DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending. Claim 6 has been canceled.
The foreign priority application No.2022-130259 filed on August 17, 2022 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (WO2019/189193 A1, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024).
With regard to claim 1, Ito et al. teach an acrylic polymer solution comprising an acrylic polymer and tetrahydrofuran (Synthesis Example 8 in par.0236).
Tetrahydrofuran is an organic solvent (B) in claim 1.
The acrylic polymer comprises repeating units of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (BMAA) and glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) (par.0222 and Synthesis Example 8 in par.0236).
The acrylic polymer is a polymer (A) in claim 1, wherein:
-the glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 1, wherein R03 is a methyl group, R04 is an organic group of formula (R04-1); and
-the n-butoxymethyl acrylamide repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein R01 is a hydrogen atom, R02 is a linear alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms.
The acrylic polymer comprises about the glycidyl methacrylate repeating unit in an amount of about 22 mol% and the repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide in an amount of about 78 mol% (see par.0236).These amounts are within the ranges in claim 1.
Therefore, the acrylic polymer solution anticipates the composition in claim 1.
The limitation of claim 1 “for forming an adhesive film directly under a resist upper layer film” is only an intended use and adds no patentable weight to the claim.
Claim 3 only refers to an intended use of the composition (forming an adhesive film with a thickness of 15 nm or less directly under the resist upper layer film). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claim.
Therefore, the photosensitive resin composition of Satoru et al. anticipates the composition in claim 3 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Ito et al. teach that the acrylic polymer has Mn=7,000 and Mw=18,000 (par.0236).
The weight average molecular weight (Mw) is within the range in claim 4.
The dispersity (Mw/Mn) is 2.57. This value is within the range in claim 5.
Claims 8 and 9 only refer to an intended use of the composition (use in combination with a specific resist upper layer). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claims.
Therefore, the acrylic polymer solution of Ito et al. anticipates the composition in claims 8 and 9 of the instant application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru et al. (KR 20120065947 A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024).
With regard to claim 1, Satoru et al. teach a photosensitive resin composition comprising the binder S-1 and PGMEA organic solvent (par.0500, Example 1 in Table 6).
The binder S-1 comprises repeating units of methyl methacrylate (MAA), 2-tetrahydrofuranyl methacrylate (MATHF), hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate (OXE-30), and n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (NBMA) (par.0466, Table 1).
The binder S-1 is a polymer (A) in claim 1, wherein:
-the 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 1, wherein R03 is a methyl group, R04 is an organic group of formula (R04-3); and
-the n-butoxymethyl acrylamide repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein R01 is a hydrogen atom, R02 is a linear alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms.
Satoru et al, teach that the binder S-1 comprises the 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate (OXE-30) repeating unit in an amount of 27.5mol% and the repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (NBMA) in an amount of 15mol% (see Table 1).
The amount of 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate is within the claimed range for a repeating unit of formula (2).
The amount of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide is not within the claimed range for a repeating unit of formula (1).
However, N-butoxymethyl acrylamide is a repeating of formula (1) wherein R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 is an alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms (abstract), and Satoru et al. teach that a binder may comprise a repeating unit of formula (1) in an amount of ratio of 10 to 40mol% (par.0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to increase the content of repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide up to 40mol% in the binder of Satoru et al.
Therefore, the photosensitive resin composition in Example 1 of Satoru et al. is equivalent to the composition in claim 1 of the instant application.
The limitation of claim 1 “for forming an adhesive film directly under a resist upper layer film” is only an intended use and adds no patentable weight to the claim.
Claim 3 only refers to an intended use of the composition (forming an adhesive film with a thickness of 15 nm or less directly under the resist upper layer film). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claim.
Therefore, the photosensitive resin composition of Satoru et al. anticipates the composition in claim 3 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 4, Satoru et al. teach that the binder S-1 has a weight average molecular weight of 12,000 (par.0466). This value is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 7, Satoru et al. teach that the photosensitive resin composition of Example 1 further comprises the surfactant W-1 (Example 1 in Table 6, par.0520).
Claims 8 and 9 only refer to an intended use of the composition (use in combination with a specific resist upper layer). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claims.
Therefore, the photosensitive resin composition of Satoru et al. is equivalen tot the composition in claims 8 and 9 of the instant application.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (EP 3 382 453 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0205087).
With regard to claim 1, Satoh et al. teach a resist underlayer composition comprising a polymer (1A)(par.0087), wherein the polymer (1A) may be represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
164
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0088).
Satoh et al. further teach that the resist underlayer composition further comprises an organic solvent (see Table 4 in par.0183).
The polymer (1A) above is a polymer (A) in claim 1, wherein:
-the first repeating unit of the polymer (1A) above is a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 1, wherein R03 is a methyl group, R04 is an organic group of formula (R04-1); and
-the fourth repeating unit of the polymer (1A) above is a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein R01 is a hydrogen atom, R02 is a linear alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms.
Satoh et al. teach that the first repeating unit of the polymer (1A) above is a repeating unit of the general formula (1) (see par.0072, par.0076), and further teach that a repeating unit of the general formula (1) is included in the polymer in an amount of 20mole%-70mole% (par.0083). This amount is within the range in claim 1 for the repeating unit of general formula (2) in claim 1.
Satoh et al. fail to teach the content of the repeating unit of formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the polymer (1A) above.
Jang et al. teach a photoresist underlayer composition comprising a first polymer comprising a first structural unit derived from an N-(alkoxymethyl)(meth)acrylic amide monomer (abstract). The N-(alkoxymethyl)(meth)acrylic amide monomer may be represented by the formula (1):
PNG
media_image3.png
152
150
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein Ra and R1-R3 may be hydrogen atoms and R4 may be a substituted or unsubstituted C1-20 alkyl (par.0031-0036).
A specific example of the monomer of formula (1) is:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
88
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(par.0038 of Jang et al.).
Jang et al. further teach that the unit derived from a N-(alkoxymethyl) (meth)acrylic amide monomer may be comprised in the polymer in an amount of 30 mol% (see par.0117).
The repeating unit of formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of Satoh et al. is a repeating unit derived from the monomer of formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
124
88
media_image4.png
Greyscale
of Jang et al., wherein Ra is a hydrogen atom.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the repeating unit of formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
92
66
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in an amount of 30mole% in the polymer (1A) of Satoh et al. with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the resist underlayer composition of Satoh modified by Jang is equivalent to the composition in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the third repeating unit of the polymer (1A) above is repeating unit of formula (3), wherein R05 is a hydrogen atom, R06 is a divalent linking group with 2 carbon atoms and containing an ester group, and R07 is an unsaturated tertiary alkyl group with 5 carbon atoms.
Claim 3 only refers to an intended use of the composition (forming an adhesive film with a thickness of 15 nm or less directly under the resist upper layer film). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claim.
Therefore, the resist underlayer composition of Satoh modified by Jang is equivalent to the composition in claims 3 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 4, Satoh et al. teach that the polymer (1A) has a weight average molecular weight of 1,000 to 20,000 (par.0085). This range overlaps the claimed range.
With regard to claim 7, Satoh et al. teach that the resist underlayer composition may further comprise an acid generator (C) which may be a blend of acid generators generating an acid by thermal decomposition and by photo irradiation (par.0100). The resist underlayer composition may comprise a surfactant (D) and a crosslinking agent (E)(par.0122-0124).
Claims 8 and 9 only refer to an intended use of the composition (use in combination with a specific resist upper layer). These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claims.
Therefore, the resist underlayer composition of Satoh modified by Jang is equivalent to the composition in claims 8 and 9 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 10, Satoh et al. teach a process comprising the steps of:
-forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed by using the resist underlayer film composition;
-forming a resist upper layer film on the resist underlayer film by using a photoresist composition;
-forming a pattern on the resist upper layer film by developing an exposed resist upper layer film;
-transcribing the pattern to the resist underlayer film by dry etching using as a mask the patterned resist upper layer film (par.0137, par.0141).
The resist underlayer film is formed on a substrate by applying it on a substrate, evaporating the solvent, and baking (par.0142).
With regard to claim 14, Satoh et al. teach that the resist upper layer may be exposed with high energy beams with a wavelength of 300 nm or less, such as 248 nm, 193 nm, and 157 nm (par.0148).
With regard to claim 15, Satoh et al. teach that the resist upper layer may be developed with a TMAH (tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide) aqueous solution (par.0210).
This is equivalent to the claimed alkaline development.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, Satoh et al. teach that the substrate to be processed may be a substrate having a film of Si, SiO2, SiON, SiN, TiN formed thereon
A Si film is a metal film, wherein the metal is silicon.
A SiO2 film is a metal oxide film, wherein the metal is silicon.
A SiON film is a metal oxynitride film, wherein the metal is silicon.
The SiN and TiN films are metal nitride films, wherein the metal is silicon or titanium.
With regard to claim 18, Satoh et al. teach a step of forming resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed by using the resist underlayer film composition (par.0137). The resist underlayer film composition is applied on a substrate to be processed by spin-coating, the solvent is evaporated, then a baking step is performed (par.0142). The baking is performed at preferably 100oC-300oC for 10-600 seconds (par.0143).
With regard to claim 19, Satoh et al. teach a step of forming resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed by using the resist underlayer film composition (par.0137). The resist underlayer film composition is applied on a substrate to be processed by spin-coating, the solvent is evaporated, then a baking step is performed (par.0142).
It is assumed that the baking is performed in room air, which has an oxygen concertation of 20%. This amount is within the claimed range.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (EP 3 382 453 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0205087) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kori et al. (TW 201302691 A with attached machine translation).
With regard to claim 20, Satoh modified by Jang teach a resist underlayer film composition which is equivalent to the composition in claim 1 (see paragraph 8 above).
Satoh et al. further teach a step of forming resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed by using the resist underlayer film composition (par.0137). The resist underlayer film composition is applied on a substrate to be processed by spin-coating, the solvent is evaporated, then a baking step is performed (par.0142).
Satoh et al. and Jang et al. fail to teach that the baking is performed in an atmosphere with less than 0.1% oxygen.
Kori et al. teach a resist underlayer (abstract).
Kori et al. teach that the photoresist underlayer film material is spin-coated onto a substrate, the solvent is evaporated to prevent mixing with the photoresist upper film, and then baking is performed to promote cross-linking reaction (the 3rd paragraph on page 16 of the attached translation). The atmosphere during baking may be air, or an inert has such as N2, Ar or He to prevent the oxidation of the photoresist underlayer film. In order to prevent oxidation, it is necessary to control oxygen concentration preferably 1,000 ppm or less, more preferably 100 ppm or less (the 5th paragraph on page 16 of the attached translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform the baking of Satoh modified by Jang in an atmosphere with less than 1000 ppm (0.1%) oxygen in order to prevent the oxidation of the resist underlayer film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are allowed.
Satoh et al. (EP 3 382 453 A1) teach a process comprising the steps of:
-forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed using the resist underlayer film composition;
-forming a resist intermediate film on the resist underlayer film;
-forming a resist upper layer film in the resist intermediate film by using a photoresist composition;
-forming a pattern on the resist upper layer film by exposing and developing the resist upper layer film;
-transcribing the pattern in the resist intermediate film by dry etching using the resist upper layer pattern as a mask;
-transcribing the pattern to the resist underlayer film (par.0138).
Satoh et al. also teach a process comprising the steps of:
-forming a resist underlayer film on the substrate to be processed by using the resist underlayer film composition;
-forming an inorganic hard mask intermediate film selected from a silicon oxide film, a silicon nitride film, and a silicon oxide nitride film on the resist underlayer film;
-forming an organic antireflective film on the inorganic hardmask intermediate film;
-forming a resist upper layer film on the organic antireflective film by using a photoresist composition;
-forming a pattern on the resist upper layer film by exposure and development;
-transcribing the pattern to the organic antireflective film and the inorganic hard mask intermediate film by dry etching using as a mask the resist upper layer film pattern; and
-transcribing the pattern to the resist underlayer film by dry etching (par.0139).
However, Satoh et al. fail to teach the methods in claims 11 and 12.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Satoh et al. and obtain the methods in claims 11 and 12 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the objection to the specification is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to the specification;
-the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoru et al. (KR 20120065947 A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims, 1-4, 7-10, an 14-19 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 Satoh et al. (EP 3 382 453 A1) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoru et al. (KR 20120065947 A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024) is moot after the cancelation of the claim;
-the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh et al. (EP 3 382 453 A1) in view of Kori et al. (TW 201302691 A with attached machine translation) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1-5, 7-10, and 14-20 are shown in paragraphs 4-9 above.
On page 10 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Ito et al. teach an acrylic polymer solution not a composition for forming an adhesive film as in the amended claim 1.
The examiner would like to note that Ito et al. (WO2019/189193 A1, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024) teach an acrylic polymer solution comprising an acrylic polymer and tetrahydrofuran (Synthesis Example 8 in par.0236).
The acrylic polymer comprises repeating units of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (BMAA) and glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) (par.0222 and Synthesis Example 8 in par.0236).
The glycidyl methacrylate (GMA) repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 1, wherein R03 is a methyl group, R04 is an organic group of formula (R04-1); and the n-butoxymethyl acrylamide repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein R01 is a hydrogen atom, R02 is a linear alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms.
The acrylic polymer comprises about the glycidyl methacrylate repeating unit in an amount of about 22 mol% and the repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide in an amount of about 78 mol% (see par.0236). These amounts are within the ranges in the amended claim 1.
Therefore, the acrylic polymer solution anticipates the composition in claim 1.
If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the preamble in one patent’s claim is limiting but is not in a related patent); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation") (MPEP 2111.02.II. PREAMBLE STATEMENTS RECITING PURPOSE OR INTENDED USE)
On page 11 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Satoru et al. do not specifically teach a polymer comprising the monomers in the claimed amounts.
The examiner would like to note that Satoru et al. (KR 20120065947 A, with machine translation provided by the applicant on July 29, 2024) teach a photosensitive resin composition comprising the binder S-1 and PGMEA organic solvent (par.0500, Example 1 in Table 6).
The binder S-1 comprises repeating units of methyl methacrylate (MAA), 2-tetrahydrofuranyl methacrylate (MATHF), hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate (OXE-30), and n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (NBMA) (par.0466, Table 1).
The 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 1, wherein R03 is a methyl group, R04 is an organic group of formula (R04-3); and the n-butoxymethyl acrylamide repeating unit is a repeating unit of formula (1) in claim 1, wherein R01 is a hydrogen atom, R02 is a linear alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms.
Satoru et al, teach that the binder S-1 comprises the 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate (OXE-30) repeating unit in an amount of 27.5mol% and the repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide (NBMA) in an amount of 15mol% (see Table 1).
The amount of 3-ethyl-3-oxetanyl methyl methacrylate is within the claimed range for a repeating unit of formula (2).
Satoru et al. further teach that N-butoxymethyl acrylamide is a repeating of formula (1) wherein R1 is a hydrogen atom and R2 is an alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms (abstract), and the binder may comprise a repeating unit of formula (1) in an amount of ratio of 10 to 40mol% (par.0088).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase the content of repeating unit of n-butoxymethyl acrylamide up to 40mol% in the binder of Satoru et al. and obtain the polymer in the amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights