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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 7, filed 23 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2017/0351177 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama; Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2017/0351177 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the sole argument that the Quencher-28 of Hatakeyama teaches that none of the embodiments and examples of the present application comprise an iodine atom substituting the benzoic acid anion of the onium salt with an iodine atom. Frankly, that’s besides the point. What limits Claim 1 of the present application is the claim language of Claim 1 of the present application. And Claim 1 of the present application states: “R1a represents a halogen atom or a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to 20 carbon atoms and optionally containing a heteroatom.” Iodine is a halogen. Furthermore, Paragraph [0057] of the present application states, in the context of “R1a,” “Examples of the halogen atom include a fluorine atom, a chlorine atom, a bromine atom, and an iodine atom. In particular, a fluorine atom and an iodine atom are preferable.” Thus, the halogen of the present application is not only includes an iodine atom, but is preferably an iodine atom. As such, the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. 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:
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2017/0351177 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama.
6. Regarding Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, and 15-18, Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) an onium salt represented by the following general formula (1) of the present application, therein Quencher 28. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) wherein the Z+ in the general formula (1) of the present application further represents an onium cation represented by general formula (Cation-1) of the present application, therein Quencher 28. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) an acid diffusion controller comprising the onium salt, therein Quencher 28. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) a resist composition comprising the acid diffusion controller, therein Example 3-8. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) an organic solvent. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0144], Table 4) a base polymer, therein Polymer 6. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0144], Table 4) the base polymer contains a repeating unit represented by the general formula (a1) of the present application, therein Polymer 6. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [Paragraph [0144], Table 4) the base polymer further contains at least one repeating unit represented by the general formula (f2), therein Polymer 6. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0145], Table 4) a surfactant, therein FC-4430. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0158], Table 4) forming a resist film on a substrate by using the resist composition. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0158], Table 4) exposing the resist film to a high-energy beam. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0158], Table 4) developing the exposed resist film by using a developer. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0158], Table 4) wherein the high-energy beam is an extreme ultraviolet ray having a wavelength of 3 to 15 nm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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:
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2017/0351177 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama.
10. Regarding Claims 2-3, 7-8, and 12-14, Hatakeyama teaches all limitations of Claims 1, 6, 10, and 11 above. However, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach wherein the general formula (1) is represented by the formula (1-A) of the present application. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach wherein the general formula (1) is represented by the formula (1-B) of the present application. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach further comprising an acid generator to generate an acid. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach wherein the acid generator generates a sulfonic acid, imide acid, or methide acid. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach the resist composition being a chemically amplified positive resist composition. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach the base polymer contains no acid-labile group. Furthermore, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach the resist composition being a chemically amplified negative resist composition.
11. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4) an onium salt represented by the following general formula (1) of the present application, therein Quencher 28. Quencher 28 is outside the scope of the onium salts of formulae (1-A) and (1-B) of the present application only with respect to the hydroxyl group at an ortho position relative to the carboxylate anion. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0021]) the base formula (A) for the onium salt taught therein, wherein there are as many as 3 R1 substituents, wherein R1 includes a hydroxyl group.
12. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Hatakeyama would have found it obvious to conduct a simple substitution of, at minimum, the Quencher 28 of Hatakeyama with a further hydroxyl group substituent for the Quencher 28 of Hatakeyama which does not have a further hydroxyl group substituent. Both are taught by Hatakeyama has been functional quenchers therein. And thus, to a person having ordinary skill in the art said simple substitution would have produced predictable results.
13. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0143], Table 4, principally Example 3-8) teach a composition which does not further comprise an acid generator. That said, Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0091-0115]) the further addition of an acid generator to the resist composition. Also, Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0091-0115], Table 1) Experimental Examples 1-1 to 1-11 and 1-13 to 1-23 the experimental resist composition further comprising an acid generator, therein PAG 1. The acid generator, PAG 1, used in all these experimental resist compositions generate a sulfonic acid. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0092]) the further inclusion of an acid generator results in the resist composition functioning as a chemically amplified resist composition. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0026-0027]) the resist composition therein functioning as either a positive or negative type resist compostion.
14. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Hatakeyama would have found it obvious to combine the prior art element of an acid generator, such as PAG 1 of Hatakeyama, to, at minimum, the Experimental Example resist composition 3-8 of Hatakeyama. This acid generator, PAG 1, would generate a sulfonic acid. Also, the addition of an acid generator would result in the resist composition of Hatakeyama in functioning as a chemically amplified resist composition, which Hatakeyama teaches can function as both a positive- or negative-type chemically amplified resist composition. This addition of an acid generator simply involves the combination of known prior art elements all taught by Hatakeyama and said combination would have predictable results.
15. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0144], Table 4) a base polymer, therein Polymer 6 in Experimental Example resist composition 3-8. This base polymer comprises an acid-labile group. That said, Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0085]) that for negative-type resist compositions, no acid-labile group is required. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0026]) the resist compositions may be a negative-type resist composition.
16. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Hatakeyama would have found it obvious to combine the prior art element of a base polymer which does not comprise an acid-labile group. Hatakeyama teaches that an acid-labile group is not required for a negative-type resist composition and also teaches that the resist compositions of Hatakeyama may be used as a negative-type resist composition. A base polymer comprising no acid-labile group in combination with the experimental examples of Hatakeyama involves the combination of known prior art elements all taught by Hatakeyama and said combination would have predictable results.
Conclusion
17. 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).
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH D HENDRICKS can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
21. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
22. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights