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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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(s) 1-3, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Allen et al (2008/0193879).
Allen et al disclose a self-topcoating resist comprising a photoresist polymer, acid generator, a quencher, and solvent (abstract, [0006], [0101]; examples use commercially available AR1682J JSR, comprising an organic polymer, PAG, and triethanolamine), mixed with a fluorinated polymer additive which is preferably included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 weight % ([0101] up top 50wt% as instantly claimed; instant claims 19 and 20). Exemplified polymers include fluoroalcohol M1, with M2 comprising a group which may comprise a carboxylic acid, and M3 comprising a fluorinated ether (claims 1-3).
With respect to the instant claim1, the reference further teaches that the composition used in a method comprising forming a layer by coating the composition onto a substrate, heating the material, exposing, heating (post-exposure baking), developing (claims 27 and 29; instant claims 1 and 2).
The polymer topcoat provides a contact angle of less than 95 degrees and greater than 55 degrees, preferably 65 to 90 degrees ([0030], claims 25 and 26), with examples falling within the scope of 75 to 90 degrees (instant claim 3).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al (9,864,275).
Chang et al disclose a photoresist comprising a resist polymer (organic) and a fluorinated random polymer (instant claim 18) as a floating protectant which is concentrates in the upper region of the layer after a thermal process (abstract).
The process includes coating the resist on a substrate, performing a thermal settling process, performing a bake, exposing, post-exposure baking developing, hard baking, and etching (figure 1, column 7, lines 6-66; instant claims 1, 17).
The polymer protectant comprises a fluorinated copolymer, wherein the hydrophobic protectant would have a lower surface energy due to the non-polar groups, which also result in higher water contact angles as is known in the art (instant claim 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al.
Allen et al has been discussed above. The reference further teaches that the method may include an etching step to transfer the pattern into a material layer ([0073]) as required by the instant claims 17 and 18.
With respect to the polymer, as noted above, the polymer comprises M1, M2, and M3, wherein M1 comprises a fluoroalcohol, as taught by the instant specification to have a pKa of less than 13 as required by instant claim 4, in an amount of 1 to about 30 mole% (examples include 5 or more fluorine atoms; instant claim 4, 5, and 7). M2 comprises a carboxylic acid, sulfonamide, fluoroalcohol (instant claim 6), or sulfonic acid ([0038]) in an amount of at least 50 mole %, and when the monomer includes a group as suggested above, which are groups suggested by the instant specification for the M2 monomer having the claimed pKa as set forth buy the instant claim 4 and the amount of claim 7.
Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material of Allen et al, choosing as the polymer that as described by the reference wherein Ma may comprise a fluoroalochol, carboxylic acid, or sulfonic acid, and wherein the method includes an etching step as described above.
Claim(s) 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al.
Chang et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches an organic resist polymer, a solvent, the floatable polymer up to 50% (preferably 1 %; column 11, lines 21-27), a photoacid generator, and may further comprise a quencher (column 2, lines 34-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Chang et al, choosing to include a quencher as suggested as known in the art by the reference.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al in view of Allen et al.
Chang et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a floating fluoropolymer protectant, having a higher hydrophobicity and lower surface energy than the resist polymer, and such polymers are known in the art to have a high water contact angle (column 6, lines 20-61, column 9, lines 33-56. While the reference teaches the additive controls the water contact angle and teaches that too high a -OH group content lowers the contact angle, the reference fails to specifically teach a contact angle of 75 to 90 degrees.
Allen et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a similar material including a fluoroalcohol group-containing polymer additive which forms a top layer at the surface of the resist for immersion lithography. The reference teaches the contact angle of the surface layer as affected by the fluoroalcohol-containing additive is preferably 55 to 95, 65 to 90 degrees, overlapping the “decreased angle teachings of Chang et al for when the -OH content is too high. The range and teachings of Allen et al for preferred contact angles for immersion lithography being higher than 55 degrees are advantageous as it results in fewer defects.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Chang et al, choosing to control the contact angle as taught by the reference to a degree as taught by Allen et al to result in fewer defects, with the resultant material and method meeting the limitations of the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 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 cited prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a polymer additive as set forth by the instant claims wherein three units M1, M2, and M3 are present, and wherein M3 comprises an aromatic ring , or wherein M3 comprises an acid-generating group.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references teaching “floatable” polymer comprising fluorine to form a surface layer in an antireflective layer such as Liu et al (9,543,147) and other resists Allen et al (8,945,808) are cited as teaching similar materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights