DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
This action is responsive to non-provisional application filed 12/26/2023. Original claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 . However, 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 a 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.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 02/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, and therefore the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. An initialed copy of the IDS is included with the mailing/transmittal of this Office action.
Restriction/Election
During a telephone conversation with Katrin Ventor on 12/26/2023 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Potential Rejoinder Notice
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Common Ownership Notice
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-2, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2016/0122574 A1) (‘Lee’) in view of Wang et al (US 2013/0017487 A1) (‘Wang’).
Regarding Claims 1/2, reference to Lee relates to photoresist overcoat compositions useful in photolithographic methods which allow for the formation of fine patterns using a negative tone development process (¶ [0002]). The photoresist overcoat compositions include a matrix polymer, an additive polymer, a basic quencher and an organic solvent; wherein the additive polymer has a lower surface energy than a surface energy of the matrix polymer (¶ [0012]). Lee concretely describes resist overcoat compositions prepared by dissolving an overcoat matrix polymer (MP), additive polymer (AP) and basic quencher in a solvent using the components and amounts set forth in Table 2 (¶ [0083]). Overcoat compositions OC-4, OC-5 and OC-6 each comprise MP-1, AP-3 and solvent IBIB (isobutyl isobutyrate) in specified amounts. As depicted in paragraphs [0076] and [0080], MP-1 is a (first) alkyl acrylate polymer consisting essentially of the elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, while AP-3 is a (second) alkylacrylate polymer consisting essentially of the elements carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and fluorine. In OC-4, MP-1 and AP-3 are present in reported amounts of 0.295 g and 0.0155 g, respectively, in a mixture totaling 30 g (IBIB + quencher + MP-1 + AP-3), which equates to a weight ratio of 19:1 (0.985 wt% MP-1: 0.052 wt% AP-3 = 18.9) [for claims 1/2]. Analogous calculations for OC-5 and OC-6 yield weight percent ratios (MP-1: AP-3) of 13:1 and 9.3:1 for those respective mixtures.
As such, Lee differs from the present invention only in failing to disclose, in a single embodiment, a curable composition that further comprises a thermal acid generator. However, Lee generally teaches that the photoresist overcoat composition can include one or more optional materials/additives typically present in in the composition in minor amounts such as from 0.1 to 10 wt% based on total solids of the overcoat composition (¶ [0034]). In the same paragraph Lee mentions that the overcoat compositions are preferably free of acid generator compounds, as compounds such as thermal acid and photoacid generators may neutralize the basic quencher in the overcoat compositions (id.). Nevertheless, it is well settled that preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Moreover, in analogous art relating to topcoat layer compositions applied above a photoresist composition with particular applicability to photolithography processing (Abs., ¶ [0002]), Wang teaches that one or more thermal acid generators and/or one or more photoacid generators may be included in topcoat compositions which include a plurality of different resins (¶¶ [0007], [0017], [0027], [0039]). If employed, Wang teaches that the one or more acid generators may be utilized in relatively small amounts in a topcoat composition, for example, 0.1 to 10 wt % of the total of the dry components of the composition (¶ [0039]). Wang further teaches that use of one or more acid generator compounds can favorably impact lithographic performance, particularly resolution, of the developed image patterned in an underlying resist layer (¶ [0040]).
Armed with the teachings of Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain, via routine experimentation, which amounts of thermal acid generator are effective in optimally enhancing lithographic performance of the overcoat composition of Lee without fully neutralizing the basic quencher component. Accordingly, at the time of effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by including in any of aforementioned overcoat compositions (OC-4, OC-5, OC-6) a thermal acid generator, with a reasonable expectation of realizing improved lithographic performance, particularly in terms of resolution, consistent with the teachings of Wang.
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Wang renders obvious the curable composition of claim 1 as discussed above, and at least the AP-3 additive polymer of each of OC-4, OC-5 and OC-6 of Lee comprises partially fluorinated alkyl groups, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Wang renders obvious the curable composition of claim 1 as discussed above, and the amount of MP-1 matrix polymer present in each of OC-4, OC-5 and OC-6 of Lee falls well within the claimed range for AAP1; for example, 0.98 wt% for OC-4, based on total weight of the curable composition ((0.2954 g/30 g) · 100 = 0.985).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Wang renders obvious the curable composition of claim 1 as discussed above, and the amount of AP-3 additive polymer present in each of OC-4, OC-5 and OC-6 of Lee falls well within the claimed range for AAP2; for example, 0.052 wt% for OC-4, based on total weight of the curable composition ((0.0155 g/30 g) · 100 = 0.0517).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Wang renders obvious the curable composition of claim 1 as discussed above, and the amount of solvent (IBIB) present in each of OC-4, OC-5 and OC-6 of Lee falls well within the claimed range for amount of solvent; for example, 98 wt% for OC-4, based on total weight of the curable composition ((29.796 g/30g) · 100 = 97.6).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
The closest prior art to Lee et al and Wang et al, discussed above, does not describe the inventions of instant claims 3, 5-7 and 11-12, or provide proper rationale to modify either of their respective inventions into the invention of said claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Examiner F. M. Teskin whose telephone number is (571) 272-1116. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571) 270-7733. The appropriate 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/FRED M TESKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762
/FMTeskin/09-09-26
Prosecution Insights