DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
The foreign priority application No.2020-126462 filed on July 27, 2020 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18/063,496 (US 2023/0133713) in view of Arai et al. (US 2018/0149973).
The copending Application No. 18/063,496 claims an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising: a resin of which polarity increases through decomposition by an action of an acid; and a compound that generates an acid upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation, wherein the compound that generates an acid upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation and may include a compound (I),
Compound (I):a compound having one or more of the following structural moieties X and one or more of the following structural moieties Y, and an acid-decomposable group in which a polar group is protected by a leaving group that leaves by an action of an acid, where the compound generates an acid including the following first acidic moiety derived from the following structural moiety X and the following second acidic moiety derived from the following structural moiety Y upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation,
Structural moiety X: a structural moiety which consists of an anionic moiety A1- and a cationic moiety M1+, and forms a first acidic moiety represented by HA1 upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation,
Structural moiety Y: a structural moiety which consists of an anionic moiety A2- and a cationic moiety M2+, and forms a second acidic moiety represented by HA2 upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation,
provided that the compound (I) satisfies the following condition IA: a compound PI formed by substituting the cationic moiety M1+ in the structural moiety X and the cationic moiety M2+ in the structural moiety Y with H in the compound (I) has an acid dissociation constant al derived from an acidic moiety represented by HA1, formed by substituting the cationic moiety M1+ in the structural moiety X with H+, and an acid dissociation constant a2 derived from an acidic moiety represented by HA2, formed by substituting the cationic moiety M2+ in the structural moiety Y with H+, and the acid dissociation constant a2 is larger than the acid dissociation constant a1 (claim 1).
The copending Application No. 18/063,496 fails to claim the resin of the instant application.
Arai et al. teach a resist composition comprising a base component (A) which changes solubility in a developing solution under action of an acid (abstract, par.0056). The resist composition may be a positive resist (par.0057), and in this case the base component (A1) increases its polarity and its solubility in a developing solution under the action of an acid (par.0075-0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a resin (A1) having polarity that increases by an action of an acid of Arai et al. in the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of the copending Application No. 18/063,496, because this resin is clearly taught by Arai et al. for this purpose.
Arai et al. specifically teach that the resin (A1) may be represented by the formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
166
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0797).
The second repeating unit of the resins above is a repeating unit of General Formula (1) in claims 1-3 and 8, wherein R1 is a C1 alkyl, R2 and R3 are hydrogen atoms, L1 is a carbonyl divalent linking group, R4 is an unsubstituted C2 alkenyl group, R5 and R6 are alkyl groups bonded to each other to form a monocyclic cycloalkane ring, wherein an unsaturated C2 alkyenyl group is included in -C(R4)(R5)(R6).
Therefore, the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of the copending Application No. 18/063,496 modified by Arai is equivalent to the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition in claims 1-3 and 8 of the instant application.
The copending Application No. 18/063,496 claims a resist film (claim 7), same as in claims 5, 10, and 14 of the instant application.
The copending Application No. 18/063,496 claims a pattern forming method (claim 8), same as in claims 6, 11, and 15 of the instant application.
The copending Application No. 18/063,496 claims a method for manufacturing an electronic device (claim 9), same as in claims 7, 12, and 16 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0331314) in view of Arai et al. (US 2018/0149973).
With regard to claims 1-3 and 8, Yamaguchi et al. teach an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising (A) a resin having a group capable of decomposing by action of an acid to produce a polar group, and a compound (C1) containing a group capable of generating a first acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation and a group capable of generating a second acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation (abstract).
The compound (C1) may be represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par.0807), and is a compound (I) satisfying the condition (I) in claim 1 (see par.0183-0261 of the specification of the instant application).
Yamaguchi et al. fail to teach the resin comprising a repeating unit of General Formula (1) in claim 1.
Arai et al. teach a resist composition comprising a base component (A) which changes solubility in a developing solution under action of an acid (abstract, par.0056). The resist composition may be a positive resist (par.0057), and in this case the base component (A1) increases its polarity and its solubility in a developing solution under the action of an acid (par.0075-0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a resin (A1) having polarity that increases by an action of an acid of Arai et al. in the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of Yamaguchi et al., because this resin is taught by Arai et al. for this purpose.
Arai et al. specifically teach that the resin (A1) may be represented by the formulas:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image2.png
166
308
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0797).
The second repeating unit of the resins above is a repeating unit of General Formula (1) in claims 1-3 and 8, wherein R1 is a C1 alkyl, R2 and R3 are hydrogen atoms, L1 is a carbonyl divalent linking group, R4 is an unsubstituted C2 alkenyl group, R5 and R6 are alkyl groups bonded to each other to form a monocyclic cycloalkane ring, wherein an unsaturated C2 alkyenyl group is included in -C(R4)(R5)(R6).
Therefore, the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of the Yamaguchi modified by Arai is equivalent to the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition in claims 1-3 and 8 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 4, 9, and 13, Yamaguchi et al. teach that a compound (C) may be included in the resist composition in an amount of up to 30 mass% based on the solid content of the resist composition (par.0469).
With regard to claims 5, 10, 14, and 17, Yamaguchi et al. teach a resist film formed by the resist composition (par.0836).
With regard to claims 6, 11, 15, and 18, Yamaguchi et al. teach a pattern forming process comprising the steps of:
-applying the resist composition onto a substrate and drying to form a resist film;
-exposing the resist film; and
-developing the exposed the resist film (par.0836-0837).
With regard to claim 7, 12, 16, and 19, Yamaguchi et al. teach a method for manufacturing an electronic device comprising the pattern forming method (par.0799).
Claims 1, 3-7, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0331314) in view of Yagi et al. (WO 2020/066485 A1, with citations from the English equivalent US 2021/0191265).
With regard to claims 1-3, Yamaguchi et al. teach an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising (A) a resin having a group capable of decomposing by action of an acid to produce a polar group, and a compound (C1) containing a group capable of generating a first acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation and a group capable of generating a second acidic functional group upon irradiation with an actinic ray or radiation (abstract).
The compound (C1) may be represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
190
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par.0807), and is a compound (I) satisfying the condition (I) in claim 1 (see par.0183-0261 of the specification of the instant application).
Yamaguchi et al. fail to teach the resin comprising a repeating unit of General Formula (1) in claim 1.
Yagi et al. teach an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising a compound that generates an acid upon irradiation with actinic rays or radiation, and a resin having polarity that increases by an action of an acid, in which the resin includes a repeating unit of General Formula (B-1):
PNG
media_image4.png
316
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(abstract).
Yagi et al. further teach that the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition has excellent sensitivity and excellent LER (line edge roughness) of a positive resist pattern to be formed by EUV exposure (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the resin having polarity that increases by an action of an acid and having a repeating unit of General Formula (B-1) of Yagi et al.
in the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of Yamaguchi et al., in order to take advantage of its properties.
Yagi et al. teach a resin comprising repeating units derived from the monomers:
PNG
media_image5.png
270
296
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
276
308
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(par.0465 and Table 1 in par.0489).
These are repeating units of General Formula (1) in claims 1 and 3, wherein R1 is a C1 alkyl, R2 and R3 are hydrogen atoms, L1 is a divalent linking group, R4 is a C6 alkyl group or C2 alkenyl group, R5 and R6 are alkyl groups bonded to each other to form a substituted monocyclic cycloalkane ring, wherein an unsaturated C6 aryl group or C2 alkenyl group is included in -C(R4)(R5)(R6).
Therefore, the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition of the Yamahuchi modified by Yagi is equivalent to the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition in claims 1 and 3 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, Yamaguchi et al. teach that a compound (C) may be included in the resist composition in an amount of up to 30 mass% based on the solid content of the resist composition (par.0469).
With regard to claims 5, 14, and 17, Yamaguchi et al. teach a resist film formed by the resist composition (par.0836).
With regard to claims 6, 15, and 18, Yamaguchi et al. teach a pattern forming process comprising the steps of:
-applying the resist composition onto a substrate and drying to form a resist film;
-exposing the resist film; and
-developing the exposed the resist film (par.0836-0837).
With regard to claim 7, 16, and 19, Yamaguchi et al. teach a method for manufacturing an electronic device comprising the pattern forming method (par.0799).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the objection to the abstract is withdrawn after the filing of a new abstract on December 29, 2025;
-the provisional rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims` 1 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18/063,496 (US 2023/0133713) in view of Sagehashi et al. (US 2013/0344442) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0331314) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 4, 9, 13, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0331314) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (US 2007/0015084) in view of Sagehashi et al. (US 2013/0344442) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1-19 are presented in paragraphs 4-8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukushima et al. (US 2021/0096465) teach a polymer comprising recurring units having multiple bond-containing acid labile groups (abstract). These repeating units may be represented by the formulas:
PNG
media_image7.png
398
342
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(par.0050).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722