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 Amendments/Arguments
Amendments made to claims 1-7, 10, 13 and 21-24, and the cancelation of claims 16-20, as filed on November 13, 2025, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US20210311393).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (claim 1), comprising: forming a photoresist layer on a target layer (claim 1), wherein the photoresist layer comprises a polymer comprising first repeating units and second repeating units, the first repeating units are the same as recited in the instant claim (structure A in claim 1) while the second repeating units are species of the genus represented by the formulae recited in the instant claim (structure C-2 in claim 1); selectively exposing the photoresist layer to a radiation (claim 1); developing the photoresist layer to form a patterned photoresist layer (claim 1); and etching the target layer by using the patterned photoresist layer as an etching mask (paragraph 0093).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses wherein X5 is a trivalent functional group derived from benzene by removal of three hydrogen atoms (structure C-2 in claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units are represented by the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(structure C-2 in claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses a non-aromatic cycloalkyl group that is substituted by an alkyl group (structure C-2 in claim 1; and claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses wherein X6 and X7 are respectively one of the following structures disclosed in claim 3:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units are 40 wt% to 70 wt% based on a total polymer weight (claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (claim 1), comprising: forming a negative photoresist layer comprising a photoresist composition over a substrate (claim 1), wherein the photoresist composition comprises a photoactive compound and a polymer comprising first repeating units, second repeating units, and third repeating units, the first repeating units are represented by structure A disclosed in claim 1, the second repeating units are represented by structure C-2 disclosed in claim 1, the third repeating units represented by structure D disclosed in claim 1, wherein X5 is a trivalent functional group derived from an arene by removal of three hydrogen atoms, X6 and X7 are respectively an acid labile group (ALG, claim 1), X14 is
PNG
media_image3.png
93
101
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(claim 3), exposing the negative photoresist layer to a radiation to form at least one exposed portion and at least one unexposed portion (claim 1); and removing the at least one unexposed portion to form a patterned photoresist layer (claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation recited in the “wherein” clause in the method claim simply expresses the intended result of the recited process; therefore, it is not accorded patentability weight. See MPEP 2111.04.
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses wherein X6 and X7 are respectively a non-aromatic cycloalkyl group that is substituted by an alkyl group (claim 3).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses wherein the non-aromatic cycloalkyl group is monocyclic or polycyclic (claim 3).
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 of this title, 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.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentbale over Lin et al. (US20210311393) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zi et al. (US20200135451).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the second repeating units are
PNG
media_image4.png
202
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(structure C-2, claim 1), wherein ALG is
PNG
media_image5.png
102
123
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(the 5th structure in claim 3). Lin is silent about the ALG (acid labile group) comprising OH group. However, Zi teaches that an acid labile group comprising OH group (the 4th structure in claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use known a known acid labile group comprising OH group as taught by Zi as an acid labile group in structure C-2 of the method of Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 7, Zi discloses wherein -X12-OH and -X13-OH are respectively
PNG
media_image6.png
105
98
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(the 4th structure in claim 13).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin et al. (US20210311393) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses wherein the polymer further comprises third repeating units, the third repeating units are
PNG
media_image7.png
104
69
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ra is hydrogen (structure D in claim 1), and L is an acid labile group (ALG) which is a hydrocarbon structure (claim 3). Lin further teaches that inclusion of a lactone group to the hydrocarbon structure assists to reduce the amount of line edge roughness after the photoresist has been developed, thereby helping to reduce the number of defects that occur during development (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a lactone group to the acid labile group (ALG) in order to reduce the number of defects that occur during development, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin et al. (US20210311393) as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units and the third repeating units are 40 wt% to 70 wt% based on a total polymer weight (claim 4), which encompasses the range recited in the instant claim. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses wherein the polymer further comprises fourth repeating units, the fourth repeating units are represented by the following formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
112
126
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(structure D, claim 1), wherein ALG is a hydrocarbon structure (claim 3). Lin further teaches that inclusion of a lactone group to the hydrocarbon structure assists to reduce the amount of line edge roughness after the photoresist has been developed, thereby helping to reduce the number of defects that occur during development (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a lactone group to the acid labile group (ALG) in order to reduce the number of defects that occur during development, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin et al. (US20210311393).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (claim 1), comprising: forming a negative photoresist layer comprising a photoresist composition on a target (claim 1), wherein the negative photoresist layer comprises a polymer comprising first repeating units, second repeating units, and third repeating units, the first repeating units are represented by structure A in claim 1, the second repeating units are
PNG
media_image9.png
162
147
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(structure C-2, claim 1), the third repeating units are
PNG
media_image10.png
118
82
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(structure D, claim 1), wherein X5 is a trivalent functional group derived from an arene by removal of three hydrogen atoms (structure C-2, claim 1), X6 and X7 are respectively an acid labile group (ALG, structure C-2, claim 1), R3 and Ra are respectively hydrogen; exposing the negative photoresist layer to a radiation to form at least one exposed portion and at least one unexposed portion (claim 1); and removing the at least one unexposed portion to form a patterned photoresist layer (claim 1). Lin does not expressly disclose L (ALG) is a lactone moiety. However, Lin teaches that inclusion of a lactone group to the hydrocarbon structure assists to reduce the amount of line edge roughness after the photoresist has been developed, thereby helping to reduce the number of defects that occur during development (paragraph 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a lactone group to the acid labile group (ALG) in order to reduce the number of defects that occur during development, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, Lin discloses wherein X5 is a trivalent functional group derived from benzene by removal of three hydrogen atoms (structure C-2, claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, Lin discloses wherein X6 and X7 are respectively a non-aromatic cycloalkyl group that is substituted by an alkyl group (claim 3).
Regarding claim 25, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units are 40 wt% to 70 wt% based on a total polymer weight (claim 4).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentbale over Lin et al. (US20210311393) as applied to claim 21 above, in view of Zi et al. (US20200135451).
Regarding claim 24, Lin discloses the second repeating units are
PNG
media_image4.png
202
192
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(structure C-2, claim 1), wherein ALG is
PNG
media_image5.png
102
123
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(the 5th structure in claim 3). Lin is silent about the ALG (acid labile group) comprising OH group. However, Zi teaches that an acid labile group comprising OH group (the 4th structure in claim 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use known a known acid labile group comprising OH group as taught by Zi as an acid labile group in structure C-2 of the method of Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights