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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 and 6 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 Claims 5 and 6, the claim recites a use for the composition, by the composition being “suitable for an underlayer film” but fails to recite the steps or structure needed to obtain the underlayer film. Appropriate corrected is advised.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Navarro (US 2015/0030971) as evidenced by Lamontagne (Nitroxide-Mediated Polymerization: A Versatile Tool for the Engineering of Next Generation Materials, ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 2, 12, 11/12/2020).
Regarding Claims 1-3, Navarro teaches in Example 2 the preparation of a poly(styrene-co-methyl methacrylate) random copolymer using a hydroxy-functionalized BlocBuilderMA as the initiator (paragraph [0103]) (Claim 2, 3). The copolymer comprises 73% polystyrene and 27% methyl methacrylate with a Mn of 12,280 g/mol as shown in Table 1 (paragraph [0110]). The monomers styrene and methyl methacrylate satisfy where A1 is a structural unit having 2 or more carbon atoms. The number of repeating units in this copolymer can be determined by dividing the number average molecular weight by the weight average of the different comonomers; this calculation yields a repeat unit n1 of 119 (Repeat Units = 12280g/mol /(104.15*0.73+100.21*.27). In Example 3, a solution of the copolymer prepared in Example 2 was made to apply onto a cleaned wafer substrate, such that the composition of the random copolymer in a solvent is achieved (paragraph [0015]).
While Navarro is silent to the actual end-group characterization of this poly(styrene-co-methyl methacrylate) random copolymer, the end-groups for these types of controlled polymerizations is known; Examiner brings in Lamontagne to demonstrate the propagating and stable free radicals and their placement on the polymer chain during polymerization using BlocBuilderMA.
Examiner notes that BlocBuilder MA modified with one equivalent of hydroxy acrylate is a phosphoryl-containing NMP initiator, which would yield a phosphoryl group on the end of the copolymer chain as instantly claimed as evidenced by Figure 1 of Lamontagne (page 5328 and referenced below). This phosphoryl group on the end would satisfy X1 and Y1 are -O-, R1 and R2 are organic groups having 1 or more carbons. At the opposite end of the polymer, the hydroxy acrylate modified portion may either be included as a monomer that satisfies A1 or as part of the Z1 organic group having 9 carbons. The nitroxide portion shown on the terminal end of the polymer chain contains 4 carbon atoms and is interpreted as a structural unit under A1 since a plurality of A1 are the same or different as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
309
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 4-6, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. In Example 4, the deposition of the block copolymer on the surface of the substrate forms a film, and the film is thermally annealed in order to evaporate solvent and to leave time for the morphology to become established (paragraph [0116-0118]). Examiner notes that the polymer film is thermally annealed, indicating where is directed self-assembly in the annealing process to form different morphologies. Navarro further teaches that the substrate may include metals such as germanium, platinum, tungsten,and gold such that one of ordinary skill would envisage alternative substrates to apply the copolymers (paragraph [0082]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro (US 2015/0030971) as evidenced by Lamontagne (Nitroxide-Mediated Polymerization: A Versatile Tool for the Engineering of Next Generation Materials, ACS Applied Polymer Materials, 2, 12, 11/12/2020) as applied to Claim 1 in view of Navarro ‘684 (US 2019/0002684) and Minegishi (JP 2015139875, IDS 04/25/2023, refence citations from English translation).
Regarding Claims 7-10, Navarro further teaches the composition as discussed in Claim 1. The inventive compositions in Navarro relate to the manufacture of lithography masks and also to the masks obtained (paragraph 0079]). Furthermore, the surfaces may be “free” (flat and homogeneous surface from a topographical and chemical viewpoint), or can exhibit structures for guidance of the block copolymer pattern, such as chemical or topographical/physical guidance (known as guidance by graphoepitaxy) (paragraph [0083]) (Claim 9). In Example 4, the deposition of the block copolymer on the surface of the substrate forms a film, and the film is thermally annealed in order to evaporate solvent and to leave time for the morphology to become established (paragraph [0116-0118]). Examiner notes that the polymer film is thermally annealed, indicating where is directed self-assembly in the annealing process to form different morphologies. Navarro further teaches that the substrate may include metals such as germanium, platinum, tungsten, and gold such that one of ordinary skill would envisage alternative substrates to apply the copolymers (paragraph [0082]) (Claim 10).
Navarro is silent to applying a composition for directed self-assembled film to a surface of the underlayer film to form a coating film, phase-separating the coating film to form a directed self-assembled film having a plurality of phases, and removing at least part of the plurality of phases of the self-assembled film to form a pattern.
However, Navarro ‘684 utilizes similar copolymer compositions comprising polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate as underlayer compositions over a cleaned silicon substrate as shown in Example 3 (paragraph [0086]). The underlayer is selected so as to be neutral for the studied block copolymer, in order to get a perpendicular orientation of the block copolymer (paragraph [0087]). Particularly the invention can be used as masks in the lithography field and also to the masks obtained (paragraph [0064]).
Navarro and Navarro ‘684 disclose poly(Styrene methyl methacrylate) copolymers that self-assembly into morphological features for the use in masks. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition of Navarro as an underlayer as shown by Navarro ‘684. One of ordinary skill would expect the similar copolymer compositions having both styrene and methyl methacrylate to find use as an underlayer as shown by Navarro ‘684.
Navarro ‘684 is silent to further applying a coating film over the underlayer film, phase-separating the coating film to form a directed self-assembled film having a plurality of phases, and removing at least part of the plurality of phases of the self-assembled film to form a pattern.
However, Minegishi teaches a composition for self-assembly for pattern formation that forms a fine pattern (paragraph [0010]). An underlayer is formed as shown in Fig. 1, and the directed self-assembling film is formed on the underlayer film (paragraph [0092]). Since the phase separation structure of the directed self-assembling film is changed by the interaction with the underlayer film in addition to the interaction between the polymers, the presence of the underlayer film makes it possible to control the structure and to obtain a more desired pattern (paragraph [0092]). When the directed self-assembling film is a thin film the transfer process thereof can be improved by having the underlayer film (paragraph [0092]). The substrate can be a silicon wafer of a wafer coated with aluminum (paragraph [0093]) (Claim 10). As shown in Fig. 2, there is a step of forming a prepattern 103 on the underlayer film 102 using a chemically amplified resist composition (paragraph [0096-0097]). After, a self-assembled film 105 is formed in the prepatterned regions and self-assembled to form domains 105a and 105b within the prepatterned areas (paragraph [0100]). As shown in Figs 4 and 5, this is a step of removing the phase 105a formed of the polymer in the phase-separated structure of the self-assembling film 105; phase 105a and / or the prepattern 103 can be removed by an etching treatment using a different in etching rate between the phases phase-separated by directed self-assembly (paragraph [0103]). The pattern forming step further etched the underlayer film and the substrate using the pattern formed of the phase 105b as a mask (paragraph [0107]).
Furthermore, the self-assembling polymers demonstrated in Minegishi comprise polymers such as styrene, methyl methacrylate, and methyl acrylate as shown by the monomers M-2 and M-5 (paragraph [0113]).
Navarro, Navarro ‘684 and Minegishi all teach self-assembled polymers and their methods of use in making lithographic masks and are all analogous art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the self-assembling underlayers of Navarro and Navarro ‘684 with the method of Minegishi forming a patterned mask using a directed self-assembled polymer and further to utilize the self-assembling polymers of Navarro as the directed self-assembly polymer utilized in the method of Minegishi. The references all demonstrate the use of self-assembled polymers as underlayer materials and as patterning materials for etching masks. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to yield a patternable directed-self assembly polymer as an etching mask and an underlayer.
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.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 6-12, 14 of copending Application No. 18/108,108 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims both consist of overlapping subject matter relating to polymer compositions and structures.
Regarding Claim 1, the instant Claim 1 is at least one polymer represented by formula (1) or formula (2), wherein the polymer comprises a phosphate ester or sulfonate ester terminal group with repeating units A1 and A2 that are structural units having 2 or more carbons and n is 2 to 500. The reference application Claim 1 is a composition comprising polymer having a partial structure represented by formula (1), wherein Y is a monovalent organic group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms containing a heteroatom or a monovalent inorganic group and n is 10 to 500. Y is further limited in Claims 2 and 6 to comprise a phosphate ester and a sulfonate ester group much like the instant Claim 1. The phosphate ester and sulfonate ester group of the reference application Claim 1 are the same groups as claimed in the instant Claim 1. There are overlapping embodiments of the reference application’s terminal group Y that yield the same claimed polymer structure as the instant Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the reference application polymer formula (1) in Claim 1 is a homopolymer.
Regarding Claim 3, the instant Claim 3 states the monomer may be a (meth)acrylate ester like the monomer of the reference application Claims 1 and 3.
The instant Claims 4-10 and the reference Claims 7-12 and 14 contain similar claim language related to the compositions for directed self-assembly lithography.
PNG
media_image2.png
400
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 KEVIN JAMES DRUMMEY whose telephone number is (703)756-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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.
/K.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737