Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/462,216

PHOTORESIST COMPOSITIONS AND PATTERN FORMATION METHODS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 31, 2021
Examiner
CHAMPION, RICHARD DAVID
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rohm And Haas Electronic Materials LLC
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
44%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
55%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 44% of resolved cases
44%
Career Allow Rate
52 granted / 118 resolved
-20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
160
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
62.5%
+22.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 118 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 February 2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments 2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, line , filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0343898 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama; Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0343898 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama, and in further view of Furutani et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication No. WO 2019/058945 A1; utilizing United States Patent Publication No. US 2020/0192220 A1 as an English language equivalent), hereinafter Furutani; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has failed to cite any support in the original disclosure for claim amendments made therein, but it appears that Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to fully incorporate the limitations of Claims 3 and 12, respectively, and Claim 10 additionally has been made dependent of Claim 1, instead of being an independent claim. As such, these amendments do not substantively differentiate the claims of the present application over those which the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of said claims of the present application on 19 December 2025. The only other claim amendments to the present application is to modify “comprising” to “consisting of” when limiting the first polymer of the present application to a first and a second repeating units and the second polymer of the present application to a first, second, and third repeating units. Given that the rejection of record is a 103 rejection and not a 102 rejection and Hatakeyama does not teach the necessity of anything other than said repeating units comprising what the present application terms the first and second polymer, said argument is not persuasive. Applicant further argues that the claimed composition of the present application achieves unexpectedly superior results. This too is a repetition of the same argument made before the Appeal Board and is addressed in their Decision, Page 7, Paragraph 2 to Page 8, Paragraph 1. As such, said arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. 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: 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0343898 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama. 6. Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 16 and 18, Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0039-0043]) a first polymer comprising a first repeating unit comprising a hydroxy-aryl group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) a first polymer comprising a second repeating unit comprising an acid-labile group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) a first polymer which does not comprise a lactone group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0039-0043]) a second polymer comprising a first repeating unit comprising a hydroxy-aryl group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) a second polymer comprising a second repeating unit comprising an acid-labile group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) a second polymer comprising a lactone group. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0089]) a photoacid generator. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0088]) a solvent. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0039-0043]) the first repeating unit of the first polymer is derived from one or more monomers of formula (1) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) the second repeating unit of the first polymer are each independently derived from one or more monomers of formula (2a), (2b), (2c), (2d), or (2e) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) the second repeating unit of the second polymer is derived from one or more monomers of formula (2a’), (2b’), (2c’), (2d’), or (2e’) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraphs [0044-0069]) the third repeating unit of the second polymer is derived from one or more monomers of formula (4) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0089]) the photoacid generator is non-polymeric. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0089]) the photoacid generator comprises a sulfonate group on the anion. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0091]) a photo-decomposable quencher. Hatakeyama teaches (Table 1, Example 2-4) a weight ratio of the first polymer to the second polymer is 3:2. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0095]) applying a layer of a photoresist composition on a substrate. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0096]) pattern-wise exposing the photoresist composition layer to activating radiation. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0097]) developing the exposed photoresist composition layer to provide a resist relief image. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0086]) a blend of two or more polymers as therein described. 7. However, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach all components of the composition limited by the present application with a single experimental example. That said, all components of the composition are described with sufficient specificity by the prior art and a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Hatakeyama would have combined the components herein limited with a reasonable expectation of success. That is to say, it would have been obvious to try. 8. Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0343898 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama, and in further view of Furutani et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication No. WO 2019/058945 A1; utilizing United States Patent Publication No. US 2020/0192220 A1 as an English language equivalent), hereinafter Furutani. 9. Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Hatakeyama teaches all limitations of Claims 1 and 10 as explained above, and further teaches the photoacid generator comprises a sulfonate group on the anion. However, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach a second photoacid generator that is non-polymeric, wherein the second photoacid generator comprises an anion that is free of sulfonate groups. 10. Furutani teaches (Paragraphs [0408-0479]) a second photoacid generator that is non-polymeric, wherein the second photoacid generator comprises an anion that is free of sulfonate groups. Furutani teaches (Paragraph [0415]) the second photoacid generator therein described also acts as an acid diffusion control agent thus suppressing the acid generated reacting with polymer(s) in the unexposed region. 11. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hatakeyama to incorporate the teaching of Furutani to further comprise a second photoacid generator that is non-polymeric, wherein the second photoacid generator comprises an anion that is free of sulfonate groups. Doing so would result in the second photoacid generator acting as an acid diffusion control agent, as recognized by Furutani. 12. Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Hatakeyama teaches all limitations of Claims 1 and 10 as explained above. However, Hatakeyama fails to explicitly teach a base-labile material comprising one or more base-labile groups, wherein the base-labile material is different from the first polymer and the second polymer. 13. Furutani teaches (Paragraphs [0149-0161]) a base-labile material comprising one or more base-labile groups, wherein the base-labile material is different from the first polymer and the second polymer. Furutani teaches (Paragraph [0150]) the inclusion of a base-labile material therein described results in excellent patterns. 14. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hatakeyama to incorporate the teaching of Furutani to further comprise a base-labile material comprising one or more base-labile groups, wherein the base-labile material is different from the first polymer and the second polymer. Doing so would result in the formation of excellent patterns, as recognized by Furutani. Conclusion 15. 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. 16. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F 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. 17. 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). 18. 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. /R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 13, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 25, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 14, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 19, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Oct 18, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 19, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12585202
MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ARTICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583973
POLYIMIDE-BASED POLYMER, POSITIVE PHOTOSENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, NEGATIVE PHOTOSENSITIVE RESIN COMPOSITION, PATTERNING METHOD, METHOD FOR FORMING CURED FILM, INTERLAYER INSULATING FILM, SURFACE PROTECTIVE FILM, AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566374
PHOTORESIST COMPOSITION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12516074
COMPOSITION, FILM, METHOD OF FORMING FILM, METHOD OF FORMING PATTERN, METHOD OF FORMING ORGANIC-UNDERLAYER-FILM REVERSE PATTERN, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12498635
RESIST COMPOSITION, METHOD OF FORMING RESIST PATTERN, AND COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
44%
Grant Probability
55%
With Interview (+11.2%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 118 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