Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 23, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 28-30 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; have been fully considered and, in light of said claims being cancelled, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 23, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruya (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2011-35173 A), hereinafter Taruya, and in view of Soong et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0244332 A1), hereinafter Soong, and in view of Suzuki (United States Patent Publication No. US 2012/0238090 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in view of Shirakawa et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2003/0124456 A1), hereinafter Shirakawa; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the present application represents unexpected results, but the present claims are not commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. 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). See MPEP § 716.02. There is only alkali soluble resin of the Working Examples of the present application, i.e. Polymer A, which has a very specific ratio of unit A to unit B of 90:10. All of the working examples having a unit A to unit B ratio 90:10 is not commensurate in scope with 85:15 to 95:5. Similarly, while the present application limits the composition to comprise a surfactant, all Working Examples of the present application use the exact same surfactant, MegafacE R-2011, DIC Corp, which is a fluorosurfactant. All working examples using the same specific fluorosurfactant is not commensurate in scope with all conceivable fluorosurfactants. Applicant also further limited the claimed range of the amount of the photoacid generator to 7 to 12 mass % with respect to the resin, which is not commensurate in scope with the working examples therein all having mass % of 7.2% to 7.5% with respect to the resin. Similarly, Applicant also further limited the claimed range of the amount of the fluorosurfactant to 0.01 to 3 mass % with respect to the resin, which is not commensurate in scope with the working examples therein all having mass % of 1.0% with respect to the resin. What’s more, the two comparative examples of the present application use the exact same resin, fluorosurfactant and photoacid generator as the working examples. There is zero evidence to support the contention that varying the resin or the flurorosurfactant or the photoacid generator, but maintaining a crosslinker (B) and crosslinker (C) in both within the scope of the structures and relative amounts claimed still has unexpected results. There are no means of knowing if the data provided is in any way commensurate in scope with the limitations of the claim or if, at minimum, the results therein can only be achieved with the specific alkali soluble resin and surfactant used. For all said reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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:
5. 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 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruya (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2011-35173 A), hereinafter Taruya, and in view of Soong et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0244332 A1), hereinafter Soong, and in view of Suzuki (United States Patent Publication No. US 2012/0238090 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in view of Shirakawa et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2003/0124456 A1), hereinafter Shirakawa.
7. Regarding Claims 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 22-24, Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) an alkali soluble resin. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the alkali soluble binder resin comprising a unit represented by formula (3) of the instant application. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the alkali soluble binder resin comprising a unit represented by formula (4) of the instant application. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0148-0150]) a fluorosurfactant. Taruya teaches (Paragraph [0150]) the mass ratio of the fluorosurfactant to the mass of the (A) alkali soluble resin is 0.01-2 mass %. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0051-0089 and 0211], particularly Paragraphs [0076 and 0211]) a cross linker represented by formula (1) of the instant application. Taruya teaches in Paragraph [0174 and 0188] spin-coating of the resist composition on to the substrate. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0173-0190]) curing the resist composition to form a resist layer. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0173-0190]) exposing the resist layer. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0173-0190]) developing the resist layer to form resist patterns. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0173-0190]) forming metal film on the resist patterns. Taruya teaches (Paragraph [0089]) that the crosslinkers of the composition therein described has a mass ratio of “preferably from 3 to 65% by weight [. . .] based on the total solid content of the resist composition” and “the crosslink[ers] may be used alone or in combination of 2 or more.” While Taruya also teaches (Paragraph [0037]) the mass ratio of the alkali soluble binder resin “is from 30 to 95% by weight [. . .] based on the total solid content of the composition.” Thus, Taruya teaches a mass ratio of the crosslinker(s), including crosslinker (B) of the present application, to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin being preferably 3.16% to 8%. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the alkali soluble binder resin comprising a unit represented by formula (3) of the instant application. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the alkali soluble binder resin comprising a unit represented by formula (4) of the instant application. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the weight average molecular weight of the alkali soluble binder resin is 2,000 to 50,000. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0022-0050]) the mass ratio of the alkali soluble binder resin to the total mass of the negative tone lift off resist composition is 30-50 mass %. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0051-0089]) the mass ratio of the cross linker represented by formula (1) of the instant application to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin is 0.3-5 mass %. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0051-0089]) the mass ratio of the cross linker represented by formula (2) of the instant application to the mass of (A) alkali soluble binder resin is 0.50-40 mass %. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0145-0147]) a solvent, wherein the solvent is selected from the group consisting of aliphatic hydrocarbon solvent, aromatic hydrocarbon solvent, monoalcohol solvent, polyol solvent, ketone solvent, ether solvent, ester solvent, nitrogen-containing solvent, sulfur-containing solvent, and any combination of thereof. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0132]) the photo acid generator of Claim 12. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0132]) the mass ratio of the photo acid generator to the mass of alkali soluble binder resin is 7-12 mass %. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0090-0132]) the photo acid generator comprises is a sulfonic acid derivative. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0148-0172]) at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a quencher, a surfactant, dye, a contrast enhancer, acid, a radical generator, and an agent for enhancing adhesion to substrates. Taruya teaches (Paragraphs [0173-0190]) manufacturing a device utilizing the manufacturing method of metal film patterns on a substrate.
8. However, Taruya fails to explicitly disclose removing remained resist patterns. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach obtain metal film patterns on the substrate following forming a metal film on the resist patterns and removing the remained resist patterns. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach forming of metal film on the resist patterns is by vapor deposition. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach the patterned metal film is an electrode. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach the mass ratio of the (B) cross linker of the present application to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin is 0.5-2 mass % and the mass ratio of the (C) cross linker of the present application to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin is 4-15 mass %. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach the mass ratio of the (B) cross linker of the present application to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin is 0.65-1.31 mass % and the mass ratio of the (C) cross linker of the present application to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin is 5.5-8.5 mass %. Furthermore, Taruya fails to explicitly teach the crosslinker of formula (2) of the present application of Claim 30 of the present application.
9. Taruya teaches (Paragraph [0089]) that the crosslinkers of the composition therein described has a mass ratio of “preferably from 3 to 65% by weight [. . .] based on the total solid content of the resist composition” and “the crosslink[ers] may be used alone or in combination of 2 or more.” While Taruya also teaches (Paragraph [0037]) the mass ratio of the alkali soluble binder resin “is from 30 to 95% by weight [. . .] based on the total solid content of the composition.” Thus, Taruya teaches a mass ratio of the crosslinker(s) to the mass of the alkali soluble binder resin being preferably 3.16% to 217%. The limitations of Claims 32-34 of the present application have a combined mass ratio of crosslinkers to alkali soluble binder resin of, at minimum, of 6%, 6.81% and 6.81%, respectively, with a mass ratio crosslinker (A) of the present application to crosslinker (B) of the present application of 1:2, 1:4, and 1:4, respectively. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Thus, given that the claimed combined crosslinker mass ratios are within the scope of Taruya and the ratios between the crosslinkers are not extraordinary, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed mass ratios of crosslinkers (A) and (B) of the present application through routine optimization.
10. Soong teaches (Paragraphs [0011-0018, 0022, and 0041]) removing remained resist patterns via a lift-off process. Soong teaches (Paragraphs [0011-0018, 0022, and 0041]) the formation of photoresist patterns via both mold and lift-off processes are functional alternatives.
11. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified Taruya in view of Soong to removing remained resist patterns via a lift-off process. Doing so would result in a functional alternative to the mold process taught by Taruya, as understood by Soong.
12. Suzuki teaches (Claim 1) obtain metal film patterns on the substrate following forming a metal film on the resist patterns and removing the remained resist patterns. Suzuki teaches (Paragraph [0024]) forming of metal film on the resist patterns is by vapor deposition. Suzuki teaches (Paragraph [0024]) forming of metal film on the resist patterns is by vapor deposition may be utilized to form an electrode.
13. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified Taruya in view of Soong in view of Suzuki obtain metal film patterns on the substrate following forming a metal film on the resist patterns and removing the remained resist patterns; and to form the metal film on the resist patterns is by vapor deposition and wherein the patterned metal film is an electrode. Doing so would result in the capability to form an electrode from the patterned metal film, as understood by Suzuki.
14. Shirakawa teaches (Paragraph [0118]) both the crosslinker of formula (2) of the present application of the present application, in addition to the crosslinkers taught by Paragraph [0057] of Taruya.
15. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified Taruya in view of Soong in view of Suzuki with Shirakama for the crosslinker of formula (2) of the present application of Claim 30 of the present application as Shirakama teaches the crosslinker of formula (2) of the present application of Claim 30 of the present application to be a functional alternative to the crosslinkers taught by Paragraph [0057] of Taruya. A person having of ordinary skill in the art would understand that they could, in view of Shirakawa, substitute the crosslinkers taught by Paragraph [0057] of Taruya with the crosslinker of formula (2) of the present application of Claim 30 with a reasonable expectation of success.
16. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taruya (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2011-35173 A), hereinafter Taruya, and in view of Soong et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0244332 A1), hereinafter Soong, and in view of Suzuki (United States Patent Publication No. US 2012/0238090 A1), hereinafter Suzuki, and in view of Shirakawa et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2003/0124456 A1), hereinafter Shirakawa, and in view of Kon (United States Patent Publication No. US 2010/0009296 A1), hereinafter Kon.
17. Taruya in further view of Soong in further view of Suzuki in further view of Shirakawa teaches all limitations of Claim 12 above. Furthermore, Taruya teaches [0020-0021] exposing the resist layer by an electron beam. However, Taruya fails to explicitly teach exposing the resist layer by KrF excimer laser.
18. Kon teaches (Paragraphs [0126, 0128, 0148, and 0152]) exposing the resist layer by KrF excimer laser, which is a variety to an electron beam. Kon teaches (Paragraphs [0189]) there are commercially available resist resins which work with KrF exposure.
19. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified Taruya in view of Soong in further view of Suzuki in further view of Shirakawa with Kon for exposure of the resist layer by KrF excimer laser. Doing so would result in the capability to readily available resist resins which work with KrF exposure, as understood by Kon.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach a fluorosurfactant of MEGAFACE R-2011.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
22. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH D HENDRICKS can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
23. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
24. 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.
/RICHARD DAVID CHAMPION/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights