DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 11, 14-17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 28, and 29 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No. 2016-233520 filed on November 30, 2016 in Japan has been received and it is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
4. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (US 2015/0315153) in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 2006/0228648) and in further view of Sato et al. (US Patent 6,042,988).
With regard to claims 10, 12, 13, Yanagisawa et al. teach a photoacid generator of formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
101
213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(abstract, par.0014-0019).
A specific example of the photoacid generator of formula (I) is the compound No.4 of formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
116
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0047), which is a sulfonic acid derivative (A) of Formula (I) in claims 10, 12, and 13, wherein X1 is an alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms and R1 is a trifluoromethyl group (alkyl group with 1 carbon atom substituted with fluorine atoms/perfluoroalkyl group with 1 carbon atom).
Yanagisawa et al. further teach that the photoacid generator may be comprised in a resist (par.0021). The resist may be a negative resist wherein the acid generated from the acid generator causes a base resin to crosslink and make the resist insoluble in a developing solution (par.0062).
Yanagisawa et al. fail to teach the negative photosensitive composition in claim 10.
However, it is well-known in the art that a chemically amplified negative resist composition may comprise a photoacid generator (A), an organic solvent (B), a base resin (C’) which is normally alkali soluble but becomes alkali insoluble under the action of a crosslinker, a crosslinker (H) which induces crosslinkage under the action of an acid, and one or more optional components, such as a basic compound (D)(see par.0100-0105 of Ohsawa et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the compound No.4 of Yanagisawa et al. as photoacid generator in a negative resist composition in combination with an organic solvent (B), a base resin (C’) which is normally alkali soluble but becomes alkali insoluble under the action of a crosslinker, a crosslinker (H) which induces crosslinkage under the action of an acid, and a basic compound (D).
The basic compound (D) meets the limitations of claim 10 for a base quencher as component (D).
Ohsawa et al. further teach that the base resin (C’) may be polyhydroxystyrene or copolymers of polyhydroxystyrene with styrene (par.0109).
Yanagisawa et al. and Ohsawa et al. fail to teach that the alkali-soluble resin (C’) may be copolymer of polyhydroxystyrene with styrene with the claimed content of polyhydroxystyrene, and also fail to teach a melamine resin crosslinker.
Sato et al. teach a chemically amplified negative resist including an alkali-soluble resin, a compound capable of generating an acid by irradiation, and a crosslinker (abstract, and column 3, lines 19-28).
Sato et al. further teach that the alkali-soluble resin may be a copolymer consisting of polyhydroxystyrene and styrene in a molar ratio of 85/15 and the crosslinker may be a methylol-modified melamine resin (column 7, lines 47-55 and Example 1 in column 10, lines 45-58)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a copolymer consisting of polyhydroxystyrene and styrene in a molar ratio of 85/15 as the base resin (C’) and a methylol-modified melamine resin as the crosslinker (H) in the negative resist composition of Yanagisawa modified by Ohsawa.
A copolymer consisting of polyhydroxystyrene and styrene in a molar ratio of 85/15 is a crosslinkable functional-group-containing polymer compound (B) containing a structural unit of formula (III) in claim 10, wherein R3 is a hydrogen atom, f=0, and the structural unit (III) represents 85 mol% of the polymer compound (B). The amount of 85mol% is within the claimed range of 50-90 mol% in claim 10.
Therefore, the negative resist of Yanagisawa modified by Ohsawa and Sato is equivalent to the negative photosensitive composition in claims 10, 12, and 13.
7. Claims 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (US 2015/0315153) in view of Ohsawa et al. (US 2006/0228648) and Sato et al. (US Patent 6,042,988) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Okano et al. (US 2005/0046662).
With regard to claims 18 and 24, Yanagisawa modified by Ohsawa and Sato teach the negative photosensitive composition in claims 10 (see paragraph 6 above), but fail to teach a curing process.
However, it is well-known that a negative resist composition may be cured by irradiation with light, as shown in par.0063 of Okano et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to cure by irradiation with light the negative resist composition of Yanagisawa modified by Ohsawa and Sato.
The curing process meets the limitations of claim 24, and any article produced by the curing process meets the limitations of claim 18.
With regard to claims 20, 21, 26, and 27, the compound No.4 in par.0047 of Yanagisawa et al. is a sulfonic acid derivative of Formula (I), wherein X1 is an alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms and R1 is a trifluoromethyl group (perfluoroalkyl group with 1 carbon atom).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed on August 01, 2025 and October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 of the Remarks filed on August 01, 2025 and on the first page of the Remarks filed on October 31, 2025 the applicant argues that the examples in the specification show that the value of brightness change (DY) after the 30-minutes heating at 230oC has been measured and it was demonstrated that Example 3 had little change in brightness. Example 1 exhibited excellent sensitivity at the time of curing. In contrast, the prior art references of record fail to disclose or suggest unexpected heat resistance by combining a sulfonic derivative (A) and a polyhydroxystyrene (B) with 50-90 mol% of repeating unit of formula (III).
The examiner agrees that the Examples 1-3 of the specification show compositions with little change in brightness after 30-minutes heating at 230oC.
However, the examples in the specification are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The Examples 1 and 3 are within the scope of claim 10 and show a resist composition comprising the compounds A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1:
PNG
media_image3.png
138
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
68
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
186
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(see Table 1 on page 34, Table 3 on page 36, and the definitions of A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1 on pages 34 and 35 of the specification of the instant application).
The compound A-1 is a sulfonic acid derivative compound (A) of Formula (I) in claim 10, wherein X1 is an alkyl group with 4 carbon atoms and R1 is an alkyl group with 1 carbon atom substituted with fluorine atoms.
The compound B-1 is a polyhydroxystyrene resin (B) containing a structural unit of Formula (III) wherein R5 is a hydrogen atom and f=0 in an amount of 85 mole%,
The compound D-1 is a leveling agent and compound E-1 is a solvent.
However, the independent claim 10 allows for:
PNG
media_image6.png
278
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
136
648
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
294
648
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
340
676
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The specification of the instant application provides examples of the sulfonic derivatives compounds (A) on pages 14-18, examples of polymer (B) on pages 20-24, and examples of optional components (D) on pages 30-31.
Therefore, the negative resist photosensitive composition of claim 10 may be encompassed by a large number of combinations of components A-D. The Examples 1 and 3 in the specification are not sufficient to show unexpected superior results of the claimed composition.
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) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.) (MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights