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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 refers to a “polymer represented by Formula 6”, however Formula 6 is not defined in any of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the error/objection to claim 13, as explained above, for the purposes of examining the examiner has interpreted claim 13 to be referring to the base polymer of claim 12, comprising of a hydroxystyrene monomer and a monomer comprising an acid degradable protective group represented by Formulae 4-1 to 4-10.
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 1-4, 6-11, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 20150072292 A1 – reference from IDS filed on 08/15/2023).
Cho et al. teaches a photoresist composition comprising of a copolymer, a solvent, and a photoacid generator (abstract) wherein the second graft copolymer comprises of a structure as shown in formula (4):
PNG
media_image1.png
338
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where q is 3 to 50, specifically 4 to 45, where n4 is 3 to 10, specifically 4 to 9 and where n5 is 5 to 30, specifically 7 to 25. In an exemplary embodiment in the formula (4), q is 30, while n4 is 4 and n5 is 14 [0042] (claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7). In another embodiment, the “the graft block copolymer can be rendered soluble in an aqueous alkaline developer solution by a photoacid catalyzed deprotection reaction and then used as a positive tone photoresist”, thereby the photoacid generator copolymer is hydrophobic until after exposure [0022] (claims 8 and 16). The photoresist composition is composed of a copolymer in 50 to 80 wt% and a photoacid generator in 5 to 25 wt% based on the total weight of the photoresist composition [0083] (claim 11) and the PDI (polydispersity) of the copolymer ranged from 1.05 to 1.30 wherein the average molecular weight of 1,850 to 13,000 Daltons when measured using GPC [0050] (claims 1 and 2). Further, the photoresist composition comprises the graft copolymer, a solvent, a quencher, and a photoacid generator [0074] (claims 10 and 15) wherein this photoresist composition is used in photolithography in conjunction with high energy electromagnetic radiation such as extreme ultraviolet [0085] (claims 9 and 17). Furthermore, Cho et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photoresist composition comprising of a photoresist film using the photoresist composition as explained above, exposing to radiation (such as extreme ultraviolet as explained above), and developing the exposed photoresist by using a developer solution to yield a positive tone patterned image [0006] (claims 19-20).
It would have been anticipatory to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a prior art range which falls within the claimed range because "[w]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art". See MPEP § 2131.03 (I). Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US 20150072292 A1– reference from IDS filed on 08/15/2023) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiwara et al. (US 20200081341 A1 – reference from IDS filed on 08/15/2023).
Cho et al. teaches the photoresist composition, as explained above and applied to claim 1, however, fails to teach the photoresist composition of claim 10 comprises of a hydroxystyrene monomer and a monomer comprising an acid degradable protective group represented by Formulae 4-1 to 4-10 (claim 12) and the polydispersity index (PDI) of the polymer is 1.0 to 3.0 (claim 13 – see above claim interpretation), and the photoresist of claim 10 comprises of a photo-decomposable quencher includes a quencher represented by Formula 7 (claim 14).
Fujiwara et al. teaches a photoresist composition comprising of: a base resin containing a polymer comprising of recurring units [0021-0023] wherein the polymer comprises of a recurring unit having an acid labile group [0081] with formulae such as listed in [0082 and 0084] with some examples including:
PNG
media_image2.png
244
395
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image3.png
239
211
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
258
189
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
213
152
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
241
209
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and hydroxystyrene derivatives [0101] (claim 12) wherein the polymer has a dispersity (Mw/Mn) of 1.2 to 2.5 [0102] (claim 13), an organic solvent [0024], a photoacid generator [0025], a surfactant which is insoluble in water and alkaline developer, and a quencher [0019-0020], wherein the quencher used is diphenyliodonium-2-carboxylate [0159] (claims 10 and 14). Further, the photoresist composition is “processed by photolithography using KrF or ArF excimer laser, EB or EUV, there is formed a resist pattern which is improved in rectangularity, MEF, LWR, and CDU” (abstract) (claims 9 and 15). Furthermore, the PAG is preferably 0 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts of weight of the base resin [0127] (claim 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to have combined the photoresist composition of Cho et al. to include the quencher of the photoresist composition of Fujiwara et al. because “when a resist composition comprising the inventive iodonium salt as a quencher is processed by photolithography using high-energy radiation such as KrF or ArF excimer laser, EB or EUV, especially ArF excimer laser or EUV as the energy source, a resist pattern with improved rectangularity, MEF, LWR, and CDU is formed, because the extent of acid diffusion is significantly controlled” [0034]. See MPEP § 2143, rationales (A). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the PDI ranges disclosed by Fujiwara et al. because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Cho et al. (US 20150072292 A1) and Fujiwara et al. (US 20200081341 A1) are silent on the diffusion length of the acid generated by the photoacid generator, though Fujiwara et al. teaches the acid diffusion is controlled [0034] and Cho et al. teaches “the structural and morphological features of the graft block copolymers can be tuned in the lateral and longitudinal directions to facilitate an enhanced anisotropic vertical diffusion of photoacid catalyst” [0085].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christine Curiac whose telephone number is (703)756-1375. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 ET.
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.
/CHRISTINE CURIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights