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.
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.
Claims 10, 12, 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 (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).
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)
Therefore, 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 85mol% of the polymer compound (B).
Therefore, the negative resist of Yanagisawa modified by Ohsawa and Sato is equivalent to the negative photosensitive composition in claims 10, 12, and 13.
Claims 18, 20, 21, 24. 27, and 28 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) 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 5 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, 27, and 28, 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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 10, 12, 13 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 Ehata et al. (JP 2004-359590, with machine translation made of record on July 24, 2024) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 10; and
-the rejection of claims 18, 20, 21, 24. 27, and 28 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 Ehata et al. (JP 2004-359590, with machine translation made of record on July 24, 2024) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Okano et al. (US 2005/0046662) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 10.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 10, 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 27 are presented in paragraphs 4-6 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 on (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