DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 7, 2026 has been entered.
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 .
In the amendment filed on August 7, 2026, claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 7 – 14 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4 have been amended and claims 3, 6 have been canceled. Claims 11 – 14 have been added. Claims 7 – 10 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7 – 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The claims had been withdrawn after Applicant had received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention. The Applicant had not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement in their reply filed on August 7, 2026. Accordingly, the election is treated as a final election without traverse.
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 rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”) in view of Rathsack et al. US 20130309457 A1 (hereinafter “Rathsack”).
Regarding claim 1:
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 3.1 Thus Liu discloses an anticipatory value.
Liu does not expressly teach that the annealing of the layer is performed in a nitrogen environment.
Rathsack is directed to a method for patterning a layered structure (abstract, [0001]. Rathsack discloses that their method comprises: casting a self-assembling block copolymer onto a substrate to form laterally: space cylindrical features; and annealing the cast layer (Abstract; fig 1; claim 1). Rathsack discloses that annealing can occur under an inert atmosphere such as a nitrogen atmosphere ([0040]). Rathsack also discloses that the annealing is preferably done performed in a low oxygen atmosphere of less than 40 PPM oxygen to prevent oxidation of the block deposited block copolymer ([0080] – [0082]). It would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an inert atmosphere would have little to no oxygen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Liu by annealing the layer under nitrogen because Rathsack suggests that annealing under a nitrogen atmosphere helps prevent oxidation or burning of the organic polymer block polymer.
Regarding claim 2:
Liu does not expressly the selection of a thickness relative to L0 according to the claimed formula where n is an integer from 0 to 1 inclusive.
However, Liu does disclose producing films with Lz thicknesses between 30 to 340 nm (page 344 1st col) PS-b-PMMA| PS-OH | PMMA-OH, wherein the L0 is equivalent to PS-b-PMMA having an L0 of 31.5 (page 343 Experimental, Page 344 “Preparation of MTP templates … and the blend period (LB) was the same as the L0 of PS-b-PMMA by SAXS analysis. Thus Liu discloses a selection of ranges between 0.952 L0 to 10.79 L0, thus overlapping with the selection of ranges between 1.8 L0 ≤ t ≤ 2.2 L0 and 2.6 L0 ≤ t ≤ 3.15 L0.
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.
Regarding claims 11, 13:
In a separate practice of their method, Liu discloses annealing the PS-b-PMMA composition at 230°C under various times, including 1.5 hours, 3 hours, and from 3 hours to 24 hours (page 343 2nd col – page 344 1st col; Table 1; Fig. 5).
Liu does not expressly teach that the time of annealing is for 1 minute to 1 hour.
However D1 discloses that the correlation length of the cylinder-forming films (ξ) scales with the annealing time of the block copolymer fill according to a polymer law as in known in thick films, depending on the Lz value of the block copolymer and the substrate upon which the block copolymer is cast. (Page 344 2nd col, page 345 2nd col, page 346 1st co; Figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Liu in view of Rathsack by setting the annealing time within the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired ξ relative to other factors such as nature of the substrate upon which the cylinder-forming film is cast. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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”) in view of Rathsack.
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.
Welander does not expressly teach that the annealing of the layer is performed in a nitrogen environment.
The disclosure of Rathsack as discussed above in the rejections of claims 1, 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rathsack apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Welander by annealing the layer under nitrogen because Rathsack suggests that annealing under a nitrogen atmosphere helps prevent oxidation or burning of the organic polymer block polymer.
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.
Regarding claim 12, 14:
In a separate practice of their method, Welander discloses annealing the PS-b-PMMA composition at e.g. 230°C under various times (page 3916 2nd paragraph, page 3918 last paragraph – page 3919 1st col). In one example, Welander discloses annealing the film for 1 minute, 3 minutes, 10 minutes and 1 hour (Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rathsack.
Conclusion
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