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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 2/2/26.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-4 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 8-10 and 12 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11 and 13-16 are pending and subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimaki et al., 20160326396 A1.
Nishimaki anticipates:
3. A method for producing a semiconductor device, comprising
(e.g. The steps of “forming a resist underlayer film…” to “processing the semiconductor substrate…” are disclosed at para. [0033], [0095] – [0098]) forming a resist underlayer film on a semiconductor substrate with a resist underlayer film-forming composition;
forming an inorganic resist underlayer film thereon;
forming a resist film further thereon;
forming a resist pattern by irradiation with light or electron beam and development; etching the inorganic resist underlayer film with the resist pattern;
etching the underlayer film by the patterned inorganic resist underlayer film; and
processing the semiconductor substrate with the patterned resist underlayer film;
the resist underlayer film-forming composition comprising a polymer and a compound represented by Formula (1) as a solvent (e.g. See N-methylpyrrolidone at para. [0089]):
wherein the polymer contains a structural unit represented by Formula (2) (e.g. See Formula at para. [0020] – [0022]; The condensed ring group is “A” in the claim. The R3 and R4 correspond to B1 and B2 in the claim and they are not both a hydrogen atom at para. [0022].)
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4:
Nishimaki teaches the limitations as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7:
Nishimaki further teaches:
wherein the step of forming the inorganic resist underlayer film is performed by vapor deposition of an inorganic substance, para. [0033].
Regarding claims 13-16:
Nishimaki further teaches:
A method for producing a resist underlayer film comprising the step of forming an inorganic resist underlayer film after the production of the resist underlayer film according to claims 1-4, para. [0033].
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimaki, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of Meisner et al., US Publication No. 2009/0243123 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 11:
Nishimaki teaches all the limitations of claims 3 and 7 above, but does not expressly teach:
wherein the semiconductor substrate has a part having a step and a part having no step, and a step (iso-dense bias) between the resist underlayer film coated on the part having a step and the part having no step ranges from 3 to 50 nm.
In an analogous art, Meisner teaches:
wherein the semiconductor substrate (902) has a part having a step (e.g. part with lower elevation) and a part having no step (e.g. part with higher elevation), and a step (iso-dense bias) between the resist underlayer film (908) coated on the part having a step and the part having no step ranges from 3 to 50 nm (e.g. the difference exceeds 10 nm). See Meisner at para. [0048], fig. 9.
Meisner discloses a range that overlaps the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nishimaki with the teachings of Meisner because a part having a step and a part having a no step forms a topographical alignment mark that enables measurement of a position of the IC with more accuracy. See Meisner at para. [0050].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm.
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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
1 July 2026
Prosecution Insights