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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, line 6, filed 11 October 2024, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2006/0068320 A1), hereinafter Takahashi; Claims 4-5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2006/0068320 A1), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Namai et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication no. WO 2015/025859 A1), hereinafter Namai; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to Claim 1 overcomes the rejection of record. That is not persuasive. Applicant points to general formula (VII) of Paragraph [0148] of Takahashi as failing to teach a trifluoromethyl group substituting a triphenyl sulphonium cation. Paragraph [0149] of Takahashi states: “In general formulae (VII)[], R1 to R15 . . . each independently represent . . . linear or branched alkyl group . . .” Paragraph [0153] of Takahashi states: “Examples of the linear or branched alkyl groups represented by R1 to R15 . . . in general formulae (VII)[] include ones having 1-20 carbon atoms, such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, and t-butyl which each may have one or more substituents.” Paragraph [0158] of Takahashi states: “Preferred examples of those substituents include . . . halogen atoms (fluorine, chlorine, and iodine atoms) . . .” Thus, Takahashi teaches at least one of R1 to R15 general formulae (VII) is a methyl group, wherein said methyl group has been substituted by three fluorine atoms and thus a trifluoromethyl group substituting a triphenyl sulphonium cation within the scope of the amended limitations of the present application. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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:
3. 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, 3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2006/0068320 A1), hereinafter Takahashi.
6. Regarding Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9, Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0167-0360]) an acid-decomposable resin. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically anions (I-27, I-28, I-37, and I-53) and cations (IV-2 to IV-5)) a specific compound, wherein the specific compound has two or more cationic moieties and the same number of anionic moieties as that of the cationic moieties. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically cations (IV-2 to IV-5)) at least one of the cationic moieties is a group represented by General Formula (I) of the present application. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically anions (I-27, I-28, I-37, and I-53)) the specific compound is anionic moiety which is represented by General Formulae (B-6), (B-7), and (B-9) of the present application. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically anions (I-27, I-28, I-37, and I-53)) the specific compound has at least two kinds of groups represented by General Formulae (B-6), (B-7), and (B-9). Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0142-0160]) specific compound has one or more organic cations of an organic cation represented by General Formula (II) of the present application. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0142-0160]) in General Formula (II) of the present application at least two of Ar1, Ar2, or Ar3 each represent an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group having a substituent. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically cation (IV-4)) the cationic moiety has at least one acid group. Takahashi teaches (Paragraph [0164]) a content of the specific compound being 16.0% to 20.0% by mass with respect to a total solid content of the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition. Takahashi teaches (Paragraph [0423]) a resist film formed of the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0142-0160]) the specific compound has the organic cation represented by General Formula (II) of the present application.
7. Regarding Claims 10-11, Takahashi teaches (Paragraph [0423]) a step of forming a resist film on a substrate using the actinic ray-sensitive or radiation-sensitive resin composition. Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0424-0425]) a step of exposing the resist film. Takahashi teaches (Paragraph [0426]) a step of developing the exposed resist film using a developer to form a pattern.
8. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that each element of the composition claimed herein, although not necessarily in a single experimental example, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the teaching of Takahashi being the lack of an actual combination of said composition elements in a single experimental example. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the composition elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compose the composition taught in the detailed description of Takahashi.
9. Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (United States Patent Publication no. US 2006/0068320 A1), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Namai et al. (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Publication no. WO 2015/025859 A1), hereinafter Namai.
10. Regarding Claims 4-5 and 12, Takahashi teaches all limitations of Claims 1-2 above. Furthermore, Takahashi teaches (Paragraphs [0066-0166], therein specifically anions (I-27, I-28, I-37, and I-53)) the specific compound is anionic moiety which is represented by General Formula (AX-1) of the present application. However, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach the specific compound has an anionic moiety AB- which is represented by any of General Formulae (BX-1), (BX-2), and (BX-4) of the present application.
11. Namai teaches (Paragraphs [0140-0205]) an anionic moiety which is represented by any of General Formulae (BX-1), (BX-2), and (BX-4) of the present application. Namai teaches (Paragraphs [0142-0143]) an anionic moiety which is represented by any of General Formulae (BX-1), (BX-2), and (BX-4) of the present application has acid capture capabilities.
12. 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 Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Namai wherein an anionic moiety which is represented by any of General Formulae (BX-1), (BX-2), and (BX-4) of the present application. Doing so would result in the specific compound having acid capture capabilities, as recognized by Namai. Furthermore, doing so would involve the simple substitution of an anionic moiety taught by Takahashi with an anionic moiety taught by Namai. Said modification would be a simple substitution of one known element, an anionic moiety taught by Takahashi, with an anionic moiety which is represented by any of General Formulae (BX-1), (BX-2), and (BX-4) of the present application, taught by Namai. Said modification would be both functional and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to teach a single compound in the art comprising both the chemical groups of General Formulae (B-8) and (BX-1) of the present application.
Conclusion
14. 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).
15. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
16. 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.
17. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KEITH D HENDRICKS can be reached at (571) 272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
18. 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).
19. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights