DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on March 27, 2026, claims 1 – 10 are pending. Claims 1 – 6 have been amended. Claims 7 – 10 have been added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restrictions/Elections
Newly submitted claims 7 – 10 (hereinafter “Invention II”, wherein the originally claimed invention is “Invention I”) directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different function and effect, as Invention II is a mental exercise that may be used for discussion of mathematical concepts pertaining to block copolymers (thus a different mode of operation, function and effect) while Invention I refers to a process of producing a structure having a phase-separated structure. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 7 – 10 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Analysis
The Examiner notes that the mathematical expressions recited in the claims were evaluated by the standard algebraic order of operations, where exponents have highest priority, followed by multiplication and finally at lowest priority addition; expressions were evaluated left to right.
In the reply filed on March 27, 2026, Applicant indicated that the claims have been amended to require specific, discrete, thicknesses that are related to the claimed formulae and acknowledges The Examiner adopts the Applicant’s interpretation of the claims in light of the newly added claim limitation that the thickness is selected relative to L0 and the limitation that n must be an integer, which are inherently discrete numbers. Accordingly, the Examiner interprets claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 to require that the thickness of the formed layer of a block copolymer to be with one of the ranges of:
n = 0
1.8 L0
≤ t ≤
2.2 L0
n = 1
~2.6 L0
≤ t ≤
~3.15 L0
n = 2
~3.4 L0
≤ t ≤
~4.1 L0
n = 3
~4.1 L0
≤ t ≤
~5.1 L0
and interprets claim 4 and claims dependent on claim 4 to require that the thickness of the formed layer of a block copolymer to be with one of the ranges of:
n = 0
~1.4 L0
≤ t ≤
~1.6 L0
n = 1
1.9 L0
≤ t ≤
2.1 L0
n = 2
~3.4 L0
≤ t ≤
~2.6 L0
n = 3
~2.9 L0
≤ t ≤
~3.2 L0
n = 4
~3.3 L0
≤ t ≤
~3.7 L0
n = 5
3.8 L0
≤ t ≤
4.2 L0
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 3, 6 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.
Regarding claims 3, 6:
Claim 3 has been amended to recite: “The method according to claim 1, misalignment of a cylinder structure and alignment mark formation wherein variation in distances in distances between centers of gravity of holes in the cylinder structure is reduced and irregularities in alignment marks are reduced relative to a layer having a thickness not satisfying Formula (a)”. As recited, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “misalignment of a cylinder structure” and especially “alignment mark formation”. As there is no article behind the newly introduced concepts, it is unclear whether the recitation of misalignment of a cylinder structure and “alignment mark formation” are referring to an intended but unrecited step or element, if the claim elements are to be newly introduced in the claim, or if the claim elements are references to a property of the resultant structure or to another object altogether. Secondly, it is unclear if an alignment mark is a synonym to a phase-separated structure or a different object altogether, thus rendering unclear whether the steps of the method are commensurate in scope to the resultant product.
Similar deficiencies exist concerning the claim limitations “line edge roughness and irregularities in alignment marks” in claim 6, mutatis mutandis.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu, Y., & Ji, S. (2018). Determination of the maximum thickness for directed self-assembly of cylinder-forming ps-b-pmma films on chemical patterns. Molecular Systems Design & Engineering, 3(2), 342-347. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7me00101k (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claims 1, 2:
Liu is directed to cylinder-forming polystyrene-block-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PS-b-PMMA) films, a type of block copolymer film (BCP) and the determination of a maximum thickness for directed self-assembly (DSA) of such films on chemical patterns (Abstract). Liu is motivated to find such a maximum thickness because as PS-b-PMMA films get thicker, the substrate effects on phase-separated BCP domains gradually dissipates and the interaction between air and BCP dominates (page 342). This is critical for pattern application patterns as such a film to both maintain perpendicular cylindrical domains and a relatively large thickness (page 342 1st column); especially for maintaining high degrees of pattern perfection and pattern registration [improving alignment mark, line roughness].
Liu discloses that their method comprises:
Providing a solution of PS-b-PMMA in toluene [resin composition], wherein the PS-b-PMMA has an L0 of 31.5 (page 343 Experimental);
Spin-coating a ternary blend comprising PS-b-PMMA onto patterned replicas to form ternary blend films at film thicknesses Lz ranging from 30nm to 340nm (page 344 1st column, Lz defined in 2nd column of page 342); and
annealing the ternary blend films to induce a domain localization[phase-separation] of the PS-b-PMMA into distinct domains with perpendicularly oriented cylindrical domains (page 344 1st column, 1st paragraph – 3rd paragraph).
Liu discloses that based on their study, the maximum thickness a film thickness may be set is between 4.9L0 and 5.7L0 (Abstract; page 345 1st column; Conclusions). Additionally, Liu discloses a performance of their method to form films of 125 nm and 184nm (page 346 1st column below Fig. 5). Considering Liu’s disclosure of an L0 of 31.5 nm, the Examiner notes that a thickness of 125 nm is ~ 4.1 times the 31.5 nm (t ≈ ~4.1 L0). Accordingly, Liu discloses the selection of a discrete thickness within the claimed formula wherein n = 2 or 31. Thus Liu discloses an anticipatory value.
Regarding claim 3:
Liu teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that the variation in distances between centers of gravity of holes in the cylinder structure is reduced and irregularities in alignment marks are reduced relative to a layer having a thickness not satisfying Formula (a). It is reasonable to presume that the resultant property is inherent to Liu. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes ( depositing copolymer layers at the thickness within the claimed relationship relative to the polymer periodicity, and similar copolymer compositions sharing the same underlying polymer chemistry) which would result in the claimed resultant property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Liu product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Welander, A. M., Craig, G. S. W., Tada, Y., Yoshida, H., & Nealey, P. F. (2013). Directed Assembly of block copolymers in thin to thick films. Macromolecules, 46(10), 3915-3921. https://doi.org/10.1021/ma3025706 (hereinafter “Welander”).
Regarding claim 4:
Welander is directed to directed self-assembly of lamellae-forming
PS-b-PMMA (Abstract; page 3916 1st column). Welander discloses that PS-b-PMMA used in their method has a natural period L0 of 48 nm (Abstract; page 3916 1st column). Welander discloses a method of forming a phase-separated PS-b-PMMA film [structure] comprising:
providing a silicon wafer that is pre-coated with patterned polystyrene brush polymers (page 3916 1st column “sample preparation”);
spin-coating a film of PS-b-PMMA in a commercially available solvent [resin composition] onto the patterned silicon wafer (page 3916 1st column “materials”, top of 2nd column ); page 3916 1st column 2nd paragraph); and
annealing the deposited films at temperatures above the glass transition temperature of PS-b-PMMA to phase-separate the PS-b-PMMA film into assembled block morphologies that align with the underlying patterning [alignment mark formation] (page 3916 top of 2nd col, page 3917 1st col, page 3918 2nd column 3rd paragraph).
Welander discloses the formation of films at thicknesses ranging from 30nm to 280nm (page 3916 “Results and Discussion”) and specific thicknesses of 70nm and 72nm (page 3918 2nd column 3rd paragraph, page 3917 1st column).
Considering Welander’s disclosure of an L0 of 48 nm, the Examiner notes that a thickness of 70nm and 72nm is ~1.5 (t ≈ ~1.5 L0). Accordingly, Welander discloses the selection of a discrete thickness within the claimed formula wherein n = 0. Thus Welander discloses an anticipatory value.
Regarding claim 6:
Liu teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach that line edge roughness and irregularities in alignment marks are reduced relative to a layer having a thickness not satisfying Formula (b). It is reasonable to presume that such a resultant property is inherent to Welander. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials and like processes ( depositing copolymer layers at the thickness within the claimed relationship relative to the polymer periodicity, and similar copolymer compositions sharing the same underlying polymer chemistry) which would result in the claimed resultant property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed properties would obviously have been present once the Welander product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
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 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welander as applied to claims 4 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 5:
At an m of 1, the minimum value for t is then 1.90*L0 and the maximum value at n = 1 is 2.1, which would be 91 nm to 100 nm in Welander’s disclosure.
Welander does not expressly teach thus that the thickness is set within any of allowed thicknesses within the range bands defined at any of m = 1 to 5 inclusive.
However, Welander discloses forming films at thicknesses ranging from 30nm to 280nm [thicknesses that are set such that the thickness is a multiple of L0, wherein the multiple ranges from ~0.63 to ~5.8] (page 3916 “Results and Discussion”). which is an overlapping range.
Absent a showing of criticality commensurate in scope with the claims, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Liu fails to anticipate the claimed invention as described in instant claim 1. The claimed relationship depends on L0. Liu’s teaching of forming a phase-separated film at a thickness of 124.4 nm when the block copolymer has a period of 31.5 nm falls outside the claimed thickness ranges because claims 1 – 3 requires a thickness to be defined as a function of L0, and therefore encompass multiple L0 values.
b.) The claimed discrete thickness windows as recited in claim 4 and claims dependent on claim 4 represent a criticality compared to the values disclosed by Welander.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the selected thickness must satisfy the claimed relationship at all range bands defined with n = 0 to 3 inclusive with multiple L0 values) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As recited, instant claim 1 does not require that multiple respective L0 values must be satisfied and also otherwise does not limit what may be the L0 values of the recited block copolymer. As claimed and supported by the instant specification, a given block copolymer only has one L0 value; and that the thickness of the layer including such a block copolymer is only required to be selected relative to that only one L0 value. If the prior art teaches a thickness that is set anywhere within the range bands defined by any of n = 0, 1, 2, or 3 relative to the prior art’s L0 value, the limitation is anticipated.
Furthermore, the Examiner is unclear which thickness values within table 2 of the instant specification supports the Applicant’s submission that the selected thickness must satisfy a set of multiple L0. There is no set of examples provided relating a single thickness to multiple L0 values and demonstrating ratios of thickness to L0 that fall to each of the defined range bands for all n integer values. Instead, there is a relationship of single selected thicknesses relating to a single L0 value, which is the inverse of the Applicant’s argument.
The above remarks also apply with regards to anticipation of claims 4 and 6 by Welander, mutatis mutandis.
b.) Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
In this case, the proffered data is specific to a single L0 value and the results of thickness relative to such a single L0 value. The claims are not limited to a specific set of block copolymers having L0 values upon which the demonstrated criticality is present in conjunction with the results of a phase separated layer after forming a resin film at the specified thicknesses. For this reason, the Examiner maintains that a prima facie case of obviousness exists with regards to dependent claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Vora et al. US 2016/0244557 A1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The Examiner notes that whether the reported value is a multiplier within the range where n = 2 or n = 3 is an issue of significant digits. When more fully expanded out, the upper bound of t at n = 2 is 4.10526 times L0, the lower bound of t at n = 3 is 4.13826 times L0, and the multiplier of Liu’s thickness and period is 4.06349. However, as the claims hold at most 2 significant digits and Liu reports multiplies with 2 significant digits, the Examiner evaluated the values with 2 significant digits under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Prosecution Insights