DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed of November 26, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over ANRYU et al (2021/0286261) in view of MARUYAMA et al (2013/0183624).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
574
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANRYU et al disclose compositions 1 and 2 in Table 1 on page 105, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
508
780
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Compound I-1 is found on page 98 having the following structure:
PNG
media_image3.png
150
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is met by the copolymer A1 on page 104,
PNG
media_image4.png
506
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 is met by the parts by mass of the photoacid seen in Compositions 1 and 2 above at 3.4 parts per 10 parts of the photosensitive resin.
Claim 26 for the copolymer having a hydroxstyrene/propylcyclopentyl methacrylate is seen in the resin above that have been highlighted. Further the claimed resin includes at least a structural unit units of (a1) and (a2)
Claim 27 is met at para. [0189].
MARUYAMA et al report radiation sensitive composition comprising an acid labile containing resin, a photoacid generator and a sensitizers, wherein the sensitizers include benzophenones, anthracenes and other as seen in para. [0206] to [0208]. The content of the sensitizers is normally used in an amount of less than 50 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the polymer, see below:
PNG
media_image5.png
178
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive compositions to add a sensitizer such as anthracene in an amount of less than 50 parts by mass such as 40 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the polymer with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for improved pattern profile, mask error, and LWR.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of MATSUDA et al (9,104,102), EBATA et al (2007/0054214), and MIYAMATSU et al (2006/0141383) report sensitizers used in a radiation sensitive composition an amount of less than 50 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of the polymer, see col. 44, lines 56-67, para. [0231] and para. [0237], respectively.
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 JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 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 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).
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.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
January 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights