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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: trenches 22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 7, line 11 recites “As further shown in Fig. 1C” but should instead recite --As further shown in Fig. 1B--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3, 13, and 19 recite “(vinyl) or (CH=CH2)” which is redundant because of the presence of formula (L-1) and should therefore be omitted. Claims 4, 14, and 20 recite “(allyl) or (CH2CH=CH2)” which is redundant because of the presence of formula (L-2) and should therefore be omitted. Claims 11 and 13 recite “5Sn-5 Cl” but should instead recite –5Sn-5Cl--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “further comprising: a third photosensitive material” and claim 4 recites “further comprising: a fourth photosensitive material”. However, pages 15 and 26-30 make clear that the “third” and “fourth” photosensitive materials are specific examples of the second photosensitive material and are not in addition to it. Specifically, mixtures (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), and (A-3’) are each mixtures comprising formula (A) as the first photosensitive material and formula (1), formula (2), or formula (3) respectively as the second photosensitive material.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the second photosensitive material has a structure being more irregular than a structure of the first photosensitive material” which is too vague.
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073238) in view of Sharps et al. (Organotin Carboxylate Reagents for Nanopatterning).
Zi et al. teaches a photoresist composition comprises a polymer resin, a photoactive compound, an organometallic compound, an enhancement additive, and a first solvent [abstract] wherein the organometallic compound includes a metal oxide nanoparticle and one or more organic ligands. In some embodiments, organometallic compound includes one or more metal oxides nanoparticles selected from the group consisting of titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, zirconium dioxide, nickel oxide, cobalt oxide, manganese oxide, copper oxides, iron oxides, strontium titanate, tungsten oxides, vanadium oxides, chromium oxides, tin oxides, hafnium oxide, indium oxide, cadmium oxide, molybdenum oxide, tantalum oxides, niobium oxide, aluminum oxide, and combinations thereof [0048], in some embodiments, the metal oxide/ligand complexes are formed of a cluster including metallic core having a metal with high EUV absorption, such as Cs, Ba, La, Ce, In, Sn, Ag, or Sb combined with oxygen and/or nitrogen to form 1 to 12 metal core-clusters. The metallic core-clusters are complexed with ligands including aliphatic or aromatic groups. The aliphatic or aromatic groups may be unbranched or branched with cyclic or noncyclic saturated pendant groups containing 1-9 carbons, including alkyl groups, alkenyl groups, and phenyl groups [0050] in which “one or more” includes two.
Zi et al. does not explicitly teach a 6-Sn oxide cluster and/or 12-Sn oxide cluster.
However, Sharps et al. teaches resists comprising the following organotin compounds 1 and 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[p 4843] in which compound 1 is equivalent to a 12-Sn oxide cluster of instant claim 1, specifically formula (A) of instant claim 8 when X is RCO2 where R has 1 carbon atom; and compound 2 is equivalent to a 6-Sn oxide cluster of instant claim 1. It should be noted that 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 Zi et al. and Sharps et al. teach resist compositions comprising metal oxide clusters.
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 Zi et al. to include specific metal oxide clusters such as the 12-Sn and/or 6-Sn clusters of Sharps et al. through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zi et al. (U.S. 2020/0073238) in view of Sharps et al. (Organotin Carboxylate Reagents for Nanopatterning) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharps et al. (Implications of Crystal Structure in Organotin Carboxylate Photoresists).
With regard to claim 9, Zi et al. and Sharps et al. (Organotin) teach photoresist compositions comprising 6-Sn oxide clusters. Sharps et al. compound 2 is structurally similar to formula (B) of instant claim 9 when R1 is represented by formula (M-1) but R2 is methyl instead of any one of formula (M-4) to (M-10).
However, Sharps et al. (Implications) teaches photoresists comprising the following tin clusters:
PNG
media_image2.png
261
323
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[p 2] such that when R is CH3 it is equivalent to Sharps et al. (Organotin) 6Sn oxide cluster and when R is C4H9 it is equivalent to formula (B) of instant claim 9 when R1 is represented by formula (M-1) and R2 is represented by formula (M-7). It should be noted that 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, Zi, Sharps (Organotin), and Sharps (Implications) teach resist compositions comprising metal oxide clusters.
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 Zi and Sharps (Organotin) to include specific metal oxide clusters such as the 12-Sn and/or 6-Sn clusters of Sharps et al. (Implications) through routine experimentation of substituting equally suitable components for the sought invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or provide motivation for a method of forming a photo resist composition comprising mixing a first photosensitive material and a second photosensitive material when the second photosensitive material is a 6Sn(vinyl)-2Cl cluster, a 5Sn-5Cl cluster or combination thereof. The prior art of record also does not teach or provide motivation for an extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL) method in which the photoresist composition comprises a first photosensitive material and a second photosensitive material when the second photosensitive material is a 6Sn-2Cl cluster, a 5Sn-5Cl cluster or combination thereof. Closest prior art Zi and Sharps (Organotin) and/or Sharps (Implications) teach a first photosensitive material as claimed. Closest prior art Shih et al. (U.S. 2020/0133127) teaches an (EUVL) method.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2 and 5-7 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.
Claims 3, 4, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: the prior art of record does not teach or provide motivation to make/use a second photosensitive material represented by formula (1), (2), or (3). The closest prior art Zi et al. does not teach an amount for the combination of metal oxide clusters. Closest prior art Sharps et al. (Organotin), Sharps et al. (Implications), Cardineau et al. (Photolithographic properties of tin-oxo clusters using extreme ultraviolet light) and Cardineau et al. (EUV Resists based on Tin-Oxo Clusters) teach the first photosensitive material.
Conclusion
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