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. 18/578342 by Yamamoto et al.
Claims 27-36 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 28-31 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.
Claims 28-31 recite the limitation "resist pattern cleaning solution". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because claim 27, from which claims 28-31 depend, recites a “resist pattern cleaning liquid” which differs from the recitation of a "resist pattern cleaning solution".
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 27-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,680,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the patent recite analogous methods for manufacturing a resist pattern
Regarding claim 27 of the instant application, the issued patent recites (Claim 1) a method for manufacturing a resist pattern comprising applying a photosensitive resin composition on a substrate with or without one or more intervening layers, to form a photosensitive resin layer; exposing the photosensitive resin layer to radiation; developing the exposed photosensitive resin layer; and cleaning the developed layer with a resist pattern cleaning liquid comprising an alkylcarboxylic acid compound and a solvent, wherein the alkylcarboxylic acid compound is represented by the formula: A1-COOH, where A1 is C4-12 alkyl and the solvent comprises water.
Claim 1 of the patent differs from claim 27 of the instant application due to the claimed alkyl carbon group being a 4-12 carbon group compared to claim 27 of the instant application where the claimed alkyl carbon group is a 3-12 carbon group. However, the claims are not considered to be patentably distinct from each other because the 3-12 alkyl carbon group recited in claim 27 overlaps the 4-12 alkyl carbon group recited in claim 1 of the patent. Therefore, the claimed methods recited in the instant application and the patent are considered to be obvious with respect to each other.
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.
Claims 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US Patent 8,361,237 B2), herein referred to as Wu.
Regarding claim 27, Wu teaches (Column 10, Lines 25-38 and Claim 2) a method for manufacturing a resist pattern comprising applying a photosensitive resin composition on a substrate (photoresist layer is coated on a substrate); exposing the photosensitive resin layer to radiation (using a photolithographic process to form a pattern defined in the photoresist layer); developing the exposed photosensitive resin layer (subjecting the patterned photoresist layer to a plasma etch); and cleaning the developed layer with a resist pattern cleaning liquid (using a wet clean formulation). Wu further teaches (Claim 2) contacting the resist pattern with a resist pattern cleaning liquid (wet clean formulation) that comprises an alkyl carboxylic acid (octanoic acid having 8 carbons) and a solvent comprising water (deionized water). The amount of octanoic acid present (acid content) in the wet clean formulation is greater than 0.84 weight percent and less than or equal to 2 weight percent. Since the weight percent of octanoic acid taught by Wu falls within the range of 0.01 to 10 mass percent (weight percent), the wet clean formulation taught by Wu anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 28, Wu teaches (Claim 2) the wet clean formulation can include a nitrogen containing compound (amine selected from the group consisting of triethanol amine and N-methyl monoethanol amine).
Regarding claim 29, Wu teaches (Table 1) the content of the nitrogen containing compound (triethanol amine) in the wet clean formulation is 2.8 weight percent. Since the weight percent of triethanol amine taught by Wu falls within the range of 0.01 to 10 mass percent (weight percent), the triethanol amine content taught by Wu anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Wu teaches (Column 16, Lines 1-15) the wet clean formulation may further include a hydroxy containing compound (corrosion inhibitor additive) such as hydroxybenzotriazole. The amount of the corrosion inhibitor may be incorporated in the wet clean formulation in an amount of 0.1 to 5 weight percent. Since the weight percent of hydroxybenzotriazole taught by Wu falls within the range of 0.01 to 10 mass percent (weight percent), the hydroxybenzotriazole content taught by Wu anticipates the claimed range.
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 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US Patent 8,361,237 B2), herein referred to as Wu, in view of Iida et al. (US 2020/0301283 A1), herein referred to as Iida.
Wu does not explicitly teach the limitations of claims 32-36. However, from the same field of technology, Iida recites a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device that includes forming a resist pattern.
In view of claim 32, Iida teaches [0088-0089, 0094] forming a resist film with a chemically amplified resist composition and employing an EUV exposure apparatus to expose the resist film with EUV wavelength light. At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a chemically amplified resist composition and an EUV lithographic exposure process because such resist compositions and EUV lithography are well known for producing desired nanometer features in a resist composition.
In view of claims 33 and 34, Iida teaches (Claim 14) manufacturing a semiconductor device with the claimed method of forming a resist pattern. With regard to the space size limitations recited in claim 33, since Iida teaches employing EUV wavelength light (with an approximate wavelength of 13 nm), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form features in the range on 10 nm to 30 because EUV lithographic processes are capable of forming such features.
In view of claims 35 and 36, Iida teaches [0102 and 0111] using the resist pattern as an etching mask and forming fine circuit patterns such as wiring patterns on a semiconductor substrate. At the time of the effective filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further process the resist pattern as an etching mask and forming circuit patterns such as wiring patterns in order to optimize the feature density of a semiconductor wafer.
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