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 1-14 are pending.
The foreign priority application No.2021-140616 filed on August 31, 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 includes the limitation “(flow rate 20(sccm)). It is not clear if the limitation in parenthesis is optional or it is required by the claim.
Therefore, it is not clear what is the joint inventor claiming as the invention in claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakasugi et al. (US 2015/0118624).
With regard to claim 1, Nakasugi et al. teach a composition capable of forming an underlayer film, wherein the composition comprises a dendrimer compound (abstract).
The dendrimer compound is represented by the formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
38
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0040), wherein the group A may be represented by the formula (2):
PNG
media_image2.png
34
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0054).
The dendrimer is a high-generation dendrimer compound which repeatedly contains the substituents represented by the formula (2)(par.0066), so it is equivalent to the “dendritic polymer” in claim 1.
Therefore, the composition of Nakasugi et al. anticipates the composition in claim 1 of the instant application.
The limitations of claim 1 “for spin-on carbon film formation” and “that is a composition for forming a spin-on carbon film as an underlayer film for lithography” show only an intended use and add no patentable weight to the claim.
With regard to claim 2, Nakasugi et al. teach that in the formula (1) each L1 is an amide bond or an ester bond (par.0013).
With regard to claims 4, 5, and 9, the specification of the instant application teaches that the dendritic polymer may have an ester bond or an amide bond (section (2) in par.0009), the dendritic polymer has an initial decomposition temperature of 300oC or higher, has a solubility in a semiconductor coating solvent of 0.5% by mass or more, and an etching rate of 60nm/min or less when the etching rate is measured with an output of 100W, a pressure of 8Pa, and an etching gas CF4 with a flow rate of 20sccm (sections (4),(5), and (9) in par.0009).
The dendrimers of Nakasugi et al. have amide or ester bonds (see par.0010-0011, par.0013, par.0051, par.0066).
Therefore, absent a record to the contrary, it would be expected that the dendrimers with amide or ester bonds of Nakasugi et al. have an initial decomposition temperature of 300oC or higher, have a solubility in a semiconductor coating solvent of 0.5% by mass or more, and an etching rate of 60nm/min or less when the etching rate is measured with an output of 100W, a pressure of 8Pa, and an etching gas CF4 with a flow rate of 20sccm.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). (MPEP 2112.I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY)
With regard to claim 6, Product 3 in par.0097 has a carbon content of about 70.8wt%. This amount is within the claimed range.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Nakasugi et al. teach that the composition further comprises a solvent, a thermal acid generating agent, and a crosslinking agent (par.0067).
With regard to claim 10, Nakasugi et al. teach a method comprising the steps of:
-forming an underlayer film by coating the composition on a desired substrate and heating the composition;
-forming a photoresist layer on the underlayer film;
-exposing to light the substrate covered with the underlayer film and the photoresist layer; and
-developing said exposed photoresist layer with a developer (par.0078-0081).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Baldwin et al. (WO 03/044078).
With regard to claims 1 and 2, Baldwin et al. teach an antireflective coating for photolithography including a porogen (abstract), wherein the porogen may be a hyperbranched polymer (page 23, lines 9-10). Suitable hyperbranched polymers are hyperbranched polyesters, such as hyperbranched poly(caprolactone) and polyethers, such as polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide (page 23, lines 26-28).
The hyperbranched poly(caprolactone) comprises ester groups, and it meets the limitations of claim 2.
The polyethers (polyethylene oxide and polypropyleneoxide) comprise ether bonds and meet the limitations of claim 2.
Therefore, the composition for antireflective coating of Baldwin et al. anticipates the composition in claims 1 and 2 of the instant application.
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the composition in claims 1 and 2, because Baldwin et al. teach that hyperbranched poly(caprolactone) and polyethers, such as polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide may be used in as porogens in compositions for an antireflective coating for photolithography.
The limitations of claim 1 “for spin-on carbon film formation” and “that is a composition for forming a spin-on carbon film as an underlayer film for lithography” show only an intended use and add no patentable weight to the claim.
With regard to claims 4, 5, and 9, the specification of the instant application teaches that the dendritic polymer may have an ester bond or an ether bond (section (2) in par.0009), the dendritic polymer has an initial decomposition temperature of 300oC or higher, has a solubility in a semiconductor coating solvent of 0.5% by mass or more, and an etching rate of 60nm/min or less when the etching rate is measured with an output of 100W, a pressure of 8Pa, and an etching gas CF4 with a flow rate of 20sccm (sections (4),(5), and (9) in par.0009).
The hyperbranched polyesters, such as hyperbranched poly(caprolactone) and polyethers, such as polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide of Baldwin et al. comprise esters or ether bonds.
Therefore, absent a record to the contrary, it would be expected that the hyperbranched poly(caprolactone), polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide of Baldwin et al. have an initial decomposition temperature of 300oC or higher, have a solubility in a semiconductor coating solvent of 0.5% by mass or more, and an etching rate of 60nm/min or less when the etching rate is measured with an output of 100W, a pressure of 8Pa, and an etching gas CF4 with a flow rate of 20sccm (MPEP 2112.I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY).
With regard to claim 7, Baldwin et al. further teach that the composition for the antireflective coating further comprises a solvent (abstract).
With regard to claim 10, Baldwin et al. further teach a process wherein a dielectric layer (22) is deposited onto the silicon substrate (20). The antireflective coating (24) is applied above the dielectric layer (22), it is covered by the photoresist layer (26) to produce a stack. The stack is exposed to ultraviolet radiation through a mask, and then the exposed stack is developed (page 45, line 29-page 46, line 18).
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.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (WO 03/044078) in view of Yao et al. (WO 2010/004377)
With regard to claim 11, Baldwin et al. teach the composition of claim 1 (see paragraph 9 above). The antireflective coating absorbs strongly and uniformly in the UV region, can satisfy any goals of increasing etch selectivity and stripping selectivity, and can satisfy any goals of minimizing fill bias and voiding in via structures (page 4, lines 13-20)
Baldwin et al. fail to teach the method of claim 11.
Yao et al. teach a process for patterning a substrate, said process comprising the steps of:
-forming a bottom layer on a substrate with an antireflective coating composition;
-forming an intermediate resist layer on the bottom layer by using an intermediate resist layer composition comprising silicon atoms;
-forming a top resist layer on the intermediate resist layer by using a top resist layer composition;
-exposing and developing the top resist layer to form a resist pattern in the top resist layer;
-etching the intermediate layer using as mask the top resist layer on which a pattern is formed;
- etching the bottom layer using as mask the intermediate layer on which a pattern is formed; and
-etching substrate using as mask the bottom layer on which a pattern is formed (claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the antireflective coating composition of Baldwin et al. for the bottom layer in the process of Yao et al. in order to take advantage of its superior properties.
12. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (WO 03/044078) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2001/0051446).
With regard to claim 13, Baldwin et al. teach the composition of claim 1 (see paragraph 9 above), but fail to teach the purification of a hyperbranched polymer solution.
However, it is known in the art that a polymer may be dissolved in a solvent and the polymer solution is caused to come in contact with an acidic aqueous solution to perform liquid-liquid extraction (see par.0060 of Inoue et al.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to dissolve the polymer of Baldwin et al. is a solvent and purify the polymer solution by liquid-liquid extraction by reacting it with an acidic aqueous solution, in order to remove undesirable impurities.
13. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (WO 03/044078) in view of Mcelwain et al. (WO 2013/029837).
With regard to claims 13 and 14, Baldwin et al. teach the composition of claim 1 (see paragraph 9 above), but fail to teach the purification of a hyperbranched polymer solution.
However, it is known in the art that a polymer may be dissolved in a solvent and the polymer solution may be purified by passing through a filter or an ion exchange resin (see page 32, line 6-28 of Mcelwain et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to dissolve the polymer of Baldwin et al. is a solvent and purify the polymer solution by passing it through a filter or an ion exchange resin, in order to remove undesirable impurities.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Magnan et al. (FR 2772 771) teach hyperbranched polymers comprising a group of formula:
PNG
media_image3.png
62
194
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein Y may be a NH- group (abstract), but fail to teach the dendritic polymer comprising a chemical structure of formula (1) in claim 3.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Magnan et al. and obtain the composition in claim 3 of the instant application.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fukunaga et al. (US 2021/0324223) teach a hard-coat layer composition comprising Acryolyl polymer B which is a dendrimer polyacrylate (a highly branched (dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate)(DPHA) polyacrylate having an acrylate group at a terminal end)(par.0104-0105, Comparative Example 2 in Table 2, par.0135).
Devadoss et al. (US 2006/0155017) teach an anti-reflective composition comprising a dendritic polymer dispersed or dissolved in a solvent system (abstract). The preferred dendritic polymers include dendritic polyesters and dendritic polyethers (par.0015).
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