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 Status
Claims 1-20 are under consideration
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.
(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.
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.
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 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shibayama (TW201932511A, published 2019, references made to related US application US20210181635A1).
Regarding claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20,
Shibayama teaches a method for producing a semiconductor device, the method comprising a step (A) of applying, onto a semiconductor substrate, a resist underlayer film-forming composition containing a hydrolysis condensate prepared through hydrolysis and condensation of a hydrolyzable silane in a non-alcoholic solvent in the presence of a strong acid, followed by baking the composition, to thereby form a resist underlayer film; a step (B) of applying a resist composition onto the resist underlayer film to thereby form a resist film; a step (C) of exposing the resist film to light; a step (D) of developing the resist film after the light exposure to thereby form a patterned resist film; a step (E) of etching the resist underlayer film with the patterned resist film; and a step (F) of processing the semiconductor substrate with the patterned resist film and resist underlayer film [0009].
Shibayama teaches a synthesis example of their polysiloxane polymer with a weight average molecular weight Mw of 1,500 as determined by GPC in terms of polystyrene formed from tetraethoxysilane (hydrolysable silane aligning with instant formula 1) [0083, 0166], reading on instant claims 2-3 and 5.
Examiner notes that while silent to the amount of a component having a molecular weight of more than 2,000 or 2,500, it would be anticipated by, or at the very least obvious to, a person of ordinary skill in the art that the above example polysiloxane polymer of Shibayama with a weight average molecular weight of 1,500 may contain exclusively, or at least primarily, components with a molecular weight of about 1,500, where components with a molecular weight of less than 2,000 would comprise of at least 65% of the polysiloxane polymer.
Shibayama teaches their resist underlayer film -forming composition further includes a solvent which may be ethylene glycol monoethyl ether [0133], reading on instant claim 1.
Shibayama teaches their resist underlayer film is an EUV resist underlayer film with a thickness of 1 to 5 nm [0028-0029], reading on instant claims 4, 12, and 14.
Shibayama teaches that when a hydrolyzable silane having an organic group having a primary amino group, a secondary amino group, or a tertiary amino group is hydrolyzed with a strong acid, the primary amino group, the secondary amino group, or the tertiary amino group is converted into a primary ammonium group, a secondary ammonium group, or a tertiary ammonium group, and the hydrolysis condensate (polysiloxane) having a catalytic function can be obtained. Since the primary ammonium group, the secondary ammonium group, or the tertiary ammonium group has a catalytic function, a curing catalyst is not required to be added to the resist underlayer film, and thus the etching rate of the resist underlayer film does not decrease during dry etching [0027], reading on instant claim 6.
Shibayama teaches their composition may further contain water [0022], reading on instant claim 7.
Shibayama teaches their composition may further contain a photoacid generator (pH adjuster) and a surfactant [0120], reading on instant claims 8 and 10.
Examiner notes that the polysiloxane of Shibayama further aligns with the instant metal oxide, reading on instant claim 11.
Shibayama teaches coating and baking their resist underlayer film forming composition onto a substrate (such as a silicon wafer) to form a resist underlayer film [0135], reading on instant claims 13, 15, and 18-19.
Shibayama teaches a step of forming an organic underlayer film on a semiconductor substrate, underlying the resist underlayer film [0012], reading on instant claim 16.
Shibayama teaches an additional step of etching the organic underlayer film with the patterned resist underlayer film [0039], reading on instant claim 20.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama (TW201932511A, published 2019, references made to related US application US20210181635A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US20180011405A1, published 2018).
Regarding claim 9,
Shibayama teaches the above limitations set forth.
Shibayama teaches their solvent may include propylene glycol monoethyl ether, and may be a mixture of two or more solvents [0133].
However, Shibayama is silent to including a solvent aligning with the instant glycol compound.
Watanabe, analogous art, teaches a resist underlayer film composition [abstract] comprising of a mixture of high and low boiling point solvents, where the high boiling point solvent may be for example triethylene glycol monomethyl ether (aligning with the instant glycol compound with a boiling point of about 249° C) and the low boiling point solvent may be propylene glycol monoethyl ether [0138-0139]. Watanabe teaches the boiling point of the high-boiling point solvent is preferably 180° C. to 300° C., more preferably 200° C. to 300° C. This boiling point prevents an excessive evaporation rate at baking (heat treatment) due to low boiling point, thus providing sufficient thermal flowability. Moreover, the solvent having such a boiling point hardly remains in the film without evaporating after baking due to high boiling point, and thus does not adversely affect physical properties of the film, such as etching resistance [0140].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the high-boiling point solvent triethylene glycol monomethyl ether of Watanabe with the composition of Shibayama for the benefits disclosed by Watanabe, reading on instant claim 9.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama (TW201932511A, published 2019, references made to related US application US20210181635A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Oomatsu (US 20170146907 A1, published 2017).
Regarding claim 17,
Shibayama teaches the above limitations set forth.
Shibayama teaches their composition is filtered with a fluororesin-made filter, to thereby prepare a resist underlayer film-forming composition [0184].
However, Shibayama fails to teach a nylon filter.
Oomatsu, analogous art, teaches a preparation of a resin composition for underlayer film formation where the composition is filtered, where the filter may be a fluororesin or nylon [0241-0244].
As both teach underlayer film forming compositions filtered using a filter which may be a fluororesin, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the nylon filter of Oomatsu as the filter of Shibayama would result in a comparable underlayer film forming composition.
That is, the substitution of the nylon filter of Oomatsu for the filter of Shibayama, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming an underlayer film forming composition, reading on instant claim 17. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20120202155 A1 teaches nylon filters for use with underlayer film forming compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights