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, 12-13 and 21, the cancelation of claims 16-20 and 22, and the addition of claim 26, as filed on May 4, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on May 4, 2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 10 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.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on May 4, 2026, with respect to amended claim 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections to the claim and its dependent claims, as set forth in the Office Action mailed on February 3, 2026, have been withdrawn.
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 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US20210311393).
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 A7 and A8 (see the third structure recited in the instant claim) are respectively an acid labile group (ALG, claim 1), X14 is
PNG
media_image1.png
102
92
media_image1.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, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units is
PNG
media_image2.png
145
132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
(wherein A7 and A8 are respectively an acid labile group, ALG, structure C-2 disclosed in claim 1).
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 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentbale over Lin et al. (US20210311393) in view of Zi et al. (US20200135451).
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:
PNG
media_image3.png
198
197
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(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). The acid labile group ALG disclosed by Lin comprises:
PNG
media_image4.png
110
117
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(claim 3), which is different from the corresponding structure recited in the instant claim in that the ALG of Lin does not comprise an OH group. However, Lin discloses the flexibility of attaching an OH group to ALG, as demonstrated in two choices on polymer repeating unit disclosed in claim 1of Lin:
PNG
media_image5.png
202
108
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
227
122
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
In addition, Zi teaches that an acid labile group can comprise an OH group:
PNG
media_image7.png
162
135
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(the 3rd structure in paragraph 0071). 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 a known acid labile group comprising OH group as taught by Zi as an acid labile group in structure C-2 for 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 3, Lin in view of Zi discloses wherein the second repeating units are represented by the following formula:
PNG
media_image8.png
157
117
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Lin, structure C-2 in claim 1; Zi, the 3rd structure in paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 4, Lin in view of Zi discloses wherein X9 is a bivalent functional group:
PNG
media_image9.png
117
126
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Lin, 5th structure in claim 3; Zi, the 3rd structure in paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses wherein X10 is one of the following structures disclosed in claim 3:
PNG
media_image10.png
357
472
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lin in view of Zi discloses wherein X13 is a bivalent functional group derived from a non-aromatic cycloalkyl group by removal of two hydrogen atoms:
PNG
media_image9.png
117
126
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Lin, 5th structure in claim 3; Zi, the 3rd structure in paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 7, Lin in view of Zi discloses wherein -X13-OH is:
PNG
media_image7.png
162
135
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Lin, 5th structure in claim 3; Zi, the 3rd structure in paragraph 0071).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses wherein the polymer further comprises third repeating units, the third repeating units are
PNG
media_image11.png
104
69
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Wherein 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.
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses wherein the second repeating units are 40 wt% to 70 wt% based on a total polymer weight (claim 4).
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_image12.png
112
126
media_image12.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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein X8 and X11 are respectively a trivalent functional group derived from toluene, ethylbenzene, p-xylene, or m-xvlene by removal of three hydrogen atoms, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein X1 and X3 are respectively a m-phenvlene group or a o-phenvlene group, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is dependent on claim 13.
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method X1, X5, X8 or X11 is a bivalent functional group derived from toluene, ethylbenzene, p-xylene, or m-xylene by removal of two hydrogen atoms, in the context of the instant claim.
Regarding claims 23-26, they are dependent on claim 21.
Conclusion
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