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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2022 and 03/19/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertions as to the superior hydrophobicity and resulting reduction in watermark defects as well as low dewet coating defectivity, assertions supported by data regarding superior unexpected results of both practical and statistical significance would be considered to overcome an obviousness-type rejection. As the Applicant does not point to such data herein, these assertions are considered attorney argument.
Applicant’s assertions regarding the propriety of the 103 rejection set forth in the prior office action are not considered persuasive – pointing to a lack of experimental results or experimentally-realized embodiments would be persuasive if the grounds of rejection made were a 102-type anticipation rejection, but the rejection set forth was of obviousness-type. The Examiner does not dispute that there are no particular experimental examples utilizing the precise polymer having formula units conforming to claimed formulas (1) and (2). However, this does not negate a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 since a preferred/experimental embodiment such as an example is not controlling. Rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
Patents and patent publications are prior art for all they contain (See MPEP 2123.I and .II) and it is presumed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to read, comprehend, and utilize the disclosure of a prior art document - including but not limited to the detailed description.
The rejection set forth included a detailed structural mapping of the subunits corresponding to claim 1’s formulas (1) and (2).
The detailed description of Liu et al, as was set forth in the prior office action, discloses all of the components set forth in the instant and currently unamended claims as detailed below. The rejection set forth included a detailed structural mapping of the subunits corresponding to claim 1’s formulas (1) and (2), among other components as drawn from the disclosure. Given that Liu et al discloses the composition and components thereof that encompasses the presently claimed composition, including a polymer having subunits that , 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 topcoat composition, which is both disclosed by Liu and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The rejections of the claims 1-17 over 35 USC 103 in view of Liu et al as set forth in the prior office action are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20160130462 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 6-8, Liu discloses a method for forming a pattern using a topcoat and photoresist, and compositions used in such a method.
Liu does not explicitly disclose an experimental example that meets the limitations of the claims.
These limitations are met by the general disclosure of Liu.
Liu teaches a topcoat composition comprising a matric polymer, a surface active polymer, and additives (Abstract), where the surface active polymer has a lower surface energy.
The topcoat compositions are self-segregating and can minimize or prevent migration of components of an underlying resist layer into an immersion fluid employed as part of a lithographic process.
The composition of the topcoat describes a matrix polymer from [0023]-[0026], and a surface-active polymer from [0027]-[0039], where the surface-active polymer comprises units meeting the limitations of general formula (I) in [0029] and/or (II) in [0030], as well as units (IV) and (V) as described in the general formulas in [0034] and exemplified in [0034]-[0037]. Example units from (IV) and (V) are presented below:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
154
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Units (IV) read upon the limitations of the claim for claimed general formula (1) where:
R1 is a methyl group (C1 alkyl)
X is a carbon atom
R2 is a hydrogen and R3 is a t-butyl group, meeting the limitations of condition (ii) where X+R3 comprise a branched structure (claim 7) / R2 is a hydrogen and R3 is a cyclohexyl group, meeting the limitations of condition (i) (claim 6)
PNG
media_image3.png
184
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Subunit (V) reads upon the claimed limitation of the formula (2) where:
R5 is a hydrogen atom, or a C1-C4 alkyl or fluoroalkyl (R9 is defined as such in [0034])
R6 is a C1 alkylene group
Rf1 are both a trifluoromethyl group (C1 fluoroalkyl) (claim 8)
The composition of the surface-active polymer is stipulated to be 50-100 mol% of a monomer of formula (I) or (II), meaning the monomer units (IV) and (V) described above may be present singly or together in an amount ranging from 0-50%, wherein the polymer has a molecular weight ranging from “less than 400,000” to “5000-25,000”. The reference discloses exemplary embodiments of polymers delimiting quantifiers of repeat units – in [0025] and [0041] for example, additive polymers are disclosed in the format x/y/z corresponding to the repeat units where x/y/z delimit a wt% value. Using this, the reference discloses units (IV) and (V) may each be present in exemplary polymer embodiments ranging from 8wt% to 70wt%
The surface active polymer (first polymer) is present in the composition in 1-30wt% based on the total solids of the composition.
The topcoat composition of the reference comprises a two-solvent or three-solvent system described in [0044]-[0047], wherein the solvents may comprise 4-methyl-2-pentanol (methyl isobutyl carbinol) and isobutyl isobutyrate (claims 2 and 3)
Additional components may be included – these may include photoacid generators - the Examiner will specifically point out that photoacid generators are considered optional and while they are disclosed as part of a potential embodiment, the reference does not disparage embodiments that do not use photoacid generators in the topcoat composition. References are art for all they contain.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention from the general disclosure of the reference, which describes a method and compositions for carrying out the method allowing the provision of a topcoat having improved developer affinity and performance.
Regarding Claim 4 and 5, the reference teaches the limitations of the claims as required by claim 1 above, but does not explicitly disclose an experimental example meeting the limitations of the claim.
These limitations are met by the general disclosure of Liu, where the composition may further comprise additive polymers – the examiner will point out that “optional additional polymers” not “an optional additional polymer” is recited in [0040] – more than one additional polymer may be present. Exemplary additive polymers include the below:
PNG
media_image4.png
266
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
270
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The reference teaches that the additive polymer may be used to tune the resist feature profile and/or control the resist top loss - a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of the reference to include the above polymers in the composition to tune the patterning properties of the topcoat in pursuit of an improved lithographic process and resultant product.
Regarding Claims 9-12 and 15-17, Liu discloses a method for forming a pattern using a topcoat and photoresist.
Liu does not explicitly disclose an experimental example that meets the limitations of the claims.
These limitations are met by the general disclosure of Liu.
Liu discloses a pattern forming method comprising:
forming a photoresist layer over a substrate
forming a topcoat layer over the photoresist layer
exposing the topcoat and photoresist layer to activating radiation
contacting the exposed topcoat and photoresist layers with a developer to form a resist pattern
The method uses the topcoat composition and layer formed therefrom, wherein the topcoat composition comprising a matric polymer, a surface active polymer, and additives (Abstract), where the surface active polymer has a lower surface energy and is thus the upper surface of the top layer (claim 10, see [0013] and [0028]) – this coating is applied by spin coating or another method suitable for applying photoresist compositions (See [0063]-[0069]).
The topcoat compositions are self-segregating and can minimize or prevent migration of components of an underlying resist layer into an immersion fluid employed as part of a lithographic process.
The composition of the topcoat describes a matrix polymer from [0023]-[0026], and a surface-active polymer from [0027]-[0039], where the surface-active polymer comprises units meeting the limitations of general formula (I) in [0029] and/or (II) in [0030], as well as units (IV) and (V) as described in the general formulas in [0034] and exemplified in [0034]-[0037]. Example units from (IV) and (V) are presented below:
PNG
media_image1.png
166
106
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
154
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Units (IV) read upon the limitations of the claim for claimed general formula (1) where:
R1 is a methyl group (C1 alkyl)
X is a carbon atom
R2 is a hydrogen and R3 is a t-butyl group, meeting the limitations of condition (ii) where X+R3 comprise a branched structure (claim 16) / R2 is a hydrogen and R3 is a cyclohexyl group, meeting the limitations of condition (i) (claim 15)
PNG
media_image3.png
184
108
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Subunit (V) reads upon the claimed limitation of the formula (2) where:
R5 is a hydrogen atom, or a C1-C4 alkyl or fluoroalkyl (R9 is defined as such in [0034])
R6 is a C1 alkylene group
Rf1 are both a trifluoromethyl group (C1 fluoroalkyl) (claim 17)
The composition of the surface-active polymer is stipulated to be 50-100 mol% of a monomer of formula (I) or (II), meaning the monomer units (IV) and (V) described above may be present singly or together in an amount ranging from 0-50%, wherein the polymer has a molecular weight ranging from “less than 400,000” to “5000-25,000”. The reference discloses exemplary embodiments of polymers delimiting quantifiers of repeat units – in [0025] and [0041] for example, additive polymers are disclosed in the format x/y/z corresponding to the repeat units where x/y/z delimit a wt% value. As such, the reference discloses units (IV) and (V) may each be present in exemplary polymer embodiments ranging from 8wt% to 70wt%
The surface active polymer (first polymer) is present in the composition in 1-30wt% based on the total solids of the composition.
The topcoat composition of the reference comprises a two-solvent or three-solvent system described in [0044]-[0047], wherein the solvents may comprise 4-methyl-2-pentanol (methyl isobutyl carbinol) and isobutyl isobutyrate (claims 11 and 12)
Additional components may be included – these may include photoacid generators - the Examiner specifically points out that photoacid generators are considered optional by the reference and while they are disclosed as part of a potential embodiment, the reference does not disparage embodiments that do not use photoacid generators in the topcoat composition. References are art for all they contain.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention from the general disclosure of the reference, which describes a method and compositions for carrying out the method allowing the provision of a topcoat having improved developer affinity and performance.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, the reference teaches the limitations of the claims as required by claim 9 above, but does not explicitly disclose an experimental example meeting the limitations of the claim.
These limitations are met by the general disclosure of Liu, where the composition may further comprise additive polymers – the examiner will point out that “optional additional polymers” not “an optional additional polymer” is recited in [0040] – more than one additional polymer may be present. Exemplary additive polymer include the below:
PNG
media_image4.png
266
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
270
364
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The reference teaches that the additive polymer may be used to tune the resist feature profile and/or control the resist top loss - a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in view of the reference to include the above polymers in the composition to tune the patterning properties of the topcoat in pursuit of an improved lithographic process and resultant product.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights