DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/11/2026 for US Patent Application No. 18/509611 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-7 presented in the office action dated 6/15/2026 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/11/2026, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of copending application 18/910163 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the provisional nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 8 and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1-7 are made in view of Cardineau et al. (US Patent 12,360,454 B2).
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, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaida et al. (US 2017/0045820 A1), herein referred to as Sakaida, in view of Cardineau et al. (US Patent 12,360,454 B2), herein referred to as Cardineau.
Regarding amended claim 1 and claims 6-7, Sakaida teaches [0015] a method for forming a resist pattern comprising the steps of applying the resist underlayer film-forming composition for lithography to a semiconductor substrate (method for manufacturing a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising: directly or indirectly applying a composition for forming a resist underlayer film to a substrate to form a resist underlayer film), followed by baking, to form a resist underlayer film; forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film using a resist solution; exposing the semiconductor substrate coated with the resist underlayer film (applying a composition for forming a resist film to the resist underlayer film to form a resist film and exposing the resist film to radiation) and developing the exposed substrate (developing the exposed resist film). Sakaida further teaches [0019, 0047 and 0050] the resist underlayer film-forming composition for comprises a polymer, an acid generator and a solvent.
With regard to the limitation recited in amended claim 1 of the resist underlayer film having a thickness of 6 nm or less, the limitations recited in claim 6 of the resist underlayer film having a thickness of less than 4 nm, and the limitations recited in claim 7 of the resist underlayer film having a thickness of between 0.5 nm and 4 nm; Sakaida teaches the resist underlayer film may be configured to have a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 200 nm. The range of thicknesses taught by Sakaida overlaps the claimed ranges recited in claims 1, 6 and 7. In view of MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the range of thicknesses of the resist underlayer film taught by Sakaida overlaps Applicant’s claimed resist underlayer film thickness ranges.
Sakaida does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of amended claim 1 wherein the composition for forming a resist film comprises a metal atom.
However, from the same field of technology, Cardineau teaches (Claim 1) the formation of a multilayer structure comprising a substrate with a surface, an underlayer coating over at least a portion of the substrate surface and an organometallic resist coating comprising a radiation sensitive ligand bonded to a tin atom, over at least a portion of the underlayer coating. Cardineau further teaches the underlayer coating is configured to have an average thickness of from about 2 nm to about 40 nm.
At the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of forming a resist pattern taught by Sakaida by including the teachings of Cardineau directed to disposing an organometallic resist coating over an underlayer coating because metal containing resist coatings, as disclosed by Cardineau (Column 3 Lines 52-65), are desirable to use in EUV lithography processes due to their ability to be finely patterned. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the metal containing resist coating taught by Cardineau for the resist film taught by Sakaida in order to achieve the formation of very fine patterns. Therefore, amended claim 1 and claims 6-7 are obvious in view of the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau teaches (Sakaida [0015]) extreme ultraviolet light may be used for exposing the resist film. Therefore, claim 2 is obvious in view of the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau teaches (Sakaida [0059]) a developer that may include a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. Therefore, claim 3 is obvious in view of the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau teaches (Sakaida [0055]) a silicon containing film, such as silicon oxide or silicon nitride, may be disposed on the semiconductor substrate before applying the resist underlayer film. Therefore, claim 5 is obvious in view of the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau teaches (Cardineau Claim 1) the metal contained in the organometallic resist coating is tin. Therefore, claim 9 is obvious in view of the combination of Sakaida and Cardineau.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaida et al. (US 2017/0045820 A1), herein referred to as Sakaida, in view of Cardineau et al. (US Patent 12,360,454 B2), herein referred to as Cardineau, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2016/0299432 A1), herein referred to as Furukawa.
The combination of Sakaida and Cardineau does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4 directed to the claimed acid generating composition.
However, from the same field of technology, Furukawa recites [0072 and 0155] an acid generator composition for a radiation-sensitive resin composition. In view of claim 4, Furukawa teaches ([0177-0178 and Chemical Structures (cc-1 to cc-4)) an acid generator having the following compositions:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
118
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
122
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
104
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The acid generators taught by Furukawa satisfy the compositional limitations recited in claim 4. Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resist underlayer film taught by Sakaida and Cardineau to further include the specified acid generator compositions taught by Furukawa in order to devise a resist underlayer film that has improved pattern control properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method of manufacturing a semiconductor substrate comprising a composition for forming a resist underlayer film comprising a polymer having a first repeating unit with the chemical structure recited in claim 10.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8 and 15-18 are considered to be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a composition suitable for forming a resist underlayer film having a film thickness of 6 nm or less that comprises the polymer comprising a first repeating unit represented by formula (1), an acid generating agent and a solvent.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
