DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed January 13, 2026.
Any bolded text is new to the office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 defines R3 and R4 however the formula having those variables have been canceled.
Correction is necessary.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 32 recite a Markush list wherein the third compound has been canceled in claim 1, see the claims below:
PNG
media_image1.png
146
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 11-12, 15, and 21, 23, 26, 29-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZAMPINI et al (2002/0037472) further in view of KUROIWA et al (2019/0278178) and MOMOZAWA et al (2021/055655) and THORKELSSON et al (2019/0122890).
The claims now recite the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
446
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
268
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
450
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
348
694
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
408
708
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ZAMPINI et al report a method wherein after development the patterned images are etched or there is plating of the substrate, see para. [0123].
With respect to new claim 25, ZAMPINI et al further discloses that a positive or negative photoresist can be used in the method, see claim 22 see below:
PNG
media_image8.png
156
446
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
KUROIWA et al reports a photosensitive composition for making a plated article. The reference reports a thiol compound (C2) which include benzenedithiol isomers as seen in para. [0135] shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
118
442
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Further, KUROIWA et al disclose the use of nitrogen-containing compounds on page 24, para. [0154] which include benzimidazole which meets the claimed sixth compound species in claim 1 and the generic structures for an imidazole ring in claims 11 and 21, see below:
PNG
media_image10.png
352
382
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Newly cited reference to MOMOZAWA et al also disclose a composition comprising a compound C12 to a benzotriazole (first compound structure in claim 1) found on page 48, para. [0299] and would inherently form an underlayer of less than 10 nm between the photoresist layer and the metal substrate as it would behave according to it chemical structure and diffuse to the metal layer. the compound is shown here and meets claims 1, 11 and 21:
PNG
media_image11.png
82
356
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Examples 12, 27 and 42 in Tables 1 and 3 disclose working examples containing C12 that would inherently forming the additive underlayer upon coating of the photoresist on the copper substrate, see below:
PNG
media_image12.png
572
530
media_image12.png
Greyscale
New claims 27 and 28 are met by the art as seen in ZAMPINI et al above wherein the use of negative or positive photoresist is taught in plating or etching methods.
All the art in the current rejection involves plating on a copper substrate and are fully combinable in the obviousness-type rejection.
Applicants are directed to page 45, para. [0257] wherein the MOMOZAWA et al teach equivalent triazole compounds to include 5-methyl benzotriazole and benzotriazole, see the list below:
PNG
media_image13.png
336
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Thus, the skilled artisan can expect any of the listed triazole compounds to function in the same manner as taught in MOMOZAWA et al.
THORKELSSON et al discloses a method of plating of a metal into features of an electronic device. Para. [0042] include definitions for the feature, photoresist (PR), through-mask features being formed on a conductive seed layer, exposed dielectric layer and connection of the metal layer to additional conductive layers positioned beneath the dielectric. And para. [0046] disclose processes that can be applied to fill through mask features during fabrication of a variety of packages such as redistribution lines (RDL).
The method is conventional for forming RDL using photoresist composition, over a conductive seed metal layer over a dielectric layer and having an additional conductive layer underneath the dielectric layer.
Claim 11 amended to include forming a metal layer… is met by the process reported in THORKELSSON et al on page 3, para. [0042].
Claim 21 amended to include the removing of the exposed regions of the photoresist layer… is also met by THORKELSSON et al on page 3, para. [0042].
New claims 29-34 describe conventional pattern formations such as T-shaped cross -sections after a photolithographic process.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition in a plating method of THORKELSSON et al for forming RDL through-mask features and use any of the additive as taught by KUROIWA et al in a photoresist composition by adding a nitrogen-containing compound such as benzimidazole, or duplicating the Examples 12, 27 and 42 of MOMOZAWA et al which contains a benzotriazole and would inherently form an underlayer due to the presence of the benzotriazole or a methyl benzotriazole using either a positive or negative photoresist in the plating method with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for features with high aspect ratio, vertical side walls and sharp edges.
Further ZAMPINI et al report that the photosensitive composition can be either negative working or positive working photoresists wherein after plating and development, a second upper surface would have formed inherently formed from the presence of benzimidazole additive and a plating step would inherently deposit on the spontaneously formed layer.
Claims 1-7 appear to be allowable over the prior art of record once the 112, 2nd paragraph rejection has been removed.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the additives listed in the photoresist layer, see below:
PNG
media_image14.png
434
678
media_image14.png
Greyscale
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
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights