DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed January 26, 2026.
Any Bolded text is new to the office action.
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 1-3, 5-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of HATAKEYAMA et al (2018/0364574), KOTAKE et al (2019/0361348) and HATAKEYAMA et al (2018/0373150) and in view of MASUBUCHI et al (2011/0177453).
The claimed invention now recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
648
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
878
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
716
704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
850
710
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
740
704
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
784
720
media_image6.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA et al report a positive photosensitive resin composition comprising a resin comprising a copolymer comprising an acid generating monomer, a phenolic containing monomer, a phenolic containing monomer with acid labile groups and a carboxyl group protected with an acid labile group, see Table 1, Example 11 wherein the following polymer is used:
PNG
media_image7.png
308
402
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
444
426
media_image8.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA et al (2018/0364574) meets the copolymer as recited in claim 1, however it lacks the use of units (A4) and (A8).
HATAKEYAMA et al ‘150 report acid generating units having the following structure (a1) and (a2) shown below:
PNG
media_image9.png
324
432
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
842
450
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Applicants are directed to Rf1 to Rf4 defined as hydrogen, fluorine and trifluoromethyl. If Rf1 and Rf2 are selected to be trifluoromethyl, and if Rf3 to Rf4 are hydrogen, the units of (A-4) and (A-8) would be met.
The skilled artisan would expect same or similar results when selecting any of hydrogen, fluorine and trifluoromethyl.
With respect to the amendments to (B1) and (B2), Polymer 5 in HATAKEYAMA et al ‘150 meets those units, see below:
PNG
media_image11.png
604
366
media_image11.png
Greyscale
KOTAKE et al is cited to disclose method steps for forming a photomask blank on a substrate, see para. [0181], below:
PNG
media_image12.png
188
432
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Applicants are directed to page 55, para. [0059] wherein a recurring unit (d) in the HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 reference report the following highlighted structures below which may further be incorporated in the base polymer and meets amendment to claim 1 for formulae (C1) and (C2):
PNG
media_image13.png
690
442
media_image13.png
Greyscale
And in para. [0060] a styrene, vinyl naphthalene and vinyl anthracene are reported as a recurring unit (e) which may be incorporated in the base polymer. The disclosed unit (e) meets formula (C3) of amended claim 1 see below:
PNG
media_image14.png
110
424
media_image14.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17 and 18, a quencher is reported in para. [0077] – [0085] for carboxylic acid onium salts which may be formulate with the photoresist composition to improving the pattern profile and meets the structure of (F1) in claim 18.
MASUBUCHI et al is cite to disclose that the linking divalent groups in the structure can be alkylene with the view of HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 wherein their R2 can be a lactone, hydrocarbylene with fluorine, ester and ether, see page 2, para. [0018] of HATAKEYAMA et al , while MASUBUCHI et al report Z is a substitute or unsubstituted alkylene teaching the skilled artisan that the divalent linking group can be any of those groups in HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 and MASUBUCHI et al, see below:
HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 wherein Z2 can be a cyclic ester from formula (f2), page 2, para [0018] above with a specific unit on page 61 :
PNG
media_image15.png
172
324
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
262
338
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
440
394
media_image17.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to use trifluoromethyl substituents on the acid generating units at Rf1 to Rf2 and use additional recurring units (d) and (e) as taught in HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 and further have alkylene groups with esters, lactone and others disclosed in HATAKEYAMA et al and MASUBUCHI et al a method for forming photomask blanks with the reasonable expectation of improved sensitivity, resolution and improved CDU.
HATAKEYAMA et al ’150 discloses in Examples 1-8 compositions that contain an acid generating repeating unit with a bromine substituent in X2 , however HATAKEYAMA et al ‘574 and MASUBUCHI et al teach other divalent groups not having bromine.
HATAKEYAMA et al ’150 show that the photoresist compositions can contain or lack a PAG compound, see Table 1, page 92, see below:
PNG
media_image18.png
454
540
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The skilled artisan seeing that the composition can both contain an extra PAG compounds or not as seen in Examples 1-8 and 9-10 (with a PAG) would be taught to remove the PAG and still expect same or similar results as reported in HATAKEYAMA et al ‘150.
The rejection is repeated.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HATAKEYAMA et al (2017/0351177) disclose carboxylic salt quenchers having iodine substituted aromatic rings, see para. [0053] below:
PNG
media_image19.png
214
374
media_image19.png
Greyscale
.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights