DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the election received August 29, 2018.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26, 2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over TOYOKAWA et al (2015/0185613 A1).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
TOYOKAWA et al report a resist underlayer and a pattern forming method, wherein Appendix 20 on page 24 report a pattern forming method wherein the underlayer is removed with a basic solution, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
308
382
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The basic solution meets the claimed treating the underlayer has a second adhesion.
Applicants are further directed to page 12, para. [0183] wherein the resist underlayer is subjected to heating or acid treatment to generate phenolic hydroxyl group which can be removed easily by a basic solution.
None of the claims above are allowed.
Claim(s) 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG et al (2007/0009830 A1).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
428
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
HUANG et al disclose a method with a trilayer process in para. [0047] to [0052], wherein the photoresist composition is developed with a base solution which contacts the silicon containing underlayer which meet the step of modifying the second underlayer.
The reactive ion etching step meets the removal of the scum over the second underlayer as claimed.
Claims 15-17 are met by contact with the basic solution to and wherein a chemically amplified resist is used over the interlayer.
The process steps recite comprising language which to include the steps of removal of the interlayer as disclosed in HUANG et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition process to duplicate the trilayer process as disclosed in HUANG et al with the reasonable expectation of having a multilayer lithographic process wherein the composition can be used in 157 nm lithographic processes.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 13 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.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the recite limitations for underlayer thickness and the doped underlayers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. 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 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).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights