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 .
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, 7-8, and 14-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0207940 (hereinafter referred to as Muramatsu).
Muramatsu, in the abstract, and in paragraph nos. [0011]-[0013], [0032], discloses forming a layer of a PS-b-PMMA (polystyrene-b-polymethyl methacrylate) block copolymer on a substrate, and that the block copolymer is phase-separated in the layer to comprise PS regions (claimed PS chains) and PMMA regions (claimed PMMA chains) i.e., form a plurality of polymer domains, and Muramatsu, in [0034], discloses that contacting the block copolymer layer (that has the claimed regions/domains) with a developer (solution) causes the removal of PMMA regions (claimed second region). Muramatsu, in [0040], discloses that the PS-b-PMMA layer is irradiated with the UV light. Muramatsu, in [0037], discloses that at least a chemical bond in the structural unit of PMMA in the PMMA region (second region) is broken upon irradiation with UV, and those PMMA regions of the phase separated block copolymer that are irradiated with UV will be removed by the developer. Muramatsu, in [0034]-[0036], discloses that the PMMA regions are removed (mostly PMMA, greater proportion of the PMMA regions than the PS regions) while leaving the PS regions as the pattern. Muramatsu, in [0037]-[0038], discloses that the irradiation of UV light can be through a photomask i.e., all the phase separated PMMA regions may not be irradiated and therefore the regions that are not irradiated (PMMA regions blocked by the mask) will not be removed by the developer since the bonds of the repeating units of the PMMA chains are not broken and thereby the subsequent development will not remove those unirradiated PMMA regions (claimed third region) (claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15).
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) 2-6, 9-13, 16-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0207940 (hereinafter referred to as Muramatsu) in view of U. S. Patent No. 6,268,323 (hereinafter referred to as Honda).
Muramatsu is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Muramatsu, in [0008], [0041], [0088], discloses that the developer solution (claimed solution) that is used for removing the irradiated regions of PMMA region can include an aqueous solvent and that developer can be a 2.38 % by weight of TMAH solution i.e., the pH of the solution is less than 7, and the solution can include 2.38% TMAH (claimed pH adjuster), and includes at least 10% by weight of water (claims 3, 10, and 17). Muramatsu, in [0091], discloses that the developer can include a mixed solution i.e., TMAH mixed along with methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) (claimed non-alcohol solvent) and isopropyl alcohol (IPA) (claimed one alcohol solvent).
The difference between the claims and Muramatsu is that Muramatsu does not disclose that the claimed amount for the first alcohol solvent or the second alcohol solvent or the non-alcohol solvent or the organic solvent as recited in claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, 18-20.
Honda, in col 5, lines 66-67, and in col 6, lines 6-11, discloses that the cleaning composition can be used for removing PMMA resist. Honda, in col 3, lines 53-61, and on page 8, lines 16-27, discloses that the cleaning composition can include 50% by weight of the alcohol compound, and at least 10% by weight of non-alcohol compound. Honda, in col 3, lines 57-62, discloses that the mixtures of alcohol can be used as part of the cleaning solution and includes the claimed amount of the first alcohol solvent and second alcohol solvent (claimed swell controller). Honda, in col 4, lines 10-12, and lines 42-47, discloses that the cleaning composition can include water (greater than 1% by weight) in the claimed amount and discloses the use of the organic solvent in the claimed amount of at least 10% by weight of organic solvent.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Muramatsu by employing the claimed amount of the different solvents in the solution for removing the PMMA regions as taught by Honda because Muramatsu teaches the use of organic solvents and mixtures of organic solvent along with TMAH as the solution mixture for removing the PMMA regions and does not prohibit the claimed amount of the solvents in the mixture, and Honda in col 4, lines 16-29, teaches the removal of photoresist and/or residues (after exposure) using mixtures of organic solvents and alkanolamine compounds and water, and in col 5, lines 1-5, col 6, lines 1-12, Honda teaches that using the composition for cleaning the PMMA resist from the substrate enables excellent prevention of metal contamination of substrate surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 25, 2026.
