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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1(D)-1(F), various elements that were labeled in previous figures are unlabeled (e.g., 5a is labeled in Fig. 1(C) but not in Fig. 1(D), 4a is labeled in Fig. 1(D) but not Fig. 1(E), etc.). Similarly, Fig. 2(J), 2(K), 2(L), and 2(M) fail to label all of the elements despite Fig. 2(I), for instance, labeling each element. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solution and Solid-State Structures of Several Dialkyltin Dicarboxylate Complexes, [R2Sn(O2CR’CO2)]x: Polymorphic Organotin Polymers (hereby referred to as Wengrovius).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 6-7, Wengrovius discloses organotin-based polymers. In particular, Wengrovius discloses several polymers obtained from the reaction of dibutyltin(IV) oxide with dicarboxylic acids (Wengrovius, page 1338, right column). See, for instance, the below scheme, which is shown on page 1338, right column of Wengrovius.
PNG
media_image1.png
110
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above reaction scheme, a condensation reaction is performed using an organotin compound according to the formula SnOQ2 (wherein each Q is a butyl group) to produce a polymer having a repeating unit according to general formula (1A), wherein the R groups defined in the above scheme satisfy the definition of W1 as recited by instant claim 1. Notably, when the R group is C6H4 (phthalate), a polymer having the repeating unit according to Synthesis Example 9 of the instant application (see Table 1, paragraph 0170 of the instant application’s specification) is obtained. When phthalate is utilized, the W1 group is a phenyl group and thus W1 is a divalent unsaturated hydrocarbon group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms that is represented by general formula (b-1) according to instant claims 6 and 7. The Examiner notes that in claim 1, the limitation “for forming a metal-containing film” is interpreted as intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight. Refer to MPEP 2111.02 II.
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solution and Solid-State Structures of Several Dialkyltin Dicarboxylate Complexes, [R2Sn(O2CR’CO2)]x: Polymorphic Organotin Polymers (hereby referred to as Wengrovius). In view of US 20230236509 A1 (hereby referred to as Sekito).
Regarding Claims 3-5 and 8-9, Wengrovius discloses an organotin polymer according to instant claim 1, as discussed above. As noted above, Wengrovius discloses a condensation polymer that shares a repeating unit with Synthesis Example 9 of the instant application. However, Wengrovius is silent in regards to the end caps of the polymer.
Sekito teaches a spin coating composition comprising a carbon material, a metal organic compound, and a solvent, as well as a manufacturing method of a metal oxide film above a substrate. The metal organic compound is preferably a metal organic complex (Sekito, paragraph 0120), and may contain tin (Sn) (Sekito, paragraph 0124). The metal organic compound taught by Sekito is analogous to the organotin polymer disclosed by Wengrovius. The metal compound may have an end cap including an ethylenically unsaturated bond, such as the general formula (a-1) recited by instant claim 3 (Sekito, paragraph 0127). Sekito further teaches that the end cap may be an organic moiety represented by formula (B)-1-1 (Sekito, paragraph 0130), which is an alkoxy group. The organic moiety may comprise an ethylenically unsaturated bond (Sekito, paragraph 0129), and thus an end cap according to one of general formulae (2C), as recited by instant claim 5 would be an obvious variant in view of Sekito’s disclosure.
Wengrovius and Sekito are analogous art because both references pertain to organometallics comprising tin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to terminate the polymer disclosed by Wengrovius with the end groups taught by Sekito because the end groups taught by Sekito may improve the solubility of the organometallic in solution and/or provide additional polymerization binding points (Sekito, paragraph 0126). The Examiner notes that when the polymer disclosed by Wengrovius (which has the repeating unit of Synthesis Example 9 of the instant application, as discussed above) is provided with the end group taught by Sekito, the polymer according to instant claims 3-5 and 8-9 is obtained.
Regarding Claims 10-12, Wengrovius discloses the organotin polymer according to instant claim 1, as discussed above. Wengrovius discloses that the polymer is soluble in organic solvents, such as toluene and dichloromethane (Wengrovius, page 1338, second column). However, Wengrovius is silent in regards to a composition functioning as a resist underlayer film material.
Sekito teaches a spin coating composition comprising an organometallic compound and a solvent. The composition taught by Sekito is used as a resist underlayer film material (Sekito, paragraph 0023-0024). The composition may contain a surfactant (Sekito, paragraph 0154) or a crosslinking agent (Sekito, paragraph 0158). Additionally, the solvent used may be a high-boiling-solvent, such as propylene glycol, n-nonyl alcohol (also known as 1-nonanol), n-decanol (also known as 1-decanol), diethylene glycol, and dipropylene glycol (Sekito, paragraph 0147). The Applicant names these same solvents as high-boiling-point solvents having a boiling point of 180 °C or higher (see paragraph 0100 of the instant application’s specification).
Wengrovius and Sekito are analogous art because both references pertain to organometallics comprising tin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to formulate a resist underlayer film composition comprising the polymer disclosed by Wengrovius and a high-boiling-point solvent, as taught by Sekito, because such solvents may provide improved storage stability of the composition (Sekito, paragraph 0148).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solution and Solid-State Structures of Several Dialkyltin Dicarboxylate Complexes, [R2Sn(O2CR’CO2)]x: Polymorphic Organotin Polymers (hereby referred to as Wengrovius). In view of US 20230236509 A1 (hereby referred to as Sekito) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20200087534 A1 (hereby referred to as Rahman).
Regarding Claims 13-14, the combination of Wengrovius and Sekito renders obvious the composition according to instant claim 10. However, both Wengrovius and Sekito are silent in regards to the inclusion of metal oxide nanoparticles in the composition.
Rahman teaches a spin-on composition containing metal oxide nanoparticles and a polymer, as well as a method of processing a substrate. Rahman’s composition comprises a solvent, metal oxide nanoparticles, and a high carbon polymer (Rahman, paragraph 0045). The metal oxide nanoparticles may be zirconium oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium oxide, tungsten, and/or tin oxide nanoparticles (Rahman, paragraph 0085). The average particle diameter of the metal oxide particles is between 1 nm to 100 nm (Rahman, paragraph 0091).
Wengrovius, Sekito, and Rahman are analogous art because each reference pertains to organometallics and their uses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include metal oxide nanoparticles having a particle size less than 100 nm, as taught by Rahman, in the composition obtained by combining the teachings of Wengrovius and Sekito because including nanoparticles in the composition improves etching resistance towards oxygen plasmas (Rahman, paragraph 0007).
Claim(s) 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solution and Solid-State Structures of Several Dialkyltin Dicarboxylate Complexes, [R2Sn(O2CR’CO2)]x: Polymorphic Organotin Polymers (hereby referred to as Wengrovius). In view of US 20230236509 A1 (hereby referred to as Sekito) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20210286266 A1 (hereby referred to as Nakahara).
Regarding Claims 15-21, the combination of Wengrovius and Sekito renders obvious the composition according to instant claim 10. Wengrovius is silent in regards to patterning processes. Sekito teaches a method of forming a metal oxide film, wherein the method includes spin coating the aforementioned spin coating composition onto a substrate and heating said spin coating composition to make a metal oxide film (Sekito, paragraph 0161). Following the formation of the metal oxide film, a resist coating composition is applied above the metal oxide film (Sekito, paragraph 0172). The resist coating composition is exposed to radiation in a patternwise manner (Sekito, paragraph 0175-0176). Following exposure, the patterned resist composition is developed (Sekito, paragraph 0178). The patterned and developed resist composition is then used as an etching mask to dry etch the underlying layer (e.g. the metal oxide film) (Sekito, paragraph 0187). The etched metal oxide film is then used as an etching mask to form a pattern on the substrate (Sekito, paragraph 0188). Sekito teaches that there can be underlayers and/or interlayers in the multi-layer configurations manufactured (Sekito, paragraph 0182). For instance, anti-reflection coatings and the like may be formed in the structure (Sekito, paragraph 0172). However, Sekito is silent in regards to the formation of the specific interlayers and/or underlayers recited by instant claims 15-21, such as the inorganic silicon-based hard mask layer, the organic thin film, and the like.
Nakahara teaches a material for forming organic films and patterning processes. The patterning process taught by Nakahara includes steps of forming a resist underlayer film on the body to be processed, forming a resist middle layer film on the resist underlayer film, forming a resist upper layer film on the resist middle layer film, forming a resist pattern in the resist upper layer film by patternwise exposure and development, and transferring the pattern to the underlying layers via etching (Nakahara, paragraph 0167-0174). Additional similar processes are also taught, wherein an organic antireflective coating is formed on the resist middle layer film (Nakahara, paragraphs 0178-0194 and 0196-0204). The resist middle layer film may be an inorganic hard mask formed of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxynitride (Nakahara, paragraph 0195). Thus, the organic antireflective coating formed on the resist middle layer film corresponds to the organic thin film recited by instant claim 17. The inorganic hard mask middle layer film is formed by a CVD or ALD method (Nakahara, paragraph 0195). Nakahara further teaches that the body to be processed can be a semiconductor device substrate coated with, for instance, a metal oxide film (Nakahara, paragraph 0213). Thus, the formation of the metal oxide film on a substrate that is taught by Sekito, when combined with steps including the formation and processing of the additional layers taught by Nakahara, serves to satisfy the combination of method steps recited by claims 15-21 of the instant application.
Wengrovius, Sekito, and Nakahara are analogous art because each reference pertains to organometallics and their uses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to produce additional layers between the metal oxide layer and the resist layer (such as an inorganic silicon-containing hard mask and an organic antireflective film) as taught by Nakahara, in the patterning process taught by Sekito and using the composition obtained by combining the teachings of Wengrovius and Sekito because such a configuration of layers, when used to pattern a substrate, allows for a precisely formed fine pattern in the substrate to be obtained (Nakahara, paragraph 0221).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights