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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/31/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aqad (US 20220214614 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 -9 , Aqad discloses photoacid generators (PAGs) having a moiety of formula (1) (abstract), wherein the generator is used in photoresist compositions for forming patterned resists in electronic devices.
Aqad does not disclose a specific experimental embodiment meeting the limitations of the claims. These limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference
The PAGs of Aqad are generally disclosed from [0018]-[0031], where the PAG may be a polymer or a discrete monocationic-anionic salt ([0026]-[0028]), where the polymer may be a polyanion or a polycation and the corresponding cation/anion electrostatically associated therewith.
The general formula (1) is preferably embodied by a formula (2-1) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C40 aryl or heteroaryl group, R1 is an alkyl, branched alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl group as described in [0019], Y is a single bond or divalent group as described in [0019], Ar2 represents an arylene group that may or may not be substituted and bear 6-40 carbons thereupon, X is S or I, R2 independently represents a linear/branched/cyclic alkyl group, aryl group, heteroaryl group, or other group as defined in [0021].
Exemplary cations are depicted in [0022]:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
210
160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above cations meet the limitations of the claimed formula (I) for where:
R8 is a phenyl group (C6 hydrocarbyl group) and s=2
Subscript q=0, subscript p=1
R1 is an ether bond
R2 is a C1 methylene linkage (C1 alkanediyl group)
R5 is a fluorine or iodine, and subscript m=1 (claim 3)
Subscript n=0
R3 or R4 is a methyl, ethyl, or phenyl group
The reference does not explicitly show an instance where both R3 and R4 are a hydrocarbyl group of a particular embodiment. However – the art clearly shows that such groups are interchangeable, and a person of ordinary art could immediately envision an embodiment where both R3 and R4 are, for instance, methyl groups. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use such an embodiment with recognition that the chemical similarity between such structures would render both embodiments similar in performance and compatibility (See MPEP 2144.09).
Exemplary anions (in monomer form) for use in a polymeric anion are shown in [0028]:
PNG
media_image4.png
216
44
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
180
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above anions meet the limitations of claim 2’s claimed formulas (a1) and (a2) where:
X1 is an ester bond
X2 is a methyladamantyl group bonded to a carboxyl group (-X21-C(=O)-)
X3 is a methylene or ethylene
Rf1-Rf4 are fluorines, or Rf1 and Rf2 are hydrogens and Rf3 and Rf4 are fluorines
X4 is a fluorinated phenylene ring
The polymerized PAG may be present with other monomer units that are not PAGs, and the PAG-bearing polymer may or may not be present alone or in admixture with other non-PAG polymers ([0033]-[0034]). Example monomers are depicted from [0035]-[0046], and exemplary polymers are depicted from [0047]-[0048].
Exemplary monomers include those depicted below:
PNG
media_image6.png
362
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
242
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where the above monomers read upon the claimed formula (b1) of Claim 5 where:
RA is a hydrogen or methyl group (see [0041])
Y1 is a single bond or phenyl group
R11 is an acid-labile group
The reference discloses a chemically amplified resist composition, describing a resist that describes acid-labile groups being cleaved during a post-exposure bake process after exposure generates acid from the PAG (claim 6).
The composition of the reference comprises the above PAG and a solvent (claim 4), as well as optional components such as surfactants (claim 7 – see [0066]-[0067]).
The composition of the reference is used in a pattern forming process, wherein the resist is coated onto a substrate and baked to form a film thereupon, then patternwise exposed to radiation such as from a ArF/EB/EUV source (claim 9), and developed using a developer (claim 8) – See [0074]-[0081].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to filing date from the disclosure of Aqad, which discloses substantially chemically similar embodiments and substantially similar processing methods/parameters, to arrive at a composition and resist having good CDU and minimized patterning defects.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aqad (US 20220214614 A1) and LaBeaume (US 20150093709 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 -9 , Aqad discloses photoacid generators (PAGs) having a moiety of formula (1) (abstract), wherein the generator is used in photoresist compositions for forming patterned resists in electronic devices.
Aqad does not disclose a specific experimental embodiment meeting the limitations of the claims. These limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference
The PAGs of Aqad are generally disclosed from [0018]-[0031], where the PAG may be a polymer or a discrete monocationic-anionic salt ([0026]-[0028]), where the polymer may be a polyanion or a polycation and the corresponding cation/anion electrostatically associated therewith.
The general formula (1) is preferably embodied by a formula (2-1) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where Ar1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C40 aryl or heteroaryl group, R1 is an alkyl, branched alkyl, cycloalkyl, aryl, or heteroaryl group as described in [0019], Y is a single bond or divalent group as described in [0019], Ar2 represents an arylene group that may or may not be substituted and bear 6-40 carbons thereupon, X is S or I, R2 independently represents a linear/branched/cyclic alkyl group, aryl group, heteroaryl group, or other group as defined in [0021].
Exemplary cations are depicted in [0022]:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
210
160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above cations meet the limitations of the claimed formula (I) for where:
R8 is a phenyl group (C6 hydrocarbyl group) and s=2
Subscript q=0, subscript p=1
R1 is an ether bond
R2 is a C1 methylene linkage (C1 alkanediyl group)
R5 is a fluorine or iodine, and subscript m=1 (claim 3)
Subscript n=0
R3 or R4 is a methyl, ethyl, or phenyl group
The reference does not explicitly show an instance where both R3 and R4 are a hydrocarbyl group of a particular embodiment.
This limitation is met by Labeaume, which discloses acid generators having a carbocyclic aryl or heteroaromatic group substituted with acetate moieties (abstract), wherein the acid generators may be sulfonium salts such as those depicted below:
PNG
media_image8.png
98
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
98
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Wherein the above cations meet the limitations of the claim where
R8 is a phenyl group (C6 hydrocarbyl group) and s=2, and the two phenyl groups may be bound together with a bond
Subscript q=0, subscript p=1
R1 is an ether bond
R2 is a C1 methylene linkage (C1 alkanediyl group)
Subscript m=0
Subscript n=0
R3 and R4 may be methyl groups, or may be a methyl group and a trifluoropropyl group
Ar is a phenyl group
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these sulfonium cations and the functional groups thereupon as art-directed alternatives to each other, and would find it obvious to select functional groups from Aqad and LaBeaume with the expectations that such substitutions (such as using two methyl groups on the R3/R4 positions of Aqad’s generators, or using an I/F on the terminal phenyl group of LaBeaume ) would result in substantially similarly behaving cations for acid generation.
Exemplary anions disclosed by Aqad (in monomer form) for use in a polymeric anion are shown in [0028]:
PNG
media_image4.png
216
44
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
180
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The above anions meet the limitations of claim 2’s claimed formulas (a1) and (a2) where:
X1 is an ester bond
X2 is a methyladamantyl group bonded to a carboxyl group (-X21-C(=O)-)
X3 is a methylene or ethylene
Rf1-Rf4 are fluorines, or Rf1 and Rf2 are hydrogens and Rf3 and Rf4 are fluorines
X4 is a fluorinated phenylene ring
The polymerized PAG may be present with other monomer units that are not PAGs, and the PAG-bearing polymer may or may not be present alone or in admixture with other non-PAG polymers ([0033]-[0034]). Example monomers are depicted from [0035]-[0046], and exemplary polymers are depicted from [0047]-[0048].
Exemplary monomers include those depicted below:
PNG
media_image6.png
362
356
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
242
310
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Where the above monomers read upon the claimed formula (b1) of Claim 5 where:
RA is a hydrogen or methyl group (see [0041])
Y1 is a single bond or phenyl group
R11 is an acid-labile group
The reference discloses a chemically amplified resist composition, describing a resist that describes acid-labile groups being cleaved during a post-exposure bake process after exposure generates acid from the PAG (claim 6).
The composition of the reference comprises the above PAG and a solvent (claim 4), as well as optional components such as surfactants (claim 7 – see [0066]-[0067]).
The composition of the reference is used in a pattern forming process, wherein the resist is coated onto a substrate and baked to form a film thereupon, then patternwise exposed to radiation such as from a ArF/EB/EUV source (claim 9), and developed using a developer (claim 8) – See [0074]-[0081].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to filing date from the disclosure of Aqad and LaBeaume, which disclose substantially chemically similar embodiments and exemplary art-recognized functional groups thereupon, and also disclose substantially similar processing methods/parameters to arrive at a composition and resist having good CDU and minimized patterning defects.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-4 and 7-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-4 and 9-11 of copending Application No. 18095235 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding the instant claims 1 and 2, the claim recites salt consisting of a sulfonium cation that is present with a polymer-bound sulfonic acid anion. The reference claim 1 recites a sulfonium cation and a corresponding non-nucleophilic counter-ion (anion) – the reference claim does not delimit the structure of the anion. A polymeric sulfonic acid anion – such as the one recited in the instant claim 1, is a non-nucleophilic counter ion. A person of ordinary skill in the art who achieves the instant invention (sulfonium salt consisting of a sulfonium cation and a polymeric sulfonic acid anion) has also achieved the reference invention reciting a cation and anion. Reference claim 2 further delimits the structure of the reference application’s non-nucleophilic counter anion to be a sulfonate/imide/methide – again, the polymeric sulfonate anion of the instant claim 1 meets these limitations as there is no delimitation that the sulfonate of the reference claim is a mono-anionic species or a polyanionic species. Instant claim 2 delimits a specific structure of the claimed sulfonic acid polyanion – a person of ordinary skill in the art who achieves the invention of the instant claim 2 has achieved the reference claim 2.
Instant claims 3 and 4 and Reference claims 3 and 4 are verbatim.
Instant claim 7 and reference claim 9 are verbatim
Instant claims 8-9 and reference claims 10-11 are verbatim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734