DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 02/05/2026, the rejections have been updated below.
Claim Status
Claims 2, 13-14, 16, 25-26, 28-30, 32, and 34-41 are under examination.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 15, 17-24, 27, 31, and 33 are cancelled.
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2, 25-26, 28-29, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama ‘125 (US20120208125A1, published 2012) in view of Iwato (US 20120077122 A1, published 2012).
Regarding claims 2, 25-26, 28-29, and 37,
Hatakeyama ‘125 teaches a resist composition comprising of a complex of a β-diketone (ligand which is not a carboxylic acid ligand) with a metal selected from magnesium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, silver, cadmium, indium, tin, antimony, cesium, zirconium, and hafnium, and a solvent [abstract], reading on instant claim 29.
Hatakeyama ‘125 teaches the solvent may be 4-methyl-2-pentanol (methyl isobutyl carbinol, instant fourth solvent), 3-methyl-3-pentanol (a tertiary alcohol), or mixtures thereof [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using about equal parts of each solvent, resulting in a concentration of the third solvent being about 50 wt. %, reading on instant claim 28.
Hatakeyama ‘125 teaches their invention provides a pattern forming process comprising the steps of coating their resist composition onto a substrate, baking, exposing to high-energy radiation, and developing with a developer (patterning process) [0023].
Hatakeyama ‘125 teaches prebaking their coated resist composition at a temperature of 60 to 150° C [0061], reading on instant claim 2.
However, Hatakeyama ‘125 does not teach a tertiary alcohol that is one of those disclosed by instant claim 25.
Iwato, analogous art, teaches a photoresist composition comprising of a tertiary alcohol with the following formula where R1 to R3 is each preferably an alkyl group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms and examples thereof include a methyl group, an ethyl group, a propyl group, an n-butyl group, a sec-butyl group, a hexyl group, and an octyl group [0074-0079], which would include 2,3-dimethyl-2-butanol (as taught by Hatakeyama), as well as overlapping each of the tertiary alcohols disclosed by instant claims 25, 30, 32, and 37-39. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
PNG
media_image1.png
66
86
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For example, a tertiary alcohol where R1 is propyl, R2 is propyl, and R3 is n-butyl would result in the following tertiary alcohol.
PNG
media_image2.png
114
136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Iwato also teaches that when a resist composition containing a tertiary alcohol is employed, the sensitivity is increased, the development defect can be reduced, and an excellent pattern profile is obtained [0054], and may also increase the dissolution or diffusion rate of a polymer chain or increase the permeation speed of the developer through the resist film [0055].
Iwato also teaches further including an organic solvent [0369].
As both Hatakeyama ‘125 and Iwato teach photoresist compositions which may comprise of a mixture of a tertiary alcohol and an additional organic solvent, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the tertiary alcohol of Iwato as a solvent in the composition of Hatakeyama would result in a forming a comparable and functional photoresist layer.
That is, the substitution of the tertiary alcohol of Iwato for the tertiary alcohol of Hatakeyama ‘125, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a photoresist composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
It would also be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the tertiary alcohol of Iwato in the composition of Hatakeyama ‘125 for the benefits taught by Iwato, reading on instant claims 25-26 and 37.
Claims 13, 30, 32, 35-36, and 38--41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US20200041897A1, published 2020) in view of Serizawa (US20200218161A1, published 2020).
Regarding claims 13, 30, 32, 35-36, and 40-41,
Moon teaches a resist composition comprising an organometallic compound as shown below, reading on the instant organometallic compound [title, 0043].
PNG
media_image3.png
140
278
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moon teaches the solvent may be 4-methyl-2-pentanol (methyl isobutyl carbinol, instant second solvent), ethers, or a mixture thereof [0051].
Moon teaches steps of baking the substrate coated with the photoresist layer at about 80° C. to about 120° C , selective exposure to light, a post exposure bake step at about 90° C. to about 200° C, and developing the exposed photoresist film [0075-0081], reading on instant claims 13 and 35-36. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Moon teaches a method of forming patterns according to an embodiment includes forming an etching subject layer on a substrate, coating the semiconductor resist composition on the etching subject layer to form a photoresist layer, patterning the photoresist layer to form a photoresist pattern, and etching the etching subject layer using the photoresist pattern as an etching mask [0065], reading on instant claim 40. While silent to removing portions of the patterned photoresist layer, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that etching an underlying subject layer using a patterned photoresist layer as an etching mask would result in at least a small portion of the etching mask being removed during the etching process, reading on instant claim 41.
Moon teaches examples of ether solvents including tetrahydrofuran and the like [0051], but is silent to other specific examples of ether solvents.
Serizawa, analogous art, teaches a resist pattern forming method [abstract] where the resist composition may be a metal resist [0174]. Teaches examples of ether solvents including diethyl ether and tetrahydrofuran [0093].
As both Serizawa and Moon teach resist pattern forming methods using metal resist compositions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using diethyl ether as taught by Serizawa as the ether solvent of Moon would result in a comparable and expected resist composition, reading on instant claims 30 and 32.
That is, the substitution of the diethyl ether of Serizawa for the ether solvent of Moon, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a resist composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Regarding claims 38-39,
The claims do not actually affirmatively require the addition of the third solvent. As these claims only add further limitations to the third solvent, the examiner maintains that Moon in view of Serizawa has rendered said claims obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 with respect to the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the new claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hatakeyama ‘125 and Moon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, and 34 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 14 and 16 depend on independent 30, and claim 34 depends on independent claim 32. Each of claims 14, 16, and 34 further limit the solvent to include the third solvent.
A search did not find the claimed invention.
The closest prior art Moon, as shown above, teaches a similar method and composition, but fails to teach a solvent containing one of the tertiary alcohols shown in instant claims 30 or 32.
Hatakeyama ‘125, as shown above, teaches a similar method and composition, but fails to teach an organometallic compound that aligns with the instant compound having formula MaRbXc, where R is an alkyl or alkenyl group and X is an amino, alkoxy, halogen, or sulfonate group.
Neither Moon, Hatakeyama ‘125, nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their compositions to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
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 Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at (571) 272-1385. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights