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 1-12 are under consideration
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the metal compound included in the metal-containing resist". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, the claim 1 limitation of “A composition for removing edge beads of a metal-containing resist comprising a phosphorous acid-based compound and an organic solvent” is unclear, as the phosphorous acid-based compound and organic solvent may be interpreted as being part of either the composition for removing edge beads or as part of the metal-containing resist.
For the sake of examination, the examiner will interpret "the metal compound included in the metal-containing resist" as "a metal compound included in the metal-containing resist", and “A composition for removing edge beads of a metal-containing resist comprising a phosphorous acid-based compound” as “A composition for removing edge beads of a metal-containing resist, wherein the composition for removing edge beads comprises a phosphorous acid-based compound and an organic solvent”.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waller (US20180046086A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12,
Waller teaches methods of reducing metal residue in edge bead region from metal-containing resists [abstract], where the metal based resist composition comprises alkyl tin oxo/hydroxo moieties [claims 1-2] and the bead edge rinse solution (composition for removing edge beads) comprises an organic solvent and an additive [claim 1], where the additive may include phosphoric acids, phosphates, and phosphonates (phosphorous acid-based compounds) [0019], reading on instant claim 1.
Waller also teaches the solutions can comprise of the additive from about 0.1 wt % to about 25 wt %, in further embodiments from about 0.2 wt % to about 20 wt % and in additional embodiments from about 0.25 wt % to about 20 wt %, and the solvent may be PGMEA [0019]. Waller further teaches an example wafer 69 using a solution containing 83 wt% PGMEA and 17 wt% additive, as well as example wafer 56 using 2 wt% ethylhexylphosphate (phosphorous acid-based compound), 88 wt% PGME, and 10 wt% water [0040-0042, tables 3, 4-5, and 7], reading on instant claims 2-4 and 7-10.
Waller teaches a substrate 120 is obtained and is coated 122 with metal-based resist 124. Then, a bead edge rinse step 126 is performed to remove resist along edge 128 of substrate 120 to form edged resist layer 130. The resulting structure 132 with edged resist layer 130 can then be used to a patterning step for substrate 120 [0022, fig 2]. Waller further teaches their edge bead removal (EBR) rinse is performed prior to any thermal processing or baking following deposition of the photoresist (reading on the instant step of drying and heating the coated resultant to form a metal-containing resist film on the substrate) [0015], that patterning generally involves selective exposure of a thin layer of a radiation sensitive material (resist) to form a pattern that is then transferred into subsequent layers or functional materials [0003], and that a developer is used for the resist [0027], reading on the instant step of exposing and developing the dried and heated resultant to form a resist pattern. Further the use of an exposure and development step to form a resist pattern would be well known and anticipated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading on instant claim 12.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (US20180046086A1, published 2018) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11,
Waller teaches the above limitations set forth.
Waller teaches the tin based resists include metal oxo/hydroxo or carboxylate based resists [0018]. Further teaches the tin-based resists can be formed following deposition based on in situ hydrolysis based on compositions represented by the formula RnSnX4-n where n=1 or 2, in which X is a ligand with a hydrolysable M-X bond. In general, suitable hydrolysable ligands (X in RSnX3) may be alkoxides RO− and carboxylates RCOO−, where R is a hydrocarbyl group with 1-31 carbon atoms [0017], overlapping the metal compound of instant chemical formula 1, reading on instant claim 11. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waller (US20180046086A1, published 2018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yaguchi (JP2008216843A, published 2008, references made to the provided translation).
Regarding claims 5-6,
Waller teaches the above limitations set forth.
Yaguchi, analogous art, teaches resist stripping compositions comprising of a phosphorus-containing compound and an organic solvent [abstract]. Yaguchi teaches their phosophorus-containing compound is preferably phosphoric acid, phosphonic acid, or phosphinic acid, where the phosphorus-containing compound has an effect of suppressing corrosion of the wiring material and the like [page 3 paragraphs 8-9].
As both teach resist stripping (removing) compositions comprising of an organic solvent and a compound which may be a phosphoric acid, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the phosphonic acid of Yaguchi as the additive of Waller would result in a comparable and expected composition for removing resist edge beads, further motivated by the anti-corrosion benefits disclosed by Yaguchi, reading on instant claims 5-6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US6323169B1 teaches resist stripping compositions containing a chelating agent which may be a phosphonic chelating agent including methyldiphosphonic acid (methylene diphosphonic acid).
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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights