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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are under consideration
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
The term “assuming” is unclear, particularly whether or not the types of atoms are then required to be the same.
Further, the term “type of atoms” is unclear, such as whether the term refers to atomic elements with shared attributes, elements with a similar placement on the periodic table, or that all elements in the compound must be the same element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (WO2020032398A1, published 2020, references made to related US publication US20210333709A1).
Regarding claims 1-6,
Lee teaches a liquid composition comprising of a ketone, an ester, an ether, an additive, or a mixture thereof, where organic solvents, such as ketones, esters, and ethers, may be mixed and used, and additionally, in order to improve the rate of dissolution of organic materials, a mixture thereof may be used [0041-0042]. Further, Lee teaches an example composition 3 in table 1 comprising of 95 parts of AA and PGMA (organic solvents) and 5 parts of OA (oxalic acid, AMW is about 11.26 per the instant specification) [0050], reading on instant claims 2-4.
Lee teaches forming an Organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist film comprising of dibutyltin dilaurate (aligning with the instant metal compound represented by instant chemical formula 1, alkyl tin carboxyl group) [0052-0054], reading on instant claims 5-6.
Lee further teaches that in order to evaluate the edge-cutting performance of the organic-inorganic hybrid compound processing solvent prepared in each of Examples and Comparative Examples, evaluation was performed while applying the DTD solution prepared as described above on an 8-inch silicon wafer through spin coating. The performance of removal of beads was evaluated using an optical microscope [0054], reading on the instant removing edge beads from metal containing resists, reading on instant claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2020032398A1, published 2020, references made to related US publication US20210333709A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US20160202610A1, published 2016).
Regarding claims 7-8,
Lee teaches the above limitations set forth.
Lee teaches a rework process for removing the photoresist using the organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist where a process and a processing solution capable of completely removing the thin film (which the examiner interprets to include both patterned and un-patterned photoresist films) without the presence of inorganic particles are required [0031], where the best way to process a mixture of organic and inorganic materials is to have high solubility of the organic material and high chelating performance for the inorganic material [0033], such as their organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist processing solution [0040], reading on instant claim 8.
Lee teaches forming a pattern using the photoresist composition [0027], where a pattern may be formed in a photoresist through exposure to a light source and development [0002].
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach a post exposure bake step.
Ahn, analogous art, teaches a thinner composition for cleaning an edge portion of a substrate [abstract, fig 1], where a post exposure baking (PEB, heating and drying) process may be further performed after the exposure process, where the acid may be uniformly distributed in the exposed portion by the PEB process. Thus, a leaving group such as an acetal group or an ether group combined with the back-bone chain of the photoresist material may be deprotected or separated in the exposed portion [0108].
As both Ahn and Lee teach compositions for rinsing an edge portion of a substate coated with a photoresist film, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further perform a post exposure bake step as taught by Ahn in the method of Lee for the benefits disclosed by Ahn, reading on instant claim 7. Further, PEB processes would be well known and expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180046086A1 teaches methods of reducing metal residue in edge bead region from metal-containing resists.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights