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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 17-22 withdrawn
Claims 13-14 cancelled
Claims 1-12, 15-16 and 23-25 pending
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-24 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 23 recites the limitation "the moiety" in page 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “a moiety”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "a moiety" in page 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “the moiety”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Gallagher teaches the process of gap filling (abstract), teaches the process of filling the gaps within pattern using sacrificial materials (20) (fig. 1A-1B), where the sacrificial material is made from cross-linked polymer composition [0008]. Gallagher teaches the cross-linking polymer composition include monomer and cross-linking agents [0021], where the monomer (a second monomer) include alkyl methacrylate [0021], and the cross-linking agent include glycidyl methacrylate [0035], as crosslinking monomer. Gallagher teaches the process of applying gap-filling composition (cross-linking polymer composition) followed by curing step [0010], then the process of depositing a porous overlayer on the sacrificial layer (20) ([0010], fig 1-1C) as an additional semiconductor processing step, then the step of removing of the sacrificial layer ([0010], figure 1D) by heating to a decomposition temperature [0067].
Consider Claim 3, Gallagher teaches the decomposition temperature is from 150-450℃ [0067], for a duration of 60 min [0082].
Consider Claim 4, Gallagher teaches the complete (100%) removal of the sacrificial layer (20), as the cross-linked polymer composition (fig. 1D).
Consider Claim 5, Gallagher teaches the additional semiconductor process include the coating of porous overlayer (60) as photoresist layer (fig. 4B), then the patterning in figure 4D.
Consider Claim 6, Gallagher teaches the patterning process for forming micro-electronic device [0019].
Consider Claims 7-8, Gallagher teaches the additional semiconductor process include the copper barrier layer (41) as support layer prior to deposition the porous overlayer/as photoresist layer [0070], and the step of removal of the sacrificial layer forming air-gap (36) (fig. 3, [0070]).
Consider Claims 10-12, Gallagher teaches the cross-linking polymer composition include monomer and cross-linking agents [0021], where the monomer (a second monomer) include alkyl methacrylate [0021], and the cross-linking agent include glycidyl methacrylate [0035], as crosslinking monomer.
Consider Claim 25, Gallagher teaches the cross-linked polymer include only cross-linking monomers as the polymerized units, leading to 100% by wt. of cross-linking monomer with 0.0% by wt of cross-linking agents [0034].
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.
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1).
Consider Claim 3, Gallagher teaches the decomposition temperature is from 150-450℃ [0067], for a duration of 60 min [0082]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1) in view of Park (PG Pub 2015/0132921 A1).
Consider Claims 2, 9 and 15-16, Gallagher teaches the previously disclosed in claim 1, including the using of heating for curing [0038], [0067].
Gallagher does not teach the claimed curing temperature.
However, Park is in the prior art of gap filling process (abstract), teaches the cross-linking process using 200-300℃ [0043], using gap filling composition comprising crosslinking polymer [0014], where the crosslinking polymer include alkyl acrylate [0016], and where the crosslinking polymer process is performed using reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization [0030], and within gap with aspect ratio of 2 or more and gap width of 1-50 nm [0040]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gallagher with Park to provide with a process of manufacture of semiconductor devices for the filling of high aspect ratio gaps [0006], such as electronic devices [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 23-24;
None of the prior art of record discloses a gap-fill composition comprises a polymer made from; a cross-linkable monomer, a second monomer different from the cross-linkable monomer, and a moiety having the following structure, at or near the end of the polymer,
PNG
media_image1.png
131
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, as claimed.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued against Gallagher, on the ground that Gallagher fails to disclose the simultaneous inclusion of both (1) applying step, and (2) crosslinking step. Additionally, Gallagher discloses an already crosslinked polymer.
However, the claims does not require the “simultaneous” process for both steps as argued. Moreover, Gallagher clearly discloses the step of curing (step b) after the step of disposing the composition (step a) in [0010]. Where curing is equivalent to crosslinking a cross-linkable monomer. Furthermore, Gallagher also disclose the use of cross-linking monomer with and without cross-linking agent, for example in [0034].
The applicant argued against Gallagher, regarding claim 9, on the ground that Gallagher does not disclose the polymerization process using RAFT process.
However, the modification of Park to Gallagher to perform this type of reaction is obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art, as this type of reaction is very well known to any ordinary skilled person in polymer synthesis.
The applicant argued against Gallagher, regarding claim 11, on the ground that Gallagher discloses 108 different crosslinking monomer in [0035], leading to large number of combinations between the first and the second monomers.
However, in claim 11 states “said second monomer is chosen from one or more of aliphatic methacrylates”, where “aliphatic” is an accountable numbers of variations, which would lead to a very large number of combinations of monomers.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
