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 § 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 1-31, 33 and 34 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.
The term “at least about” in claims 1 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “less than about” in claims 11, 19 and 29 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” in claims 7, 19, 27, 33 and 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending the claim to delete the “about” terminology.
Claim 34 recites “ the total monomers”. However, there is no positive recitation of total monomers recited in claim 32 or claim 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (WO 2021/035108 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Liang et al. ( see abstract, claims, and examples ) a method of hydrolyzing a silane, the method comprising the steps of: i) forming a solution comprising MTMS ( methyltrimethoxysilane) , an acetic acid ( an acid) and a polymerization solution (PGME; at least one solvent) and ii) hydrolyze the solution at room temperature (i.e. 68-72°F) for 16 hours ( page 8, line 19- page 9, line 3, page 14, lines 12-26 and example 1).
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.
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) 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (WO 2021/035108 A1).
Regarding claims 1-17, Liang et al. ( see abstract, claims, and examples ) teach a method of forming a structure, the method comprising forming an underlayer having an thickness from about 5 nm ( about 4.5 nm) on a stack, said underlayer formed from a composition comprising a component chosen from polysiloxane, forming a photoresist on said underlayer and subjecting at least position of said photoresist to EUV radiation (see claims 1 and 10, page 14, lines 12-26, page 18, lines 1-10; examples 1 and 9), wherein the polysiloxane comprises a surface modification such as hydrolyzed PETMS ( phenyl ethyl trimethoxy silane) as taught by instant claim 5 ( see claims 1 & 3, page 7,lines 2-3; page 14,lines 12-26,page 18, lines 1-10 and examples 1 & 9). And a phenyl moiety of said hydrolyzed PETMS in Liang et al. correspond to an adhesion moiety of instant claims 1 and 3 and a hydrolyzed siloxane moiety having silanol group of said hydrolyzed PETMS in Liang et al. corresponds to surface modifying group of instant claims 1 and 3.
Further regards to claim 1, Liang et al. do not explicitly recite a polymer, an oligomer , or a mixture thereof comprising at least one about 75 mol% or a monomer having an adhesion moiety and a surface modifying group as instantly claimed. It is noted that it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the levels amounts are optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ21. Nonetheless, Liang et al. recognize that the polysiloxane comprises from about 5 mol% to about 90 mol% surface modification monomer (claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymer, an oligomer , or a mixture thereof of Liang et al. to include at least one about 75 mol% or a monomer having an adhesion moiety and a surface modifying group in view of routine experimentation.
Further regards to claims 2-4, Liang et al. teach hydrolyzed PETMS ( phenethyl trimethoxy silane) having an ethylene linker between a phenyl group and a hydrolyzed siloxane moiety ( claims 1 & 3, ex. 1 and page 7, lines 2-3) meeting the method wherein it includes (i) , (ii), or both (i) and (ii) and the adhesion moiety comprises one or more benzene group as instantly claimed.
Further regards to claim 5, Liang et al. teach the monomer comprising MTMS (methyltrimethoxysilane) ( page 8, line 19- page 9, line 3, page 14, lines 12-26 and example 1).
Further regards to claim 9, Liang et al. teach the composition comprises ( consisting essentially of) said component (polysiloxane) and a catalyst ( page 9, lines 27-29) dispersed or dissolved in a solvent system. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976)
Further regards to claim 10, Liang et al. teach the composition comprises ( consisting essentially of) said component ( polysiloxane) , a catalyst ( page 9, lines 27-29) and a surfactant ( page 9, lines 24-25) dispersed or dissolved in a solvent system. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976)
Further regards to claim 11, Liang et al. teach the polymer and/or monomer is 2-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysulane ( page 6,line 30- page 7, line 6) and said polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of less than about 2,000 Daltons ( about 800 g/mol to about 2,000 g/mol; see page 9, lines 4-6).
Further regards to claims 12 and 13, Liang et al. teach the stack comprising a substrate (Silicon, SiGe, SiCO:H; page 10, lines 16-20 & claim 18) having a surface; and optionally one or more intermediate layers on said surface, there bring an uppermost intermediate layer on said surface, if one or more intermediate layers are present, said underlayer being on said uppermost intermediate layer, if present , or on said surface, if no intermediate layers are presented ( see page 3, lines 8-11, claims and examples and figures).
Further regards to claim 14, Liang et al. teach method further comprises a pattern is said photoresist layer after said subjecting said photoresist layer to EUV radiation; and transferring said pattern : to said underlayer; to said intermediate layers, if present; and to said substrate (examples and claim 19).
Further regards to claims 16 and 17, Liang et al. teach the photoresist layer comprises a metal and/or metal oxide ( See examples and page 11, lines 30-31).
Regarding claims 18-31, Liang et al. ( see abstract, claims, and examples ) teach a structure comprising: a substrate having a surface, optionally one or more intermediate layers on said surface, there bring an uppermost intermediate layer on said surface, if one or more intermediate layers are present, said underlayer having a thickness of about 4.5 nm ( 5 nm) being on said uppermost intermediate layer, if present , or on said surface, if no intermediate layers are presented ( see page 3, lines 8-11, claims and examples and figures), wherein the underlayer comprises the polysiloxane comprises a surface modification such as hydrolyzed PETMS (phenyl ethyl trimethoxy silane) as taught by instant claim 5 ( see claims 1 & 3, page 7,lines 2-3; page 14,lines 12-26,page 18, lines 1-10 and examples 1 & 9) and a photoresist on said underlayer. And a phenyl moiety of said hydrolyzed PETMS in Liang et al. correspond to an adhesion moiety of instant claims and a hydrolyzed siloxane moiety having silanol group of said hydrolyzed PETMS in Liang et al. corresponds to surface modifying group of instant claims.
Further regards to claim 18, Liang et al. do not explicitly recite a polymer, an oligomer , or a mixture thereof comprising at least one about 75 mol% or a monomer having an adhesion moiety and a surface modifying group as instantly claimed. It is noted that it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the levels amounts are optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ21. Nonetheless, Liang et al. recognize that the polysiloxane comprises from about 5 mol% to about 90 mol% surface modification monomer (claim 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymer, an oligomer , or a mixture thereof of Liang et al. to include at least one about 75 mol% or a monomer having an adhesion moiety and a surface modifying group in view of routine experimentation.
Further regards to claim 19, Liang et al. teach the photoresist is patternable at a wavelength of less than about 20 nm and/or at an exposure dose of about 5 mJ/cm2 to about 100 mJ/cm2 ( see page 12,lines 18-20).
Further regards to claims 18, 20, 21 and 23-25, Liang et al. teach hydrolyzed PETMS (phenethyl trimethoxy silane) having an ethylene linker between a phenyl group and a hydrolyzed siloxane moiety ( claims 1 & 3, ex. 1 and page 7, lines 2-3) meeting the structure wherein it includes (i) , (ii), or both (i) and (ii) and the adhesion moiety comprises one or more benzene group as instantly claimed.
Further regards to claim 29, Liang et al. teach the polymer and/or monomer is 2-(3,4-epoxycyclohexyl)ethyltrimethoxysulane ( page 6,line 30- page 7, line 6) and said polymer is crosslinked in said underlayer ( page 8, lines 12-18).
Further regards to claims 22 and 30, Liang et al. teach the stack comprising a substrate (Silicon, SiGe, SiCO:H; page 10, lines 16-20 & claim 18) having a surface; ad optionally one or more intermediate layers on said surface, ( spin-carbon and/or hardmask layers) ( see page 3, lines 8-11, claims and examples and figures).
Further regards to claims 31, Liang et al. teach the photoresist layer comprises a metal See examples and page 11, lines 30-31).
Claim(s) 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (WO 2021/035108 A1) as applied to claim 32 above.
Regarding claims 33-34, Liang et al. disclose in Ex. 1 that the solution comprises 7.62 grams of MTMS ( methyltrimethoxysilane) and 8.78 grams of 3N acetic acid ( see example 1). However, Liang et al. do not explicitly teach the type of silane compound recited in claim 34 and delimiting to amount of silane and acid in a rection mixture of hydrolysis as instantly claimed. It is noted that it is well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the levels amounts are optimizable. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Although Ex. 1 does not recite that silane as specifically recited in claim 33, Liang et al. recognize that the reactive mixture may comprise a hydrolysable silane monomer that can be dimethyldimethoxysilane (DMDMS) ( see page 6, line 27- page 7, line 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify silane monomer of the reactive mixture of ex. 1 of Liang et al. to dimethyldimethoxysilane (DMDMS) and optimized the value amounts in view of routine experimentations.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Takeda et al. (US 2024/0295819 A1; see abstract, claims and examples) teach a method for manufacturing a semiconductor element ( structure) comprising forming an organic underlayer on a substrate, a step of forming a resist underlayer film on the underlayer film and a step of forming a resist film.
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