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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 10 recites “Z3 is…*-C(=O)=O-Z31-Z31-“ but should instead recite “*-C(=O)-O-Z31-Z32-“ based on page 64 of the instant specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “Z3 is…*-C(=O)=O-Z31-Z31-“ but should instead recite “*-C(=O)-O-Z31-Z32-“ based on page 64 of the instant specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “The negative resist composition of claim 4 wherein the polymer further comprises repeat units having the formula (B1-1), repeat units having the formula (B2-1) or repeat units having the formula (B2-2), and repeat units having the formula (B7)” which is unclear. Based on page 60 of the instant specification, the Examiner suggests amending claim 5 to recite --The negative resist composition of claim 4 wherein the polymer comprises repeat units having the formula (B1-1), repeat units having the formula (B2-1) or (B2-2), and repeat units having the formula (B7):--. Claim 6 recites “The negative resist composition of claim 4 wherein the base polymer (B) further contains a polymer…”. However, the polymer cannot contain another polymer, the composition can. The Examiner is interpreting claim 6 to mean the negative resist composition comprises two polymers, the second of which contains repeat units having formula (B1) and (B2) but not repeat units having formulae (B6) to (B13). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/200,892 (U.S. 2023/0393461) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and copending claims are directed to resist compositions comprising a quencher of formula (A1) and a polymer containing a repeat unit of formulae (B1) any of formulae (B3)-(B5), any of formulae (B6)-(B13), an acid generator, a fluorinated polymer, and a solvent.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (U.S. 2017/0075218).
Hatakeyama et al. teaches the resist composition of the invention is defined as comprising a base polymer and a sulfonium salt of carboxylic acid containing nitrogenous heterocycle [0046], specifically formula (A) [0051] such as the following Quencher 4:
PNG
media_image1.png
148
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0140] which is equivalent to (A) a quencher having the formula (A1) of instant claim 1 when m is 0, circle R is a C5 saturated heterocycle including the nitrogen atom, R1 is an acid labile group, R3 is a single bond, and R4-R6 are C6 hydrocarbyl groups. Hatakeyama et al. also teaches the sulfonium salt of carboxylic acid containing nitrogenous heterocycle exerts a contrast enhancing effect, which may stand good either in positive and negative tone pattern formation by alkaline development or in negative tone pattern formation by organic solvent development [0049] and for the base polymer for formulating the negative resist composition, an acid labile group is not necessarily essential. The base polymer comprises recurring units (b), and optionally recurring units (c), (d), (e), (f1), (f2) and/or (f3). A fraction of these units is: 0<b≦1.0, 0≦c≦0.9, 0≦d≦0.8, 0≦e≦0.8, 0≦f1≦0.5, 0≦f2≦0.5, and 0≦f3≦0.5; preferably 0.2≦b≦1.0, 0≦c≦0.8, 0≦d≦0.7, 0≦e≦0.7, 0≦f1≦0.4, 0≦f2≦0.4, and 0≦f3≦0.4; and more preferably 0.3≦b≦1.0, 0≦c≦0.75, 0≦d≦0.6, 0≦e≦0.6, 0≦f1≦0.3, 0≦f2≦0.3, and 0≦f3≦0.3. Note b+c+d+e+f1+f2+f3=1.0 [0083] (claim 7) wherein a specific example of the monomer from which the recurring unit (b) is derived includes the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
108
74
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[0068] which is equivalent to (B) a base polymer comprising repeat units having the formula (B1) of instant claims 1 and 6, specifically (B1-1) of instant claim 5 when RA is hydrogen and a4 is 1; a specific example of the monomer from which the recurring unit (c) is derived includes the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
142
66
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[0069] which is equivalent to a repeat unit having the formula (B2) of instant claims 2 and 6, specifically formula (B2-1) of instant claim 5 when RA is hydrogen, b4 is 1, and R13 and R14 are C1 saturated hydrocarbyl groups; a specific example of the monomer from which recurring unit (d) is derived includes the following:
PNG
media_image4.png
84
73
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[0071] which is equivalent to a repeat unit having the formula (B4) of instant claim 3 when d is 0; and a specific example of the monomer from which recurring unit (f2) is derived includes the following:
PNG
media_image5.png
152
192
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[0079] which is equivalent to a repeat unit having the formula (B7) of instant claims 4 and 5 when Rb is hydrogen, Y2 is a single bond, RHF is trifluoromethyl, and R33R35 are C6 hydrocarbyl groups. Hatakeyama et al. further teaches it is understood that a blend of two or more polymers which differ in compositional ratio, Mw or Mw/Mn is acceptable [0088] such that the resist composition may comprise a first polymer comprising recurring units (b) and (c) and a second polymer comprising recurring units (b), (c), (d), and (f2) (claim 6). Hatakeyama et al. also teaches examples of the invention are given [below] by way of illustration and not by way of limitation [0139] and although some preferred embodiments have been described, many modifications and variations may be made thereto in light of the [above] teachings. It is therefore to be understood that the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described without departing from the scope of the appended claims [0161]. Hatakeyama et al. further teaches an object of the invention is to provide a resist composition which exhibits a high dissolution contrast, a reduced LWR, and no dimensional changes on PPD, independent of whether it is of positive tone or negative tone; and a pattern forming process using the same [0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specific teachings of Hatakeyama et al. to include additional compositions such as those described above and easily arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention in order to achieve optimum resist properties.
With regard to claims 8, 9, and 14, Hatakeyama et al. teaches with the sulfonium salt having formula (A), the base polymer, and the acid generator, other components such as an organic solvent, surfactant, dissolution inhibitor, and crosslinker may be blended in any desired combination to formulate a chemically amplified positive or negative resist composition [0114].
With regard to claim 10, Hatakeyama et al. teaches a polymeric additive (or water repellency improver) may also be added for improving the water repellency on surface of a resist film as spin coated a polymeric additive (or water repellency improver) may also be added for improving the water repellency on surface of a resist film as spin coated [0129] such as the following:
PNG
media_image6.png
184
131
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[0150] which is equivalent to (D) a fluorinated polymer comprising repeat units having the formula (D6) of instant claim 10 when RD is methyl, Z3 is *-C(=O)-O-Z31-Z32- when Z31 is a single bond, Z32 is a single bond, and R111 is a C8 saturated hydrocarbyl group in which 7 hydrogen are substituted by fluorine.
With regard to claims 11-13, Hatakeyama et al. teaches to the resist composition comprising the base polymer and the sulfonium salt having formula (A), an acid generator may be added so that the composition may function as a chemically amplified positive resist composition or chemically amplified negative resist composition [0090] such as the following PAG 3:
PNG
media_image7.png
131
282
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[0148] which is equivalent to a photoacid generator having an anion having an acid strength of -3.0 or larger of instant claim 12 based on page 71 of instant specification. Hatakeyama et al. also teaches the PAG is preferably added in an amount of 0.1 to 50 parts, and more preferably 1 to 40 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the base polymer [0112] while the sulfonium salt having formula (A) is preferably used in an amount of 0.001 to 50 parts, more preferably 0.01 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the base polymer, as viewed from sensitivity and acid diffusion suppressing effect [0060], e.g. 8.0 pbw of PAG and 4.50 pbw of quencher seen in Examples 1-1 to 1-13 [0155] (claim 13).
With regard to claims 15-17, Hatakeyama et al. teaches pattern formation using the resist composition may be performed by well-known lithography processes. The process generally involves coating, prebaking, exposure, post-exposure baking (PEB), and development. If necessary, any additional steps may be added [0131] where the positive resist composition is first applied onto a substrate on which an integrated circuit is to be formed (e.g., Si, SiO2, SiN, SiON, TiN, WSi, BPSG, SOG, or organic antireflective coating) or a substrate on which a mask circuit is to be formed (e.g., Cr, CrO, CrON, MoSi, or SiO2) [0132] and the resist film is then exposed to a desired pattern of high-energy radiation such as UV, deep-UV, EB, EUV, x-ray, soft x-ray, excimer laser light, γ-ray or synchrotron radiation, directly or through a mask [0133] and is developed with a developer in the form of an aqueous base solution. A typical developer is a 0.1 to 10 wt %, preferably 2 to 5 wt % aqueous solution of tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAH), or tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH) [0134].
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (U.S. 2017/0075218) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Masunaga et al. (U.S. 2016/0299428).
With regard to claims 18 and 19, Hatakeyama et al. teaches the above resist composition and patterning forming method.
Hatakeyama et al. does not teach when the substrate is a mask blank of transmission or reflection type.
However, Masunaga et al. teaches a chemically amplified negative resist composition is defined as comprising (A) an onium salt having an anion moiety which is a nitrogen-containing carboxylate of fused ring structure, (B) a base resin, and (C) a crosslinker [abstract]. Masunaga et al. also teaches a pattern forming process comprising the steps of applying the resist composition defined above onto a processable substrate to form a resist film thereon, exposing the resist film patternwise to high-energy radiation, and developing the resist film in an alkaline developer to form a resist pattern [0153] and the resist composition is effectively applicable to a processable substrate, specifically a substrate having a surface layer of material to which a resist film is less adherent and which is likely to invite pattern stripping or pattern collapse, and particularly a substrate having sputter deposited thereon metallic chromium or a chromium compound containing at least one light element selected from oxygen, nitrogen and carbon or a substrate having an outermost surface layer of SiOx. The invention is especially effective for pattern formation on a photomask blank [0156] (claims 18 and 19). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, both Hatakeyama and Masunaga are directed to resist compositions and patterning forming methods using well known substrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hatakeyama et al. to include a mask blank of transmission or reflection type as the substrate as taught by Masunaga et al. through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2022/0177424.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA E MALLOY whose telephone number is (571)270-5849. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 EST M-F.
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.
/Anna Malloy/ Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737