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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/509611 by Yoneda et al.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/910163 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending application and the copending application recite analogous methods for manufacturing a semiconductor substrate and compositions for forming a resist underlayer film.
With regard to claims 1-7 of the pending application, the copending application recites (Claim 1) an analogous method for manufacturing a semiconductor substrate wherein the method comprises applying a composition for forming a resist underlayer film directly or indirectly to a substrate to form a resist underlayer film; applying a composition for forming a resist film to the resist underlayer film to form a resist film; exposing the resist film to radiation; and developing at least the exposed resist film, wherein the composition for forming a resist underlayer film comprises: a polymer comprising a repeating unit which comprises an organic sulfonic acid anion moiety and an onium cation moiety; and a solvent. The copending application further recites (Claim 4) the resist underlayer film being configured to have a film thickness of 6 nm or less.
The composition recited in the method for manufacturing a semiconductor substrate of the copending application is considered to be obvious with respect to the method recited in claim 1 of the pending application because in the copending application, the polymer comprising an organic sulfonic acid anion moiety and onium cation moiety is considered to be analogous to the acid generating agent recited in claim 1 of the pending application. Therefore, the method claims in the pending and copending applications are considered to be obvious variants with respect to each other.
With regard to claim 8 of the pending application, the copending application recites (Claim 6) an analogous composition for forming a resist underlayer film, comprising: a polymer comprising a repeating unit which comprises an organic sulfonic acid anion moiety and an onium cation moiety; and a solvent.
The composition recited in claim 6 of the copending application is considered to be obvious with respect to the composition recited in claim 8 of the pending application because in the copending application, the polymer comprising an organic sulfonic acid anion moiety and onium cation moiety is considered to be analogous to the acid generating agent recited in claim 8 of the pending application. Therefore, the composition claims in the pending and copending applications are considered to be obvious variants with respect to each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakaida et al. (US 2017/0045820 A1), herein referred to as Sakaida.
With regard to claim 8, Sakaida teaches [0019, 0047 and 0050] a composition for forming a resist underlayer film comprising a polymer, an acid generator and a solvent. With regarding to Applicant’s preamble recitation of the claimed composition being “suitable for forming a resist film having a thickness of 6 nm or less”, it is noted that the preamble recitation is considered to be intended use and does not further limit the chemical composition of the claimed composition. Therefore, Sakaida anticipates the limitations of claim 8.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaida et al. (US 2017/0045820 A1), herein referred to as Sakaida.
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 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 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. Therefore, claims 1, 6 and 7 are obvious in view of Sakaida.
Regarding claim 2, Sakaida teaches [0015] extreme ultraviolet light may be used for exposing the resist film. Therefore, claim 2 is obvious in view of Sakaida.
Regarding claim 3, Sakaida teaches [0059] a developer that may include a basic solution such as sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. Therefore, claim 3 is obvious in view of Sakaida.
Regarding claim 5, Sakaida teaches [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 Sakaida.
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 Furukawa et al. (US 2016/0299432 A1), herein referred to as Furukawa.
Sakaida 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 to include the specified acid generator compositions taught by Furukawa in order to devise a resist underlayer film that has improved pattern control properties.
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
Prosecution Insights