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, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-25 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 18 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the one or more EUV absorbing atoms are an electron donating group” in claim 6 should be amended to read “the one or more EUV absorbing atoms are an electron donating atom”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et al. (US 2019/0243238).
With regard to claim 1, Naito et al. teach the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0183, Table 1 in par.0193), which is a photo acid generator comprising:
- a cation including a sulfonium salt moiety and one EUV absorbing atom attached to the sulfonium moiety, wherein the EUV absorbing atom is Te, and
-an anion attached to the cation.
With regard to claim 3, the sulfonium salt moiety of the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 includes aromatic rings functionalized with hydrogen atoms.
With regard to claim 5, Te is an EUV absorbing element, as evidenced in par.0024 of Goldfarb et al. (US 2022/0390845).
With regard to claim 6, Te is an electron donor (see definition in claim 7).
The sulfonium group salt moiety is attached to the Te atom, and the sulfonium salt moiety is an electron withdrawing group (see definition in fig.5 and par.0060 of the specification of the instant application).
With regard to claims 7 and 21, Naito et al. teach the photoresist composition H-1 comprising the polymer A-1, the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1, and a solvent (Example 1 in Table 1, par.0193).
The tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0183), and it is a photoacid generator comprising a cation made of an electron donor and radiation absorbable material which is Te, and a sulfonium group salt moiety attached to the Te atom.
The sulfonium salt moiety is an electron withdrawing group (see definition in fig.5 and par.0060 of the specification of the instant application).
The polymer A-1 comprises an acid labile group (see polymer A-1 in par.0187, wherein the second repeating unit comprises an acid labile group protecting a carboxylic acid group). This meets the limitations of claim 21.
With regard to claim 9, Te is an EUV absorbing element, as evidenced in par.0024 of Goldfarb et al. (US 2022/0390845).
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Te has 10 electrons in its 4d orbital.
With regard to claim 13, the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 is an onium salt.
With regard to claim 14, the sulfonium moiety of the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 includes aromatic rings functionalized with hydrogen atoms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 15-17, 19, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US 2019/0243238) in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0081346).
With regard to claims 15, 16, and 25, Naito et al. teach the photoresist composition H-1 comprising the polymer A-1, the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1, and a solvent (Example 1 in Table 1, par.0193).
The tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
196
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0183), and it is a photoacid generator comprising a cation comprising at least one atom having an EUV cross section of higher than about 1 to 107 cm2/mol, the atom being Te.
The tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 is an acid generator (see Table 1 in par.0193), and an acid generator having the cation above decomposes via charge transfer mechanisms, such as intramolecular charge transfer and intermolecular charge transfer (see fig.8A, 8B, and par.0065-0066 of the specification of the instant application).
Naito et al. further teach a method including the steps of:
-coating a resist composition onto a substrate and drying to form a resist layer;
-exposing the resist layer, and
-developing the exposed resist layer to form a resist pattern (par.0194), but fail to teach the etching step in claim 15.
However, it is well-known in the art that a substrate may be etched using the resist pattern as a mask (see par.0004 of Baek et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the resist pattern of Naito et al. as etching mask in a step of etching the substrate.
The polymer A-1 comprises an acid labile group (see polymer A-1 in par.0187, wherein the second repeating unit comprises an acid labile group protecting a carboxylic acid group). This meets the limitations of claim 25.
The process of Naito modified by Baek is equivalent to the method in claims 15, 16, and 25 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 17, the tellurium-containing sulfonium salt 1 comprises an anion attached to the cation.
With regard to claim 19, Te is an electron donor (see definition in claim 7).
With regard to claim 20, the sulfonium salt moiety is attached to the Te atom, and the sulfonium salt moiety is an electron withdrawing group (see definition in fig.5 and par.0060 of the specification of the instant application).
8. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US 2019/0243238) in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0081346) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kane (US 2008/0261846).
With regard to claim 22, Naito modified by Baek teach the method of claim 15 (see paragraph 7 above), but fail to teach that the substrate includes the claimed first material layer.
However, it is well-known in the art that a photoresist may be applied onto a substrate comprising Al/TiN layers (see par.0031 of Kane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form Al/TiN layers on the substrate before the application of the resist film of Naito modified by Baek.
9. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US 2019/0243238) in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0081346) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Tan et al. (US 2022/0035247).
With regard to claim 23, Naito modified by Baek teach the method of claim 15 (see paragraph 7 above).
Baek et al. teach that a substrate may comprise a silicon oxide film or a silicon nitride film (par.0076), but fail to teach that the substrate includes the claimed first material layer.
However, it is well-known in the art that a photoresist may be applied onto a substrate comprising a silicon oxide film, a silicon nitride film, or a silicon oxynitride film deposited thereon (see par.0016 of Tan et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form a silicon oxynitride (SiON) film on the substrate before the application of the resist film of Naito modified by Baek.
10. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito et al. (US 2019/0243238) in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0081346) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (JP 2000-208851A, with attached translated abstract).
With regard to claim 24, Naito modified by Baek teach the method of claim 15 (see paragraph 7 above), but fail to teach that the substrate includes the claimed first material layer and second material layer
However, it is well-known in the art that a photoresist may be applied onto a substrate comprising a lower layer and a polymer layer formed by polymerizing an organic metal complex (see the abstract of Miyamoto et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form a lower layer and a polymer layer formed by polymerizing an organic metal complex on a substrate before the application of the resist film of Naito modified by Baek.
Naito et al., Baek et al, and Miyamoto et al. fail to teach that the lower layer has a refractive index (n value) different from the refractive index (n value) of the photoresist layer.
However, there are only two possibilities: the lower layer and the photoresist layer have the same refractive index (n value), and the lower layer and the photoresist layer have different refractive indexes (n values).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form a lower layer and a polymer layer formed by polymerizing an organic metal complex on a substrate before the application of the resist film of Naito modified by Baek and Miyamoto, wherein the lower layer and the photoresist layer have different refractive indexes (n values).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the objection to the specification is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to the specification;
-the objections to claims 3, 4, and 14 are withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 14, and the cancelation of claim 4;
-the rejection of claims 1-6, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 13, and 14;
-the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komuro et al. (JP 2023-010650A, with attached machine translation) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 7;
-the rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komuro et al. (JP 2023-010650A, with attached machine translation) in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0081346) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 15.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-17,and 19-25 are shown in paragraphs 4-10 above.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Adegawa et al. (JP 2003-057822) teach compounds of the formulas:
PNG
media_image2.png
150
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
156
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par.0034).
Naito et al. (US 2019/0243243) teach compounds of formulas:
PNG
media_image4.png
208
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
226
262
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
324
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(par.0155, par.0157, and par.0160).
13. 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