DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 4/25/25.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cott et al. US PGPub 2013/0337236A1 hereinafter COTT in view of Oomatsu et al. US PGPub 2021/0132503A1 hereinafter OOMATSU.
As for claim 1, COTT teaches “A method for growing elongated nanostructures (7) only on the bottom (3) of a recessed structure” (abstract, lines 1-2), i.e. A method for manufacturing a processed substrate having a surface in which at least a part of a region is modified.
COTT teaches “The affinity of a surface can be modified by functionalising said surface with chemical groups. This can typically be achieved by forming a self-assembled mono layer (SAM) on said surface” (paragraph 15, lines 15-18), i.e. the manufacturing method comprising exposing a surface of a substrate to a surface modifier containing a compound (A) having a bonding property to the substrate.
COTT further teaches “To remove any impurity, unreacted thiol molecules and solvent residues, the coupons were consecutively rinsed and sonicated for 30 s in clean ethanol and de-ionized water (DIW)” (paragraph 114, lines 16-19), i.e. cleaning the substrate after the exposure with a cleaning liquid and performing film formation while controlling the compound (A) in a plane direction and a height direction of the substrate to obtain a processed substrate.
COTT is silent on wherein the cleaning liquid in which a distance Ra between a Hansen solubility parameter of the compound (A) and a Hansen solubility parameter of the cleaning liquid satisfies a relationship of (Ra)2 ≤ 128 is selected and used.
OOMATSU teaches “The present invention relates to a chemical liquid, a kit, a pattern forming method, a chemical liquid manufacturing method, and a chemical liquid storage body” (paragraph 2).
OOMATSU teaches “The Hansen solubility parameters in the present specification mean the Hansen solubility parameters described in "Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook, Second Edition" (pp. 1-310, CRC Press, 2007), and the like. That is, the Hansen solubility parameters describe solubility by using multi-dimensional vectors (a dispersion element (od), a dipole-dipole element (op), and a hydrogen bond element (oh)). These three parameters can be considered as the coordinates of a point in a three-dimensional space called Hansen space” (paragraph 487).
OOMATSU teaches “Among the organic solvents Y, as the organic solvent having a Hansen solubility parameter distance of 3 to 20 MPa0.5 to eicosene (that is, the organic solvent Y1), butyl butyrate ( 4.6), isobutyl isobutyrate (3.6), and dimethyl malonate (10.3) can be exemplified. The numerical values in the parenthesis for the compound show the Hansen solubility parameter distance to eicosane” (paragraph 477).
OOMATSU further teaches “Presumably, in a case where each of the content of the organic solvent Y1 and content of the organic solvent Y2 is within a certain range, the affinity of the chemical liquid Y with an organic material could be adjusted to a more appropriate range and the resolution of a pattern may be further improved, than in a case where the content of the organic solvent Y2 is excessively great or small” (paragraph 485).
OOMATSU further teaches “Rinsing step of performing washing by using chemical liquid Y after development step” (paragraph 503).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the Hansen solubility parameter of the cleaning solution such that the desired resolution for patterning is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 2, COTT teaches “Concerning the deposition of the thiols (11-mercaptol- undecanol, 3-mercapto-1-propanol, 4-aminothiophenol, 1-dodecanethiol, 1-propanethiol and 3-mercapto-1-propanol)” (paragraph 114, lines 11-14), i.e. wherein the compound (A) is an alkylthiol compound.
As for claim 3, COTT is silent on wherein the cleaning liquid contains at least one organic solvent selected from the group consisting of an alkane having 6 or more carbon atoms, an alkylene glycol monoalkyl ether acetate having 6 or more carbon atoms, an alcohol having 4 or more carbon atoms, an ether having 8 or more carbon atoms, and a ketone having 3 or more carbon atoms.
OOMATSU teaches “The chemical liquid Y contains an organic solvent. The organic solvent contained in the chemical liquid Y includes at least one kind of organic solvent Y selected from the group consisting of… decane” (paragraph 464, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the cleaning liquid contains at least one organic solvent selected from the group consisting of an alkane having 6 or more carbon atoms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include decane, i.e. wherein the cleaning liquid contains at least one organic solvent selected from the group consisting of an alkane having 6 or more carbon atoms, in the process of COTT because OOMATSU teaches that such a solvent is useful for making solvents that have improved resolution for washing processes.
As for claim 4, COTT is silent on wherein a content of the organic solvent in the cleaning liquid is 70% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the cleaning liquid.
OOMATSU further teaches “Presumably, in a case where each of the content of the organic solvent Y1 and content of the organic solvent Y2 is within a certain range, the affinity of the chemical liquid Y with an organic material could be adjusted to a more appropriate range and the resolution of a pattern may be further improved, than in a case where the content of the organic solvent Y2 is excessively great or small” (paragraph 485).
OOMATSU teaches “In a case where the chemical liquid Y contains two or more kinds of organic solvents Y, it is preferable that a weighted average of the Hansen solubility parameters based on the molar ratio of the contents of the organic solvents satisfies the above range of the Hansen solubility parameter” (paragraph 476).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the molar ratio of solvents such that the desired solubility properties are achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
In the alternative, OOMATSU teaches “In this case, the content of the organic solvent Y1 is preferably 20% to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid Y. In view of further improving the resolution of a pattern, the content of the organic solvent Y1 is more preferably 20% to 80% by mass, and even more preferably 30% to 70% by mass” (paragraph 480). 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein a content of the organic solvent in the cleaning liquid is 70% by mass or greater with respect to a total mass of the cleaning liquid in the process of COTT because OOMATSU teaches that such a range produces a solvent that has improved resolution for cleaning.
As for claim 5, COTT teaches “A method for growing elongated nanostructures (7) only on the bottom (3) of a recessed structure” (abstract, lines 1-2), i.e. A method for processing a substrate.
COTT teaches “The affinity of a surface can be modified by functionalising said surface with chemical groups. This can typically be achieved by forming a self-assembled mono layer (SAM) on said surface” (paragraph 15, lines 15-18), i.e. exposing a surface of a substrate to a surface modifier containing a compound (A) having a bonding property to the substrate.
COTT further teaches “To remove any impurity, unreacted thiol molecules and solvent residues, the coupons were consecutively rinsed and sonicated for 30 s in clean ethanol and de-ionized water (DIW)” (paragraph 114, lines 16-19), i.e. cleaning the substrate after the exposure with a cleaning liquid and performing film formation while controlling the compound (A) in a plane direction and a height direction of the substrate.
COTT is silent on wherein the cleaning liquid in which a distance Ra between a Hansen solubility parameter of the compound (A) and a Hansen solubility parameter of the cleaning liquid satisfies a relationship of (Ra)2 ≤ 128 is selected and used.
OOMATSU teaches “The present invention relates to a chemical liquid, a kit, a pattern forming method, a chemical liquid manufacturing method, and a chemical liquid storage body” (paragraph 2).
OOMATSU teaches “The Hansen solubility parameters in the present specification mean the Hansen solubility parameters described in "Hansen Solubility Parameters: A Users Handbook, Second Edition" (pp. 1-310, CRC Press, 2007), and the like. That is, the Hansen solubility parameters describe solubility by using multi-dimensional vectors (a dispersion element (od), a dipole-dipole element (op), and a hydrogen bond element (oh)). These three parameters can be considered as the coordinates of a point in a three-dimensional space called Hansen space” (paragraph 487).
OOMATSU teaches “Among the organic solvents Y, as the organic solvent having a Hansen solubility parameter distance of 3 to 20 MPa0.5 to eicosene (that is, the organic solvent Y1), butyl butyrate ( 4.6), isobutyl isobutyrate (3.6), and dimethyl malonate (10.3) can be exemplified. The numerical values in the parenthesis for the compound show the Hansen solubility parameter distance to eicosane” (paragraph 477).
OOMATSU further teaches “Presumably, in a case where each of the content of the organic solvent Y1 and content of the organic solvent Y2 is within a certain range, the affinity of the chemical liquid Y with an organic material could be adjusted to a more appropriate range and the resolution of a pattern may be further improved, than in a case where the content of the organic solvent Y2 is excessively great or small” (paragraph 485).
OOMATSU further teaches “Rinsing step of performing washing by using chemical liquid Y after development step” (paragraph 503).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the Hansen solubility parameter of the cleaning solution such that the desired resolution for patterning is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
As for claim 6, Examiner draws attention to the rejection of claim 1 above such that COTT and OOMATSU teaches A pattern formation method comprising: manufacturing a processed substrate having a surface in which at least a part of a region is modified by the manufacturing method according to Claim 1.
COTT teaches “c. providing said catalyst film (2) onto said bottom (3) by either atomic layer deposition or chemical vapour deposition” (paragraph 14, lines 6-7), i.e. forming an atomic layer on a surface of a region of the processed substate.
COTT further teaches “Concerning the deposition of the thiols (11-mercaptol-undecanol, 3-mercapto-1-propanol, 4-aminothiophenol, 1-dodecanethiol, 1-propanethiol and 3-mercapto-1-propanol), the procedure consisted in the immersion of the clean SiO2 and TiN surfaces in a 5 mM precursor solution for 60” (paragraph 114, lines 11-15), i.e. wherein the surface modifier is not formed into a film, by forming a thin film using a vapor deposition method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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 at 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights