DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment and the evidence submitted under Rule 1.132 received March 2, 2026.
New language in the OA is in bold.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 15-17, and 20 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUCHIMURA (2017/0121437) and TSUCHIMURA et al (WO-2016/0121535) in view of KOTAKE et al (2018/0180992), HATAKEYAMA et al (2017/0205709) and MASUNAGA et al (9,244,348).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
640
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
880
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
674
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
894
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
800
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
618
674
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
856
692
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
180
670
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 recite the same components in claim 1 and includes an acid generating monomer.
TSUCHIMURA report an acid-labile resin having the following repeating units as seen in Table 2, starting on page 133:
PNG
media_image9.png
494
809
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Example 1-17 and Example 1-21 report a resin of compound (A17) formulated with P-3 and P-5, respectively, an acid generator of compound Z-99 and Z-118, respectively with a basic compound (quencher) N-10 and N-8, respectively.
The claimed additional polymer having structure (D1) and (D2) of claim 12 can be found on pages 121 and 121, see below:
PNG
media_image10.png
949
704
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
706
518
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The fluorinated polymer now consists of (D1) and at least one repeat unit selected form the group consisting of repeat units (D2) to (D5) in claim 1.
Applicants are directed to page 95, para. [0424] wherein the compound X is disclosed to be in a content of 20% to 99% by mass to the solid content in the actinic ray-sensitive composition. This disclosure at 20% would fall within the now claimed range of 0.01 to 40 parts by weight per 80 parts by weight of the base polymer. The claimed amount of 40 parts by weight of 80 parts by weight of the base polymer means that the crosslinker is 50 parts by weight or less of the base polymer and the teaching at 20% by mass of the solids content would be 33.1 parts by weight of 80 parts by weight of the base polymer. Using Example 1-16, if compound A-16 is formulated in an amount of 20 parts by weight of the solid content of the composition, that would be 12.41 parts per a total solid part of 74.46 (A16 = 12.41, P-2 = 30, Z-115 = 30 N-11 = 2 and W-1 = 0.05). 12.41*80/30= 33.1 per 80 parts by weight of resin P-2.
TSUCHIMURA et al ‘535 disclose the crosslinking compounds of formula (A6) and (A16) at pages 64 and 66, respectively, which meet the amended formula (A1) in claim 1 wherein k=3 or 4, see below:
PNG
media_image12.png
222
748
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
332
734
media_image13.png
Greyscale
TSUCHIMURA report an acid-labile resin having the following repeating units as seen in Table 5, starting on page 72:
PNG
media_image14.png
64
798
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
64
780
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Example N6 and Example N21 report a compound (A6) and (A16), respectively formulated with resin P-1, an acid generator of compound z65 and z42, respectively.
The disclosed polymers have the following structures (D1) and (D2) of claim 5 can be found on pages 31, para. [0086], see below:
PNG
media_image16.png
972
912
media_image16.png
Greyscale
KOTAKE et al discloses a hydrophobic resin having two monomeric units which meet the claimed (D1) and (D2) units, see below from para. [0164] from page 38:
PNG
media_image17.png
759
419
media_image17.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA et al report the use of hydroxyl containing crosslinkers wherein the crosslinker can be used in an amount of 1 to 40 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight of the base polymer, see para. [0119] and para. [0122]], see below:
PNG
media_image18.png
178
368
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
72
360
media_image19.png
Greyscale
MASUNAGA et al is cited to disclose the claimed polymer having the repeating units of (B1), (B2) and (B3) in addition the reference teaching the use of crosslinkers in col. 28, lines 61-67 for alkoxymethyl glycourils and alkoxymethyl melamines. The reference lacks a disclosure for the hydroxy containing crosslinkers. However, HATAKEYAMA et al teach use of equivalent crosslinking agents above in para. [0119] to include hydroxy-containing compounds.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of chemically amplified resist composition to use the polymer of MASUNAGA et al for the repeating units (B1), (B2) and (B3) and a crosslinker taught in HATAKEYAMA et al and TSUCHIMURA et al reference such as tetramethylol glycouril, (A6) and/or (A16) from TSUCHIMURA et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for improved sensitivity, resolution, LER, LWR and CDU.
The submitted Rule 132 declaration has been carefully considered, however the evidence is not of proper scope, weight and character to demonstrate unexpected results wherein the weight percent of the RP-1 polymer is not in the same ratio to the crosslinker in Comparative Examples A-1 and A-2 as in Examples A-1 and A-2. So, it is not clear that the recited polymer combination and crosslinker are the sole contributors to the improved LER, CDU and IL/IS maximum resolution properties.
New claims 22 and 23 continue to be met by TSUCHIMURA et al ‘535 as obvious over compound A6, page 64 (it is obvious over the compound on page 23, claim 22, see both compounds below):
PNG
media_image20.png
180
604
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
168
270
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is disclosed by compound A15 on page 66 (meets the compound at the middle of page 27, claim 23 see both compounds below):
PNG
media_image22.png
196
596
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
114
266
media_image23.png
Greyscale
The rejection is repeated.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HIRANO (2018/0120701) is cited of interest as disclosing a negative working composition having each of the components as recited in claim 1.
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 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
March 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights