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 16, 18, 19, and 22-32 are pending. Claims 1-15, 17, 20, and 21 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No.2021-093090 filed on June 02, 2021 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
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 16, 18, 19, and 22-32 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the polymer (C1)” in line 15 and claim 19 recites the limitation "the polymer (C1)” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 31 and 32 recite the limitation "the film-forming component (C)” in line 2 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Therefore, it is not clear what the joint inventor claims as the invention in claims 16, 19, 31, and 32 of the instant application.
Claims 18 is rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 16.
Claims 22-30 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected claim 19.
For the examination on the merits, it is considered that claims 16 and 19 recite “wherein the composition further comprises a polymer (C1), and the polymer (C1) comprises a repeating unit represented by the formula (c2)”, and claims 31 and 32 recite “based on the polymer (C1)”.
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 16, 18, 19, 22-25, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishioka et al. (US 2009/0117493).
With regard to claim 16, Kishioka et al. teach an anti-reflective coating forming composition which may comprise an acid compound, such as camphor sulfonic acid (par.0049). Camphor sulfonic acid is represented by the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and it is equivalent to the organic acid compound (AA) represented by the formula (aa-1) in claim 16, wherein AL is a C7 alicyclic ring where at least one methylene ring is replaced with carbonyl, n11=1, n12=1, Xa1 is SO3H, n13=2, the two Ra1s are C1 alkyl groups, and n14=0.
Kishioka et al. further teach that the composition may further comprise a polymer compound (par.0051), such as a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene (par.0053). This is a polymer (C1) comprising a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 16.
Kishioka et al. fail to specifically teach a composition comprising camphor sulfonic acid and a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain an anti-reflective coating forming composition comprising camphor sulfonic acid and a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene, because these compounds are clearly taught by Kishioka et al. as components of the anti-reflective coating forming composition.
Kishioka et al. further teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition is coated onto a substrate and it is baked to form an anti-reflective coating (par.0062).
Therefore, the method in claim 16 is obvious over the method of forming an anti-reflective coating of Kishioka et al.
With regard to claim 18, Kishioka et al. teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition further comprises a solvent (par.0060).
With regard to claim 19, Kishioka et al. teach an anti-reflective coating forming composition which may comprise an acid compound, such as camphor sulfonic acid (par.0049).
Camphor sulfonic acid is the organic acid compound (AA) represented by the formula (aa-1) in claim 19, wherein AL is a C7 alicyclic ring where at least one methylene ring is replaced with carbonyl, n12=1, Xa1 is SO3H, n13=2, the two Ra1s are C1 alkyl groups, and n14=0.
Kishioka et al. further teach that the composition may further comprise a polymer compound (par.0051), such as a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene (par.0053). This is a polymer (C1) comprising a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 19.
Kishioka et al. teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition further comprises a solvent (par.0060).
Kishioka et al. fail to specifically teach a composition comprising camphor sulfonic acid, a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene, and a solvent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain an anti-reflective coating forming composition comprising camphor sulfonic acid, a copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene, and a solvent because these compounds are clearly taught by Kishioka et al. as components of the anti-reflective coating forming composition.
The limitation “lithography composition” in claim 19 is only an intended use and adds no patentable weight to the claim.
Therefore, the composition in claim 19 is obvious over the anti-reflective coating forming composition of Kishioka et al.
With regard to claim 22, Kishioka et al. teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition may comprise rheology controlling agents and adhesive auxiliary agents (par.0057), which are equivalent to the claimed additive (G).
With regard to claim 23, Kishioka et al. fail to specifically teach the claimed amount of acid.
However, it is well-known in the art that the amount of solvent in a composition may be varied in order to optimize the viscosity and the coating properties of the anti-reflective coating forming composition (see page 17, lines 13-20 of Nitta et al. (WO 2004/040377 A1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of solvent in the anti-reflective coating forming composition of Kishioka et al. in order to optimize the viscosity and the coating properties of the anti-reflective coating forming composition.
Therefore, the amount of acid based on the amount of solvent would be expected to at least overlap the claimed range.
Claim 24 recites only limitations regarding the intended use of the composition. These limitations do not add any patentable weight to the claim. Therefore, the composition in claim 24 is obvious over the anti-reflective coating forming composition of Kishioka et al.
With regard to claim 25, Kishioka et al. further teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition is coated onto a substrate and it is baked to form an anti-reflective coating (par.0062).
With regard to claim 30, Kishioka et al. further teach that an anti-reflective coating may be used for forming a semiconductor device (par.0001).
With regard to claims 31 and 32, Kishioka et al. teach that the anti-reflective coating forming composition may comprise the acid in an amount of 0.01 to 10mass% in the solid content (par.0050) and the polymer in an amount of 0.1 to 20 mass% in the solid content (par.0052).
When the composition comprises camphorsulfonic acid in an amount of 0.1mass% (within the taught range of 0.01 to 10 mass%) and the copolymer of 2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate with styrene in an amount of 10mass% (within the taught range of 0.1 to 20mass%), then the acid represents 1mass% based on the amount of polymer. This amount is within the claimed range.
Claims 16, 18, 19, 22-26, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (US 2005/0095532) in view of Nitta et al. (WO 2004/040377 A1).
With regard to claim 16, Kodama et al. teach a photosensitive composition comprising a resin (B) that increases the solubility in an alkaline developer by the action of an acid (par.0030). The resin (B) may be p-(t-butoxycarbonylmethyloxy)styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/styrene copolymer (par.0292), styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/t-butyl methacrylate copolymer (par.0297), styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/t-butyl acrylate copolymer (par.0299), or the copolymer of formula (R-6):
PNG
media_image2.png
228
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
423
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par.0304).
The copolymers above are polymers (C1) comprising a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 16.
Kodama et al. fail to teach that the photosensitive composition comprises an organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1).
Nitta et al. teach a chemical amplification positive-working photoresist composition comprising a resin (A) capable of increasing the alkali solubility with an aid (abstract). The composition may comprise a component (E) in order to decrease the dependency of the cross-sectional profile of the patterned resist layer on the material of the substrate on which the resist layer is formed (page 15, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a component (E) in the photosensitive composition of Kodama et al. in order to decrease the dependency of the cross-sectional profile of the patterned photosensitive layer on the material of the substrate on which the photosensitive layer is formed.
Nitta et al. further teach that the component (E) may be an alicyclic carboxylic acid (page 15, line 13), such as 1,1-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,3-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, and 1,1-cyclohexyl diacetic acid (page 15, lines 16-29).
1,1-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,3-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid and 1,4-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid are organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1) in claim 16, wherein AL is a C6 alicyclic ring, n11=2, n12=0, n13=0, n14=0, and Xa1 is COOH.
1,1-cyclohexyl diacetic acid is an organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1) in claim 16, wherein AL is a C6 alicyclic ring, n11=2, n12=0, n13=0, n14=0, and Xa1 is COOH.
Kodama et al. further teach that the photosensitive composition is coated on a substrate and it is dried to form a photosensitive film (par.0622).
Therefore, the method of Kodama modified by Nitta is equivalent to the method in claim 16 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 18, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition further comprises organic solvents (par.0590).
With regard to claim 19, Kodama et al. teach a photosensitive composition comprising a resin (B) that increases the solubility in an alkaline developer by the action of an acid (par.0030). The resin (B) may be p-(t-butoxycarbonylmethyloxy)styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/styrene copolymer (par.0292), styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/t-butyl methacrylate copolymer (par.0297), styrene/p-hydroxystyrene/t-butyl acrylate copolymer (par.0299), or the copolymer of formula (R-6):
PNG
media_image2.png
228
223
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
423
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(par.0304).
The copolymers above are polymers (C1) comprising a repeating unit of formula (2) in claim 19.
Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition further comprises organic solvents (par.0590), but fail to teach that the photosensitive composition comprises an organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1).
Nitta et al. teach a chemical amplification positive-working photoresist composition comprising a resin (A) capable of increasing the alkali solubility with an acid (abstract). The composition may comprise a component (E) in order to decrease the dependency of the cross-sectional profile of the patterned resist layer on the material of the substrate on which the resist layer is formed (page 15, lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a component (E) in the photosensitive composition of Kodama et al. in order to decrease the dependency of the cross-sectional profile of the patterned photosensitive layer on the material of the substrate on which the photosensitive layer is formed.
Nitta et al. further teach that the component (E) may be an alicyclic carboxylic acid (page 15, line 13), such as 1,1-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,3-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,4-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, and 1,1-cyclohexyl diacetic acid (page 15, lines 16-29).
1,1-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid, 1,3-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid and 1,4-cyclohexane dicarboxylic acid are organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1) in claim 19, wherein AL is a C6 alicylic ring, n11=2, n12=0, n13=0, n14=0, and Xa1 is COOH.
1,1-cyclohexyl diacetic acid is an organic acid compound (AA) of formula (aa-1) in claim 19, wherein AL is a C6 alicylic ring, n11=2, n12=0, n13=0, n14=0, and Xa1 is COOH.
Therefore, the composition of Kodama modified by Nitta is equivalent to the composition in claim 19 of the instant application.
With regard to claim 22, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition further comprises additives such as a dye, a plasticizer, a surfactant, a photosensitizer (par.0613).
With regard to claim 23, Nitta et al. teach that the component (E) may represent 0.001 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the resin (A) capable of increasing the alkali solubility with an acid (page 16, lines 14-17).Nitta et al. further teach a high amount of solvent in a photosensitive results in a long time to dry a wet coating layer to form a dried photosensitive layer, and a low amount of solvent causes difficulties in handling a solution due to unduly high viscosity (page 17, lines 13-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of solvent in the photosensitive composition of Kodama modified by Nitta in order to optimize the drying time and the viscosity of the photosensitive solution.
Therefore, the amount of acid component (E) based on the amount of solvent would be expected to at least overlap the claimed range.
With regard to claim 24, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition is used for a lithography process (par.0622-0623).
With regard to claim 25, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition is coated on a substrate and it is dried to form a photosensitive film (par.0622).
With regard to claim 26, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive film is exposed to radiation and the exposed film is developed to form a pattern (par.0623).
With regard to claim 30, Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composoitioon may be used for manufacturing a semiconductor device (par.0002).
With regard to claims 31 and 32, Nitta et al. teach that the component (E) may represent 0.001 to 10 parts per 100 parts of the resin (A) capable of increasing the alkali solubility with an acid (page 16, lines 14-17).
The resin capable of increasing the alkali solubility with an acid is a resin comprising styrene repeating units in the composition of Kodama modified by Nitta (see par. 0292, par.0297, par.0299, and par.0304 of Kodama et al.).
The range above includes the claimed range.
9. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (US 2005/0095532) in view of Nitta et al. (WO 2004/040377 A1) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Evans et al. (US Patent 5,118,584).
With regard to claim 27, Kodama modified by Nitta teach the method of claim 26 (see paragraph 8 above). Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition is a positive working composition with low generation of pattern collapse (par.0024), but fail to teach the method in claim 27.
Evans et al. teach a method wherein a pattern of a positive resist is formed on a layer of aluminum by photolithography, and a layer of second refractory metal is deposited over the positive photoresist pattern. A layer of gold is then deposited over the second refractory metal. The pattern of photoresist and the overlying layer are removed to exposed the underlying aluminum (column 1, lines 58-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the positive working composition of Kodama modified by Nitta as the positive photoresist in the process of Evans et al., in order to take advantage of its properties.
10. Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (US 2005/0095532) in view of Nitta et al. (WO 2004/040377 A1) as applied to claim 26 above and in further view of Yun et al. (US Patent 6,153,469).
With regard to claims 28 and 29, Kodama modified by Nitta teach the method of claim 26 (see paragraph 8 above). Kodama et al. teach that the photosensitive composition is a positive working composition with low generation of pattern collapse (par.0024), but fail to teach the method in claims 28 and 29.
Yun et al. teach a method wherein the interlayer insulative film (65) is applied on top of the semiconductor substrate with the doped semiconductor film pattern (57), the second conductive film (67) is applied on top of the interlayer insulative film (65), and a photoresist film is formed on top of the second conductive film (67). The photoresist film is patterned by photolithography using a photomask thereby forming a second photoresist pattern (PR2). The second conductive film (67), the interlayer insulative film (65), and the semiconductor film pattern (57) are sequentially etched using the second photoresist pattern (PR2) as an etch mask thus forming a floating gate (57’), an interlayer insulative film pattern (65’), a word line (67’) as a control gate electrode (fig.14A-14B, column 7, line 64-column 8, line 28).
The interlayer insulative film (65) may be a silicon nitride film (column 7, line 65-column 8, line 2), and the second conductive film (67) is a doped polysilicon film (column 8, lines 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the positive working composition of Kodama modified by Nitta as the composition for the photoresist film in the process of Yun et al., in order to take advantage of its properties.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 18, 19, and 22-32 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 amendment to par.0024;
-the objection to claim 20 is moot after the cancelation of claim 20;
-the rejection of claims 16-20 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirosaki et al. (US 2001/0018163) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 16 and 19;
-the rejection of claims 16-26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeon et al. (US Patent 6,210,859) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 16 and 19;
-the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US Patent 6,210,859) as applied to claim 26 and in further view of Evans et al. (US Patent 5,118,584) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 19; and
-the rejection of claims 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US Patent 6,210,859) as applied to claims 25 and 26 and in further view of Yun et al. (US Patent 6,153,469) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 19.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 16, 18, 19, and 22-32 are shown in paragraphs 4-10 above.
Conclusion
12. 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