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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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 3, 4, 7, 8 and 11-20 are 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 3 recites “The patterning process according to claim 1, wherein in the step (i-4) or (ii-6),…” However, the claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to show or define step (ii-6) in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 11, and 15 depend on claim 3; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “The patterning process according to claim 2, wherein in the step (i-4) or (ii-6),…” However, the claim as written is indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to show or define step (i-4) in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8, 12, and 16 depend on claim 4; therefore, the claims are also indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13-16 recite ( in the general formulae (a-1 ) to (a-3) , … a bonding point), and ( in the general formula formulae (b-1) … a bonding point). The claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to address the claims to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. The claims recite the parentheses, which does not present the limitations in a clear manner. It is not clear Applicants intend the language recited inside the parentheses to be required in the claimed invention. Appropriated correction is required. Examiner suggests removing the parenthesis.
Claims 17 and 19 recite “The patterning process according to claim 1, wherein in the step (i-1) or (ii-1),…” However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to show or define step (ii-1) in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 and 20 recite “The patterning process according to claim 2, wherein in the step (i-1) or (ii-1),…” However, the claims as written are indefinite and unclear. Applicants have failed to show or define step (i-1) in claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 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) 1-17 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 Yano et al. (US 2020/0216670 A1) and/or further in view of Watanabe (JP 2008-046528 A).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9-17, Yano et al. teach ( see abstract, claims, examples , paragraphs [0026-0028 & 0051-0231] and figures i.e. Figures 1a-1m) a patterning process [pattern forming method, see [0190 - 0207] for forming a pattern [see figure 1 (m) ] in a substrate to be processed [workpiece l] the method comprising steps of:
(i-1 or ii-1) forming an organic underlayer film on a substrate to be processed [forming organic underline layer 2, see figure l(b)], forming a tin-containing middle layer film on the organic underlayer film, [forming interlayer film 3, see figure l(c)],and further forming an upper layer resist film on the tin-containing middle layer film [forming photoresist film 4, see figure 1 (d)];
(i-2 or ii-2) performing pattern exposure and subsequent development in the upper layer resist film to form an upper layer resist pattern [see figure 1 (e) and l(f)];
(i-3 or ii-3) dry-etching the tin-containing middle layer film while using the upper layer resist pattern as a mask to transfer the upper layer resist pattern to the tin containing middle layer film [see figure 1 (g) ], and further dry-etching the organic underlayer film while using the tin-containing middle layer film having the transferred upper layer resist pattern as a mask to form an organic underlayer film pattern on an upper portion of which a portion of the tin-containing middle layer film is left [see figure 1 (h) ];
(i-4 or ii-6) removing the portion of the tin-containing middle layer film left on the upper portion of the organic underlayer film pattern by dry-etching [ see figure l(j)];
(i-5 or ii-4) forming an inorganic silicon-containing film ( claim 13) comprising polysilicon, amorphous silicon, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon carbide, or a composite material thereof, by a CVD method [0013-0015, 0040 and 0196] or an ALD method [0040 & 0196], so as to cover the organic underlayer film pattern [see [0201] and figure 1( j)];
(i-6 or ii-5) removing a portion of the inorganic silicon-containing film by dry-etching to expose the upper portion of the organic underlayer film pattern [see figure l(k)];
(i-7 or ii-7) removing the organic underlayer film pattern to form an inorganic silicon containing film pattern with a pattern pitch that is 1/2 of a pattern pitch [0042] of the upper layer resist pattern [ see figure 1 ( 1) ]; and
(i-8 or ii-8) processing the substrate to be processed while using the inorganic silicon containing film pattern as a mask to form a pattern in the substrate to be processed [see figure 1 (m) ].
It is noted that Yano et al. specifically described that polysiloxane derivative produced from a mixture of a hydrolysable monomer, which can form structural units shown by the general formulae (Sx-1) to (Sx-3), with a hydrolysable metal compound shown by the general formula U U(OR7)m7(OR8)m8 wherein when U is tin, the examples of the compound shown by general formula include, as monomers , methoxy tin, ethoxy ethoxy tin, propoxy tin, tun 2,3-pentanedionate, tin 2, 2,6,6-tetramethyl-3,5-heptanedionate, and the like; [0108-0110 & 0118]) under the conditions using the acid or alkali catalyst can be used as a component of the composition of forming a silicon-containing film meeting the limitation of tin-containing middle layer as instantly claimed.
Further, Yano et al. do not explicitly recite the composition comprising a compound having a crosslinkable organic structure as recited by the instant claims. Although it is commonly knowledge, the examiner has added Watanabe ( see abstract, claims 7 and 9, and fig. 1 and paragraphs [00038, 0053, 0055, 0107, 0116, 0196, 0199 and 0201]) teach the hydrolysable metal compound ( e.g. methoxytin) represented by the general formula U(OR7)m7(OR8)m8 of the invention as recited by Yano et al. is recognized as being hydrolysable ( the protecting group is eliminated by the action of either or both of acid and heat to generate one or more hydroxyl groups, resulting in a hydroxyl group), and is recognized as having a crosslinkable structure. Therefor, it would have been obvious to consider the general formula of Yano et al to be considered to have a crosslinkable structure as taught by Watanabe. products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. [MPEP 2112.01 In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Yano et al. teach a patterning process (method) wherein the tin-containing middle layer film is etched by plasma formed in a H2-contianing gas ( gas plasma containing hydrogen; [0194]).
Regarding claims 5-8, Yano et al. teach a patterning process ( method) wherein the tin-containing middle layer film is formed by spin containing using a composition for forming a tin-containing middle layer film [0191].
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) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (US 2020/0216670 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Ogihara et al. (US 2020/0090935 A1).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Yano et al. do not explicitly reach wherein the step (i-1) or (ii-1) a water-repellent coating film is further formed on the upper layer resist film as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Ogihara et al. to teach it is well-known to include a water-repellent coating film to an upper layer resist ( see figures and [0093]) in view of aiding in exposure. Yano et al. and Ogihara et al. are analogous art in the photoresist field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include a water-repellent coating film as taught by Ogihara et al. to be further formed on the upper layer resist film of Yano et al. in view of employing immersion exposure.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano et al. (US 2020/0216670 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Su (US 2020/0006082 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Yano et al. do not explicitly reach wherein the step (i-1) or (ii-1) , an organic adhesive film is formed in the middle between he tin-containing middle layer and the upper layer resist film as instantly claimed. Nonetheless, the examiner has added Su to teach it is well-known to include an organic adhesive film is formed in the middle between the tin-containing middle layer and the upper layer resist film ( see figures and [0020-0022]) in view of aiding in the lithography process. Yano et al. and Su are analogous art in the photoresist field. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to include an organic adhesive film to Yano et al. that formed in the middle between he tin-containing middle layer and the upper layer resist film. in view of aiding in the lithography process.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See D. Skroblin et al. , Nanoscale, 2022, pages 1-9 teach pattern processing comprising a substrate and a polymer ( organic underlayer film) and chromium on the polymer (corresponding to the tin-containing middle layer film); EBL resist on the chromium (corresponding to the upper layer resist film) ( see Fig. 3) as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP).
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights