forming a photoresist film on a substrate, exposing and developing the photoresist film to form a resist pattern, and cleaning the resist pattern with their rinse composition [0032-0033], reading on instant claims 6 and 8-9.
Yamamoto teaches exposure of the photoresist film using EUV irradiation [0032].
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition (process solution composition) comprising of a surfactant with the following formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X is an oxygen, nitrogen or carbon,
R1, R2 and R3 are independently hydrogen, fluorine or C1-5 alkyl,
Y is a hydrogen, fluorine, or C1-5 alkyl,
each Z is independently hydrogen, fluorine, or C1-5 alkyl,
or Y and Z are taken together to form a single bond,
l is 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5,
m is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, and
n is 0, 1 or 2 [0015].
Yamamoto further teaches examples of their formula (I) such as 1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylimide [0016], reading on instant claim 4.
Yamamoto teaches further including a diol derivative with the following formula (II), where R4 to R7 are more preferably H, methyl, or ethyl, “o” is preferably 0-1, L1 and L2 may each independently be a C1-5 alkane linker and may each be substituted by a hydroxyl group [0017].
PNG
media_image2.png
192
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When L1 and/or L2 are substituted with a hydroxyl group, the diol derivative would be a triol or tetraol compound. For example, when R4-R7 are each H, “o” is 0, and L1 is a hydroxyl substituted C1 alkane linker, the resulting compound would be 1,2,3-propanetriol, reading on instant claim 5.
Given that Yamamoto discloses the diol derivative that encompasses the presently claimed triol and/or tetraol derivatives, including 1,2,3-propanetriol, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the diol derivative, which is both disclosed by Yamamoto and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition can comprise 2 or more different surfactants from each other, with exemplified examples of the surfactant comprised by their invention rinse composition is Bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro-1-propanesulfonyl)imide, Bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluoro-1-butanesulfonyl)imide, 1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylmide, Bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, Nonafluoro-1-butanesulfonamide, Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid, Bis(1,1,2,2,2-pentafluoroethanesulfonyl)imide, and a mixture thereof (each of which may read on the instant fluorine-based surfactant and/or the instant chemical compound represented by formula (1)). Yamamoto teaches that relative to the total mass of the rinse composition, the content ratio of the surfactants of the rinse composition is preferably 0.01 mass % or more and 0.5 mass % or less [0016], where if 0.01 mass % of two surfactants, each would be less than 0.01 mass %, where at least one of the two would be less than 0.005 mass %, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges.
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition further comprises water most preferably comprising of 95 mass % or more to 99.98 mass % or less [0018].
Yamamoto also teaches their diol derivative is preferably 0.01 mass % or more and 0.5 mass % or less relative to the total mass of the rinse composition [0017], overlapping the instantly claimed range, reading on instant claims 1-2.
Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20190250515A1, published 8/19/2019) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koshiyama (US20070292808A1, published 2007).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 7,
Yamamoto teaches the above limitations set forth, reading on instant claim 7.
Yamamoto teaches further including different surfactants such as nonionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, anionic surfactants, or amphoteric surfactants [0023].
However, Yamamoto is silent to explicit examples that encompass those of instant claim 3.
Koshiyama, analogous art, teaches a similar rinse composition comprising of fluorinated compounds such as the following (1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylmide) [0044-0046],
PNG
media_image3.png
65
281
media_image3.png
Greyscale
as well as a fluorine compound which may preferably be perfluoro(decane carboxylic acid) [0049], a perfluorinated acid, reading on instant claim 3.
Koshiyama also teaches their fluorine compounds are used in the form of a solution as dissolved in water in a concentration of 0.001 to 5.0% by mass [0051], overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, reading on instant claim 2.
As both teaches similar rinse solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the perfluoro(decane carboxylic acid) of Koshiyama as a non-ionic surfactant of Yamamoto would result in a comparable and expected rinse solution.
That is, the substitution of the perfluoro(decane carboxylic acid) of Koshiyama for the non-ionic surfactant of Yamamoto, 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 a rinse solution. 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).
Conclusion
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
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734