Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/320,398

ACTINIC RAY-SENSITIVE OR RADIATION-SENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, RESIST FILM, PATTERN FORMING METHOD, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 14, 2021
Examiner
LEE, ALEXANDER N
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
72 granted / 98 resolved
+8.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 02/06/2026, new claims 16-21 are added. Claim Status Claims 1-10 and 14-21 are under consideration Claims 11-13 are canceled Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10, 14, and 16-18 are rejected 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. Independent claim 1 discloses “and A11- and A12- meet any one of the following requirements 1 to 4”, however there are 5 listed requirements, as requirement 5 has been added in the latest amendment. It is unclear if requirement 5 is a further requirement in addition to one of requirements 1-4 Further, if required, requirement 5 does not appear to be satisfiable if one of requirements 1-4 are satisfied. For the sake of examination, the examiner will interpret this to mean “and A11- and A12- meet any one of the following requirements 1 to 5”. 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 1-10 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamaguchi (US20150331314A1, published 2015). Regarding claims 1-10 and 15-21, Yamaguchi teaches an actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition comprising of a resin having a group capable of decomposing by an action of an acid (acid decomposable resin) as well as compounds (C1) and (C2) [claim 1]. Yamaguchi further teaches example composition comprising of a resin, a compound B, and a compound C [0822, table 6]. Yamaguchi also teaches the following example of compound (C1) [0432], PNG media_image1.png 138 449 media_image1.png Greyscale Where the right anion represents a moiety capable of forming the following acidic functional group (Ca-6) [0293], where R11 may be a cycloalkyl group [0294], which may preferably be an adamantyl group [0296]. PNG media_image2.png 79 225 media_image2.png Greyscale It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using adamantyl as the R11 group of the above example compound (C1) in place of CF3 would result in an expected and comparable compound. The resulting compound aligns with instant compound (I) and instant formula (Ia), as well as satisfying requirement 4, where A11- and A12- are each independently represented by general formulae (B-1) and (B-8), where each RX1 is an unsubstituted alkyl group. Further, the anionic moieties match those of instant compound B-9, with pKa values of -4.41 and 0.37 per table 2 of the instant specification. As the anionic moieties are the same as those of the instant compound B-6, the pKa values would be expected to be similar or identical, reading on instant claims 2-3 and 16-21. PNG media_image3.png 160 124 media_image3.png Greyscale Given that Yamaguchi discloses the compound that encompasses the presently claimed compound (I) with formula (Ia), including the instantly claimed anionic moieties, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the compound (C1), which is both disclosed by Yamaguchi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Yamaguchi teaches their compound B is an acid generator which may be an ionic compound composed of an anion and a cation, where the anion may be a camphorsulfonate anion [0475-0478]. Substituting the above cation with H+ results in the following structure with a predicted pKa of 1.2 (as evidenced by scifinder as seen below, CAS number 5872-08-2), aligning with instant general formula (1), reading on instant claims 1, 4-7, and 15. PNG media_image4.png 647 1434 media_image4.png Greyscale Alternatively, given that Yamaguchi discloses a compound B that encompasses the presently claimed compound with formula (1), including a camphorsulfonate anion with an acid dissociation constant of 0 to 4, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use compound B including a camphorsulfonate anion, which is both disclosed by Yamaguchi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention, reading on instant claims 1, 4-7, and 15. Yamaguchi teaches a pattern forming method comprising forming a resist film on a substrate, exposing the film, and developing a developer [0725-0732], reading on instant claims 8-9. Yamaguchi also teaches their invention for use in manufacturing electronic devices [0845], reading on instant claim 10. Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi teaches their cation for their compound C may be a cation with formula (ZI), where each of R201, R202 and R203 independently represents an organic group [0322-0323], and may be represented by formula (ZI-4) [0332], where l is 0-2, r may be 0, each R15 independently represents an alkyl group, a cycloalkyl group or a naphthyl group (organic groups), and R13 may be an alkyl group with a substituent [0362-0368], where the substituent may preferably be a halogen atom (particularly a fluorine atom) [0375, 0378], reading on the instant formula (Za1), reading on instant claim 14. PNG media_image5.png 49 205 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 117 244 media_image6.png Greyscale Given that Yamaguchi discloses the cation that encompasses the presently claimed cation, including an aryl group substituted with a halogen substituted alkyl group (alkyl halide), it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the cation ion including an aryl group substituted with a halogen substituted alkyl group (alkyl halide), which is both disclosed by Yamaguchi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the new claim amendments filed 02/06/2026 with respect to the rejections over Yamaguchi have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly. Conclusion 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 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 14, 2021
Application Filed
Nov 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 27, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 03, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 04, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 19, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596304
Silanol-containing organic-inorganic hybrid coatings for high resolution patterning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566383
Non-Destructive Coupon Generation via Direct Write Lithography for Semiconductor Process Development
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547075
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12535738
PHOTORESIST TOP COATING MATERIAL FOR ETCHING RATE CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12535739
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+5.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 98 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month