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 Interpretation
For purposes of examination, the following claim terms are interpreted in view of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 1, the instant specification states that the polymer has partial structures represented by Formula (1), Formula (2), and Formula (3) (paragraphs [0049]-[0056]). The specification further states that the polymer may be manufactured by reacting a Formula (A1) diepoxy compound, a Formula (A2) diepoxy compound, and a Formula (A3) dicarboxylic acid, wherein Formula (A1), Formula (A2), and Formula (A3) use the same variables as Formula (1), Formula (2), and Formula (3), respectively (paragraphs [0092]-[0098]). The specification provides Synthesis Example 2 using MA-DGIC, EX-711, and succinic acid, and Table 1 identifies the molar ratio as MA-DGIC/EX-711/SA = 60/40/110, where SA represents succinic acid (paragraphs [0179], [0198]-[0199]).
Regarding claim 2, the instant specification states that Q1 in Formula (2) is preferably represented by any one of Formulas (2-1) to (2-4) (paragraphs [0063]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, the instant specification states that X1 in Formula (1) is preferably represented by Formula (1-3) (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, the instant specification states that the polymer preferably has repeating units represented by Formula (A) and Formula (B) (paragraph [0085]). Formula (A) uses the same X1, Z1, Z2, and A1-A6 definitions as Formula (1), and the same R11 definition as Formula (3) (paragraph [0086]). Formula (B) uses the same Q1, A11-A16, n1, and n2 definitions as Formula (2), and the same R11 definition as Formula (3) (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 9, the instant specification identifies melamine-based crosslinking agents having an alkoxy methyl group as examples of crosslinking agents and further identifies hexamethoxymethylmelamine as an example (paragraphs [0106]-[0107]).
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (US 2018/0305578 A1) in view of Tsuda et al. (WO 2020/166580 A1; corresponds to US 2022/0153920 A1, used for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi teaches a polymer having a partial structure represented by Formula (1) and a partial structure represented by Formula (3), wherein in Formula (1), X1 represents a divalent group represented by Formula (1-1), Formula (1-2), or Formula (1-3); Z1 and Z2 each independently represent a direct bond or a divalent group represented by Formula (1-4); A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, or an ethyl group; and * represents a bond; wherein in Formula (3), R11 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; and * represents a bond; wherein in Formulas (1-1) to (1-3), R1 to R5 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, an alkenyl group having 2 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, an alkynyl group having 2 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, a benzyl group, or a phenyl group, and the phenyl group may be substituted by at least one monovalent group selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a halogen atom, an alkoxy group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, a nitro group, a cyano group, and an alkylthio group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms; R1 and R2 may be bonded to each other to form a ring having 3 to 6 carbon atoms; R3 and R4 may be bonded to each other to form a ring having 3 to 6 carbon atoms; * represents a bond; *1 represents a bond bonded to a carbon atom; and *2 represents a bond bonded to a nitrogen atom; and wherein in Formula (1-4), m1 is an integer of 1 to 4; m2 is 0 or 1; *3 represents a bond bonded to a nitrogen atom; and *4 represents a bond bonded to a carbon atom (Sakaguchi teaches a polymer having a structural unit derived from monoallyl diglycidyl isocyanurate (MA-DGIC) and synthesizes the polymer by reacting MA-DGIC with succinic acid; under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth above in the Claim Interpretation section, the MA-DGIC-derived portion corresponds to the partial structure represented by Formula (1), including the recited X1, Z1, Z2, A1-A6, R1-R5, m1, m2, and bonding alternatives, and the succinic-acid-derived portion corresponds to the partial structure represented by Formula (3), wherein R11 is an alkylene group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms; paragraphs [0018], [0019], and [0080]).
Sakaguchi does not expressly teach the polymer further having a partial structure represented by Formula (2).
Tsuda teaches a partial structure represented by Formula (2), wherein Q1 represents a divalent organic group having an aromatic hydrocarbon ring or an aliphatic hydrocarbon ring; A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, and A16 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, a methyl group, or an ethyl group; n1 and n2 each independently represent 0 or 1; and * represents a bond (Tsuda identifies terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester as epoxy compound (a2) suitable for polymer production; under the broadest reasonable interpretation set forth above in the Claim Interpretation section, the terephthalic-acid-derived portion includes an aromatic para-phenylene group corresponding to Q1, and the depicted diepoxy structure falls within the recited A11-A16 and n1/n2 alternatives of Formula (2); paragraphs [0007], [0009]-[0010], and [0083]).
Tsuda further teaches using terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester with an epoxy-reactive dicarboxylic acid to produce a polymer (Tsuda synthesizes a polymer using terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester and adipic acid; paragraphs [0132]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polymer of Sakaguchi to incorporate the terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester taught by Tsuda because Tsuda teaches terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester as a known diepoxy monomer suitable for reaction with an epoxy-reactive compound to produce a polymer. Incorporating Tsuda’s known diepoxy monomer into Sakaguchi’s epoxy/dicarboxylic-acid polymerization would have predictably produced a polymer having a partial structure represented by Formula (1), a partial structure represented by Formula (2), and a partial structure represented by Formula (3), including the corresponding substituent, linking-group, and bonding alternatives recited in claim 1. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the modified polymer of Sakaguchi in view of Tsuda teaches wherein Q1 in Formula (2) is represented by any one of Formulas (2-1) to (2-4) (Tsuda identifies terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester as epoxy compound (a2) and depicts the compound as including a para-phenylene group positioned between two ester carbonyl groups; the para-phenylene group corresponds to Formula (2-1), wherein n3 is 0 and n11 is 0, and Tsuda synthesizes a polymer using terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester with adipic acid; paragraphs [0083] and [0132]-[0133]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sakaguchi teaches the polymer according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Sakaguchi does not expressly teach wherein a molar ratio (M1:M2) between the partial structure (M1) represented by Formula (1) and the partial structure (M2) represented by Formula (2) is 95:5 to 40:60.
For purposes of interpreting the claimed molar ratio, the instant specification identifies MA-DGIC as providing the partial structure (M1) represented by Formula (1) and EX-711 as providing the partial structure (M2) represented by Formula (2). The instant specification further illustrates a MA-DGIC/EX-711 molar ratio of 60:40 in Synthesis Example 2 (the polymer is produced using MA-DGIC, EX-711, and succinic acid at a molar ratio of 60/40/110; paragraphs [0179] and [0198]-[0199]). Thus, the instant specification confirms that the relative molar amounts of MA-DGIC and EX-711 correspond to the claimed M1:M2 ratio.
Tsuda teaches MA-DGIC and terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester as diepoxy compounds suitable for polymer production (Tsuda identifies MA-DGIC and terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester among epoxy compounds that may be reacted with an epoxy-reactive compound to produce a polymer; paragraphs [0007], [0009]-[0010], and [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when incorporating Tsuda’s terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester into Sakaguchi’s MA-DGIC-containing polymerization as discussed above, to select relative amounts of MA-DGIC and terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester such that the molar ratio (M1:M2) of the corresponding partial structures is within 95:5 to 40:60. The relative amount of each diepoxy monomer used in the polymerization directly determines the relative amount of its corresponding partial structure in the resulting polymer, and selecting workable relative amounts of known comonomers would have involved routine optimization to obtain a desired copolymer composition absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sakaguchi teaches the polymer according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Sakaguchi does not expressly teach wherein a molar ratio [(M1+M2):M3] of a sum of the partial structure (M1) represented by Formula (1) and the partial structure (M2) represented by Formula (2) to the partial structure represented by Formula (3) is 60:40 to 40:60.
For purposes of interpreting the claimed molar ratio, the instant specification identifies MA-DGIC as providing the Formula (1)-derived partial structure (M1), EX-711 as providing the Formula (2)-derived partial structure (M2), and succinic acid as providing the Formula (3)-derived partial structure (M3). The instant specification illustrates the polymerization of these compounds at a MA-DGIC/EX-711/succinic-acid molar ratio of 60/40/110 (paragraphs [0179] and [0198]-[0199]). Thus, the instant specification confirms that the claimed ratio [(M1+M2):M3] corresponds to the relative molar amounts of the combined diepoxy compounds and the dicarboxylic-acid compound.
Tsuda teaches reacting an epoxy compound having two or more epoxy groups with a reactive compound having two or more epoxy-reactive functional groups in approximately equivalent amounts to produce a polymer (Tsuda reacts terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester with adipic acid at an equivalent ratio of epoxy component (A) to reactive component (B) of 1:1.001; paragraphs [0132]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when incorporating Tsuda’s terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester into Sakaguchi’s MA-DGIC and dicarboxylic-acid polymerization as discussed above, to use approximately corresponding amounts of the combined diepoxy compounds and the dicarboxylic-acid compound. Tsuda teaches that approximately equivalent amounts of the diepoxy and dicarboxylic-acid components are suitable for producing the polymer, and such approximately balanced amounts would predictably provide a molar ratio [(M1+M2):M3] within the claimed range of 60:40 to 40:60. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Sakaguchi as modified by Tsuda teaches the polymer according to claim 1, as discussed above, having a repeating unit represented by Formula (A) (Sakaguchi forms a polymer by reacting MA-DGIC with succinic acid; MA-DGIC provides the Formula (1)-derived portion of the repeating unit, and succinic acid provides the Formula (3)-derived R11 portion, thereby producing the repeating unit represented by Formula (A); Sakaguchi, paragraph [0080]).
Sakaguchi does not expressly teach the polymer having a repeating unit represented by Formula (B).
For purposes of interpreting the claimed repeating units, the instant specification identifies MA-DGIC as providing the Formula (1)-derived structure, EX-711 as providing the Formula (2)-derived structure, and succinic acid as providing the Formula (3)-derived structure in the polymer (Synthesis Example 2 forms a polymer from MA-DGIC, EX-711, and succinic acid; paragraphs [0179] and [0198]-[0199]). Thus, the instant specification confirms that the repeating units represented by Formulas (A) and (B) are the polymerized structures resulting from reaction of the respective Formula (1)- and Formula (2)-corresponding diepoxy compounds with the Formula (3)-corresponding dicarboxylic acid.
Tsuda teaches the polymer having a repeating unit represented by Formula (B) (Tsuda reacts terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester, corresponding to the Formula (2) epoxy compound, with a dicarboxylic acid to form a polymer; reaction of the Formula (2)-corresponding diepoxy compound with the dicarboxylic acid produces the corresponding epoxy–carboxylic-acid repeating unit represented by Formula (B); Tsuda, paragraphs [0083] and [0132]-[0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when incorporating Tsuda’s terephthalic acid diglycidyl ester into Sakaguchi’s MA-DGIC and succinic-acid polymerization as discussed with respect to claim 1, to react both diepoxy compounds with Sakaguchi’s succinic acid. Doing so would predictably produce a polymer having a repeating unit represented by Formula (A) and a repeating unit represented by Formula (B), wherein R11 in each repeating unit is the same succinic-acid-derived divalent group. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sakaguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Sakaguchi further teaches the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 1,000 to 50,000 (Synthesis Example 2 polymer has Mw of 2,500; paragraph [0080]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. in view of Tsuda et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US 2021/0271168 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sakaguchi teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Sakaguchi does not expressly teach wherein X1 represents a divalent group represented by Formula (1-3).
Endo teaches wherein X1 represents a divalent group represented by Formula (1-3) (Endo teaches an epoxy compound represented by Formula (1), wherein X is a divalent organic group represented by Formula (2), Formula (3), or Formula (4), and Endo Formula (4) corresponds to the claimed Formula (1-3); paragraphs [0043], [0056]).
Endo further teaches R5 represents a hydrogen atom, an alkyl group having 1 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, an alkenyl group having 2 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, an alkynyl group having 2 to 10 carbon atoms which may be interrupted by an oxygen atom or a sulfur atom, a benzyl group, or a phenyl group, wherein the phenyl group may be substituted by at least one of the recited monovalent groups (Endo’s R3 occupies the position corresponding to the claimed R5 and is selected from hydrogen; C1–C10 alkyl optionally interrupted by oxygen or sulfur; alkenyl optionally interrupted by oxygen or sulfur; alkynyl optionally interrupted by oxygen or sulfur; benzyl; or optionally substituted phenyl; paragraph [0046]).
Endo further teaches X1 represented by Formula (1-3) as a preferred divalent group (Endo teaches that X is preferably represented by Formula (4), and further identifies preferred compounds in which X is Formula (4), n1 and n2 are 1, and R3 is methyl, methoxymethyl, or another disclosed substituent; paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Sakaguchi such that X1 represents a divalent group represented by Formula (1-3) because Endo teaches the corresponding Formula (4) group as a preferred divalent organic group in a structurally related epoxy compound containing the same nitrogen-carbonyl ring structure. Selecting Endo’s preferred Formula (4) divalent group for the corresponding X1 group of modified Sakaguchi would have been a simple substitution of one known structural alternative for another to obtain the predictable corresponding polymer structure. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. in view of Tsuda et al., applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. ( US 2018/0284615 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sakaguchi teaches a protective-film forming composition comprising the polymer according to claim 1 and a solvent (modified Sakaguchi teaches the polymer recited in claim 1, as discussed above, and Sakaguchi teaches forming a thermosetting resin composition containing the polymer and an organic solvent; Sakaguchi, paragraph[s] [insert previously verified solvent citation]).
Modified Sakaguchi does not expressly teach that the protective-film forming composition is for protecting an inorganic film formed on a semiconductor substrate from wet etching.
Nagai teaches a protective-film forming composition for protecting an inorganic film formed on a semiconductor substrate from wet etching (Nagai teaches a resist underlayer film composition for semiconductor-device manufacturing that forms a film resistant to a basic hydrogen peroxide aqueous wet-etching solution and teaches using the patterned resist underlayer film as a processing mask during wet etching; paragraphs [0001], [0008]-[0012], [0035]-[0038], and [0059]-[0063]. Nagai further teaches forming the resist underlayer film over a substrate having a separately formed layer to be processed, including an inorganic layer formed from silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, tungsten, titanium nitride, or aluminum; paragraph [0199]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the protective-film forming composition of modified Sakaguchi as the wet-etch-resistant resist underlayer film taught by Nagai. Sakaguchi teaches a thermosetting protective-film composition suitable for application to a semiconductor substrate, while Nagai teaches using a cured organic underlayer film to protect covered portions of an inorganic layer during wet etching. The modification would have predictably provided a protective film resistant to the wet-etching solution. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sakaguchi and Nagai teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above.
Nagai further teaches the protective-film forming composition further comprising at least one of a crosslinking agent and an acid generator (Nagai teaches that the resist underlayer film composition may further contain one or more additives selected from an acid generator and a crosslinking agent to facilitate thermal crosslinking and improve curability; paragraphs [0033]-[0034]. Nagai further teaches acid generators that generate acid by thermal decomposition or irradiation and crosslinking agents including melamine-type, glycoluril-type, benzoguanamine-type, urea-type, isocyanurate-type, aziridine-type, oxazoline-type, and epoxy-type crosslinking agents; paragraphs [0122]-[0132] and [0154]-[0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one of Nagai’s acid generator and crosslinking agent in the protective-film forming composition of modified Sakaguchi because Nagai teaches that these additives facilitate crosslinking and improve the curability of the resulting resist underlayer film. The modification would have predictably improved curing of the protective-film forming composition. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Sakaguchi as modified by Tsuda and Nagai teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above.
Sakaguchi further teaches a protective film for a wet etching solution for a semiconductor which is a baked product of an applied film formed of the protective-film forming composition according to claim 8 (Sakaguchi teaches applying the thermosetting resin composition to a substrate, including a semiconductor substrate, and baking the applied composition to form a chemically resistant protective film; paragraphs [0001]-[0002], [0012]-[0013], and [0072]).
Nagai further teaches that the baked protective film is for a wet etch solution for a semiconductor (Nagai teaches applying and heat-treating a resist underlayer film composition to form a cured film used in semiconductor-device manufacturing and having resistance to a basic hydrogen peroxide aqueous wet-etching solution; paragraphs [0001], [0035]-[0038], and [0070]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the baked protective film of modified Sakaguchi as the wet-etch-resistant film taught by Nagai because Nagai teaches that a cured resist underlayer film resistant to a semiconductor wet-etching solution may be used as a processing mask during wet etching. The modification would have predictably protected covered portions of the underlying semiconductor structure during wet etching. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sakaguchi and Nagai teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above.
Modified Sakaguchi further teaches a method for manufacturing a substrate with a protective film, the method comprising a step of forming a protective film by applying the protective-film forming composition according to claim 8 on a stepped semiconductor substrate and baking the composition (modified Sakaguchi teaches electronic-device substrates having projections and recesses requiring level-difference planarization and further teaches applying the thermosetting resin composition to a substrate, including a semiconductor substrate or silicon wafer, and baking the applied composition to form a film; paragraphs [0003] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sakaguchi and Nagai teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above.
Nagai further teaches a method for manufacturing a substrate with a resist pattern used for manufacturing a semiconductor, the method comprising a step of applying the protective-film forming composition according to claim 8 on a semiconductor substrate and baking the composition to form a protective film as a resist underlayer film; and a step of forming a resist film on the protective film directly or via another layer, and then forming a resist pattern by exposure and development (Nagai teaches a patterning process for semiconductor-device manufacturing in which a resist underlayer film composition is applied to a substrate and heat-treated to form a cured resist underlayer film; a resist upper-layer film is then formed directly on the resist underlayer film or over a resist intermediate film and/or organic antireflective film; and the resist upper-layer film is pattern-exposed and developed to form a resist pattern; Nagai, paragraphs [0001], [0039]-[0058], [0070]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sakaguchi and Nagai teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above.
Nagai further teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising the steps of forming a protective film on a semiconductor substrate having an inorganic film formed on a surface (Nagai teaches a semiconductor-device manufacturing process in which a resist underlayer film is formed over a substrate having a separately formed layer to be processed; the layer to be processed may comprise an inorganic material including silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, tungsten, titanium nitride, or aluminum; paragraphs [0001] and [0199]).
Nagai further teaches forming a resist pattern on the protective film directly or via another layer (Nagai teaches forming a resist upper-layer film directly on the resist underlayer film, or forming the resist upper-layer film over a resist intermediate film and/or an organic antireflective film, and pattern-exposing and developing the resist upper-layer film; paragraphs [0039]-[0058]).
Nagai continues to teach dry-etching the protective film using the resist pattern as a mask to expose a surface of the inorganic film (Nagai teaches transferring the resist pattern directly or through one or more intermediate layers to the resist underlayer film by dry etching, thereby forming a patterned resist underlayer film over the layer to be processed; paragraphs [0043], [0049]-[0050], and [0057]-[0058]).
Nagai further teaches wet-etching the inorganic film using a wet etching solution for a semiconductor using the protective film after the dry etching as a mask (Nagai teaches, after transferring the pattern to the resist underlayer film by dry etching, wet etching the layer to be processed using a basic hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution and the patterned resist underlayer film as the mask; paragraphs [0062]-[0063]. Nagai further teaches wet etching a tungsten, titanium-nitride, or similar layer using the patterned resist underlayer film as the mask; paragraph [0202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the protective-film forming composition of modified Sakaguchi as the resist underlayer film in Nagai’s semiconductor-device manufacturing method. Sakaguchi teaches a curable protective-film composition suitable for semiconductor substrates, while Nagai teaches using a cured and dry-etched resist underlayer film as the mask for wet etching an underlying inorganic layer. Using modified Sakaguchi’s protective-film composition in Nagai’s known process would have predictably provided a chemically resistant patterned mask that protects covered portions of the inorganic film during wet etching. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
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