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 .
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending
Claim 16 was canceled
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 18-21 in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traversed the restriction requirement on the basis that examination of the elected and nonelected inventions would not present a serious search and/or examination burden.
Upon reconsideration of the restriction requirement and in view of the search and examination conducted, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Claims 9–15 and 17, previously withdrawn from consideration as directed to Group II, are reinstated and examined on the merits in this Office action.
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 21 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.
The term “improving” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improving” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what degree of improvement in line width roughness (LWR) is required by the claim, or relative to what reference or baseline the LWR is considered improved. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai teaches a resist underlayer film comprising a baked product of a coating film of a resist underlayer film-forming composition containing a polymer (Nagai teaches a resist underlayer film-forming composition containing polymer [A], wherein the composition is applied to a substrate and heated to form the resist underlayer film; paragraph [0118]). Nagai continues to teach the polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) derived from a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film having a film thickness overlapping the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film thickness is typically 5 nm to 200 nm, preferably 10 nm to 100 nm, and more preferably 20 nm to 80 nm; paragraph [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm because Nagai teaches an overlapping range of 5 nm to 200 nm for the resist underlayer film thickness, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure being at least one selected from naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, carbazole, pyrene, triphenylene, chrysene, naphthacene, biphenylene, and fluorene (Nagai teaches structural unit (I) wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing the claimed naphthalene structure; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the unit structure (B) being represented by Formula (4), wherein the substituent on the nitrogen is selected from hydrogen, an alkyl group, a hydroxy-substituted alkyl group, or an aryl group (Nagai teaches the cyclic imide structural unit represented by Formula (4), wherein R⁹ may be hydrogen or a monovalent organic group, and specifically exemplifies Formula (4) structures including N–H, N-methyl, N-ethyl, N-hydroxyethyl, and N-phenyl maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the polymer further having a unit structure (C) having a cross-linking group (Nagai teaches polymer [A] preferably further containing structural unit (III) derived from a hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate, wherein the hydroxyl groups promote a crosslinking reaction; paragraphs [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the cross-linking group of the unit structure (C) being at least one selected from a hydroxy group, an epoxy group, a protected hydroxy group, and a protected carboxyl group (Nagai teaches structural unit (III) derived from hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate and specifically teaches 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2,3-dihydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate, thereby providing the claimed hydroxy cross-linking group; paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition further comprising a cross-linking agent (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film-forming composition preferably further contains crosslinking agent [B], which reacts with polymer [A] to promote crosslinking and suppress intermixing; paragraphs [0088]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition further comprising a curing catalyst (Nagai teaches that the composition preferably further contains crosslinking catalyst [C] to promote crosslinking of polymer [A], including acid-generating and other curing-promoting catalyst species; paragraphs [0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film being used for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches exposure using electron beams and extreme ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of about 13 nm; paragraph [0123]).
The recitation that the resist underlayer film is “used for electron beam or extreme ultraviolet lithography” merely recites an intended use of the claimed film and does not further structurally distinguish the claimed film from the prior art. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claims 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 9, Nagai teaches a resist underlayer film-forming composition for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches a resist underlayer film-forming composition used in lithographic processing wherein the exposure radiation may include electron beams and extreme ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of about 13 nm; paragraphs [0118]-[0123]).
Nagai also teaches the composition comprising a polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) having a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
The recitation that the composition is “for electron beam or extreme ultraviolet lithography” recites an intended use of the claimed composition and does not further structurally distinguish the composition absent a structural difference resulting from the recited use. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure being at least one selected from naphthalene, anthracene, phenanthrene, carbazole, pyrene, triphenylene, chrysene, naphthacene, biphenylene, and fluorene (Nagai teaches structural unit (I) wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing the claimed naphthalene structure; paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the unit structure (B) being represented by Formula (4), wherein the substituent on the nitrogen is selected from hydrogen, a C1–C10 alkyl group optionally substituted with hydroxy, or a C6–C10 aryl group optionally substituted with halogen (Nagai teaches the cyclic imide structural unit represented by Formula (4), wherein R⁹ may be hydrogen or a monovalent organic group, and specifically exemplifies Formula (4) structures including N–H, N-methyl, N-ethyl, N-hydroxyethyl, and N-phenyl maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the polymer further having a unit structure (C) having a cross-linking group (Nagai teaches polymer [A] preferably further containing structural unit (III) derived from a hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate, wherein the hydroxyl groups promote a crosslinking reaction; paragraphs [0078]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the cross-linking group of the unit structure (C) being at least one selected from a hydroxy group, an epoxy group, a protected hydroxy group, and a protected carboxyl group (Nagai teaches structural unit (III) derived from hydroxyalkyl (meth)acrylate and specifically teaches 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2,3-dihydroxypropyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate, and 4-hydroxybutyl acrylate, thereby providing the claimed hydroxy cross-linking group; paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition further comprising a cross-linking agent (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film-forming composition preferably further contains crosslinking agent [B], which reacts with polymer [A] to promote crosslinking; paragraphs [0088]-[0095]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition further comprising a curing catalyst (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film-forming composition preferably further contains crosslinking catalyst [C] to promote crosslinking of polymer [A], including acid-generating catalysts; paragraphs [0096]-[0098]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nagai teaches all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Modified Nagai further teaches a resist underlayer film comprising a baked product of a coating film of the resist underlayer film-forming composition and being used for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches applying the resist underlayer film-forming composition onto a substrate and curing the coating by heat treatment to form the resist underlayer film, and further teaches exposure using electron beams or extreme ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of about 13 nm; paragraphs [0118] and [0121]-[0123]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 18, Nagai teaches a semiconductor processing substrate comprising a semiconductor substrate and a resist underlayer film (Nagai teaches forming a resist underlayer film on a substrate to be processed and specifically teaches applying a resist underlayer film-forming composition onto an 8-inch silicon wafer and baking the composition to form a resist underlayer film; paragraphs [0118] and [0155]).
Nagai also teaches the resist underlayer film being a baked product of a coating film of a resist underlayer film-forming composition containing a polymer (Nagai teaches applying the resist underlayer film-forming composition to the surface of the substrate and curing the coating by heat treatment, with a heating temperature typically between 50°C and 450°C; paragraph [0118]).
Nagai continues to teach the polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) derived from a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
Nagai further teaches the resist underlayer film having a film thickness overlapping the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film thickness is typically 5 nm to 200 nm and preferably 10 nm to 100 nm; paragraph [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm because Nagai teaches an overlapping range of 5 nm to 200 nm for the resist underlayer film thickness, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 19, Nagai teaches a method for producing a semiconductor element comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a semiconductor substrate (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film-forming composition may be suitably used in a semiconductor-device manufacturing process and teaches applying the composition onto a substrate to be processed and heating the coating to form a resist underlayer film, including an example using a silicon wafer; paragraphs [0028], [0118], and [0155]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition being suitable for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film and teaches exposure radiation including electron beams and extreme ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of about 13 nm; paragraphs [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai further teaches forming an electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) resist film on the resist underlayer film (Nagai teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film and exposing the resist using electron beams or extreme ultraviolet radiation; paragraphs [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition comprising a polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) derived from a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
Nagai further teaches forming the resist underlayer film to a thickness overlapping the claimed thickness of less than 10 nm (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film thickness is typically 5 nm to 200 nm, preferably 10 nm to 100 nm, and more preferably 20 nm to 80 nm; paragraph [0120]).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm because Nagai teaches an overlapping range of 5 nm to 200 nm for the resist underlayer film thickness, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 20, Nagai teaches a method for forming a pattern comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a semiconductor substrate using a resist underlayer film-forming composition (Nagai teaches a pattern-forming method including applying a resist underlayer film-forming composition onto a substrate to be processed to form a resist underlayer film, including use of a silicon wafer; paragraphs [0115]-[0118] and [0155]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition being suitable for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film and teaches exposure radiation including electron beams and extreme ultraviolet radiation having a wavelength of about 13 nm; paragraphs [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai further teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film using a resist suitable for EB or EUV lithography (Nagai teaches applying a resist composition onto the resist underlayer film to form a resist film and teaches exposure using electron beams or extreme ultraviolet radiation; paragraphs [0115] and [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai further teaches irradiating the resist film and developing the resist film to obtain a resist pattern (Nagai teaches irradiating the resist film with radiation through a mask to expose the resist film and developing the exposed resist film to form a resist pattern; paragraph [0115]).
Nagai further teaches etching the resist underlayer film using the resist pattern as a mask (Nagai teaches sequentially dry etching the resist underlayer film and the substrate to be processed using the resist pattern as a mask; paragraph [0115]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition comprising a polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) derived from a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
Nagai further teaches forming the resist underlayer film to a film thickness overlapping the claimed thickness of less than 10 nm (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film thickness is typically 5 nm to 200 nm, preferably 10 nm to 100 nm, and more preferably 20 nm to 80 nm; paragraph [0120]).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm because Nagai teaches an overlapping range of 5 nm to 200 nm for the resist underlayer film thickness, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (JP 2013-073125 A).
Regarding claim 21, Nagai teaches a method comprising forming a resist underlayer film on a semiconductor substrate using a resist underlayer film-forming composition (Nagai teaches applying a resist underlayer film-forming composition onto a substrate to be processed to form a resist underlayer film, including use of a silicon wafer; paragraphs [0115]-[0118] and [0155]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition being suitable for electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography (Nagai teaches forming a resist film on the resist underlayer film and teaches exposure radiation including electron beams and extreme ultraviolet radiation; paragraphs [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai further teaches forming an electron beam (EB) or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) resist film on the resist underlayer film and irradiating and developing the resist film to obtain a resist pattern (Nagai teaches applying a resist composition onto the resist underlayer film, irradiating the resist film with radiation, and developing the exposed resist film to form a resist pattern; paragraphs [0115] and [0121]-[0123]).
Nagai teaches the resist underlayer film-forming composition comprising a polymer having at least one unit structure (A) having a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (I), preferably represented by Formula (1), wherein the aromatic group may be a naphthyl group, thereby providing a structural unit containing a naphthalene polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon structure; paragraphs [0030]-[0032] and [0038]).
Nagai further teaches the polymer having at least one unit structure (B) derived from a maleimide structure (Nagai teaches polymer [A] containing structural unit (II) having a cyclic imide structure, preferably represented by Formula (4), and provides specific Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural units; paragraphs [0051], [0065]-[0076], particularly paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the disclosed naphthyl-containing structural unit (I) together with the disclosed Formula (4) maleimide-derived structural unit (II) because Nagai teaches each as a suitable structural unit of polymer [A], including teaching the Formula (4) cyclic imide structural unit as preferred, and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious, see MPEP § 2141 III(E).
Nagai further teaches forming the resist underlayer film to a film thickness overlapping the claimed thickness of less than 10 nm (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film thickness is typically 5 nm to 200 nm and preferably 10 nm to 100 nm; paragraph [0120]).
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed film thickness of less than 10 nm because Nagai teaches an overlapping range of 5 nm to 200 nm for the resist underlayer film thickness, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05.
The recitation that the method is “for improving LWR of a resist pattern” merely states the intended purpose or result of the claimed method and does not require a manipulative difference from the method taught by the prior art. Where the body of a process claim otherwise recites a complete method, a statement of purpose or intended use does not further limit the claim absent a manipulative difference resulting from the recited purpose. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights