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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s representative and the Examiner discussed the claim amendments during a telephonic interview conducted on 15 January 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 6063540 A (hereby referred to as Kurakawa).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 to further limit the Lewis acid species recited. Applicant argues that the previously cited art (ZI and Fritz, as well as Zi and Meyers) fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness necessary to reject instant claims 1, 11, and 17. In particular, Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 17 is improper because the combination of Zi and Fritz, as well as the combination of Zi and Meyers, fails to disclose or suggest the Lewis acid species recited by claims 1, 11, and 17, as amended. The Lewis acid species recited by instant claims 1, 11, and 17 (as well as those recited by instant claim 26) do not appear to be taught or disclosed by the previously cited art. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive and the previous rejections of claims 1, 11, and 17 are withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection is presented in view of US 6063540 A (hereby referred to as Kurakawa), as explained below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-15, 17-18, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180173096 A1 (hereby referred to as ZI) in view of US 6063540 A (hereby referred to as Kurakawa).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 11-12, 17-18 and 26, ZI discloses an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photolithography method with a developer composition. ZI discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (paragraph 0016 and Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of forming a photoresist layer over a substrate (paragraph 0021), exposing the resist layer utilizing radiation from a lithography system to form a latent pattern (paragraph 0030-0032), and developing the exposed resist layer in a developer (paragraph 0033). In some embodiments, the exposing of the resist layer results in portions of the resist layer crosslinking (paragraph 0028 and 0033). In this case, the crosslinked portion remains after the developing process (paragraph 0033). For the developer, ZI utilizes a developer comprising a solvent and a chemical additive that is effective in developing the resist layer (paragraph 0034). The solvent is an organic solvent design with Hansen solubility parameters in the ranges of 18 > δd > 3, 7 > δp > 1, and 7 > δh > 1 (paragraph 0035). ZI discloses that the developer solution may additionally include a second solvent mixed with the first organic solvent (paragraph 0036). The second solvent is designed with Hansen solubility parameters in the ranges of 25 > δd > 13, 25 > δp > 3, and 30 > δh > 4 (paragraph 0036). Based on the examples provided in paragraphs 0035 and 0036 of ZI, the first and second solvents are different from each other. The chemical additive includes organic acid, organic base, chelate additive, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0038). When an organic acid is used, the organic acid is tuned to have a pKa in the range of -11 < pKa < 4 (paragraph 0038). In some embodiments, the developer may further comprise an aqueous acid, such as hydrofluoric acid (HF) or hydrochloric acid (HCl) (paragraph 0037), which both are considered Lewis acids. Ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) may also be used, which may dissociate into OH- ions (paragraph 0037).
However, ZI does not teach the Lewis acid species recited by instant claims 1, 11, and 17. Kurakawa teaches lithographic printing plate manufacturing methods. To manufacture the printing plate, developer is applied to a photosensitive element (Kurakawa, Col. 2 Line 63-Col. 3 Line 19). The developer includes sodium (Na) ions, and preferably further includes potassium (K) ions (Kurakawa, Col. 5 Line 25-34). The sodium and potassium ions may be provided in any form and may be in the form of hydroxide, sulfite, carbonate, silicate, nitrate or the like (Kurakawa, Col. 5 Line 25-34). The sulfite anion has a formula of SO32- and thus the dissociation of a sodium or potassium sulfite salt would yield SO32- ions in the developer.
ZI and Kurakawa are analogous art because both references pertain to developers for light-sensitive resin compositions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to include a Lewis acid such as SO32-, as taught by Kurakawa, in the developer composition disclosed by ZI because it is taught that sulfite ions (SO32-) are functionally equivalent to the hydroxide ion for the purposes of photosensitive material development solutions (see Kurakawa, Col. 5 Line 25-34). Per MPEP 2143 I. B., a prima facie case of obviousness thus exists.
Regarding Claim 3, ZI discloses that when the developed includes a chelate additive, the chelate additive is present in an amount between 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% relative to the total mass of the developer solution (paragraph 0040). Thus, it would have been obvious to include a chelate additive in this amount in the developed obtained from the combination of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claims 6 and 21, ZI further discloses that when hydrofluoric or hydrochloric acid is utilized in the developer composition, it is present in an amount of 5 wt% or less (paragraph 0037). When combined with the teachings of Kurakawa, thereby substituting the hydrofluoric acid with the aforementioned metal salts, this would yield the claimed Lewis acid in the amounts recited by instant claims 6 and 21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to contain the Lewis acid in an amount of 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% based on the total weight of the developer composition.
Regarding Claims 7 and 22, ZI discloses that the content of the first solvent is greater than 60 wt% with respect to the weight of the developer in a given volume (paragraph 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the first solvent in an amount of 60 wt% or more in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claim 8, ZI discloses that the organic acid has a content in the developer between 0.001 wt% and 30 wt% with respect to the total content of the developer solution (paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include the organic acid in this amount in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claim 9, ZI discloses that in some embodiments the solvent includes both organic and aqueous solvents mixed together (paragraph 0037). The aqueous solvent includes water, ethylene glycol, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0037). The content of the aqueous solvent with respect to the total weight of the developer is less than 20 wt% (paragraph 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include water and/or ethylene glycol in this amount in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claims 13 and 23, ZI discloses that the second solvent may be propylene glycol monomethyl ether (PGME), 1-ethoxy-2-propanol (PGEE), γ-butyrolactone (GBL), cyclohexanone, ethyl lactate, methanol, ethanol, propanol, n-butanol, acetone, dimethylformamide (DMF), acetonitrile, isopropyl alcohol, tetrahydrofuran (THF), acetic acid, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include one of these solvents as the second solvent in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claims 14 and 24, ZI discloses that the first organic solvent may include n-butyl acetate, methyl n-amyl ketone, hexane, heptane, or amyl acetate (paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include one of these solvents as the first organic solvent in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Regarding Claims 15 and 25, ZI discloses that the organic acid may be ethanedioic acid, methanoic acid, 2-hydroxypropanoic acid, 2-hydroxybutanedioic acid, citric acid, uric acid, trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, methanesulfonic acid, oxalic acid dihydrate, maleic acid, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include one of these compounds as the organic acid in the developer composition obtained by combining the teachings of ZI and Kurakawa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights