DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received November 24, 2025.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THACKERAY et al (2017/0031244) in view of CHANG et al (2017/0271150) and ROBINSON et al (2018/0373143), MAEDA et al (2004/0265732) and ARIMOTO et al (2018/0031970) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claims 1, 5 and 18.
Bold text indicates new language/rejections added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to claim 1 now recite a metal alkoxide which find no support for the broad scope of metal alkoxide. The disclosed range in the specification is to an alkyl group having a carbon number of 1 to 11 in para. [0047], page 14 of the specification and para. [0044] in the US Patent Application Publication (2022/0334474).
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 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATATKEYAMA (2013/0029270).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
408
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA disclose a resist composition comprising a copolymer having recurring units of acid labile group -substituted (meth)acrylic acid, , styrene carboxylic acid or vinyl naphthalene carboxylic acid and/or acid labile group substituted phenolic hydroxy group, an acid generator and metal salt of carboxylic acid or a metal complex of β-diketone. The copolymer units can be seen in Polymer 1 having a tertiary alkyl group which include any of methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, etc. see para. [0060] to [0061].
Applicants are directed to page 5, para. [0050] to [0051] for the metal salt of carboxylic acid and β-diketone. On page 88, Table 1, Resist 22 report a photosensitive resin composition comprising a polymer having acid labile group containing polymer, and a metal ligand salt of carboxylic acid namely tin (II) 2-ethylhexanoate, see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
708
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
278
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA lacks the working example comprising an acid generator, however Resists 1 and 2 disclose formulations having an acid generator, making it a known component to be used in the composition.
The disclosure also teaches in para. [0115] the amounts of the acid generator to be 0.1 to 50 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polymer which overlaps the claimed range of “ between greater than 30 wt% and no more than 40 wt% in the photoresist composition”, see below.
The working example also lacks the claimed range for the metal complex; however, the disclosed range of the metal complex is found in para. [0114] with a preferred range of 0.02 to 20 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the polymer meeting claim 1, see below.
PNG
media_image4.png
430
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to formulate a composition as reported in HATAKEYAMA et al to add a photoacid generator as reported in Resist 1 and 2 and use the metal precursor of Resist 22 in an amount of 3% to 7.5 wt% based on the photosensitive polymer wherein the polymer having conventional acid-labile tertiary groups, such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl and butyl and reasonably expect same or similar results for high absorption at EUV wavelengths and low to median elastic scattering coefficients.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HATAKEYAMA et al (2009/0286188) report a metal alkoxide such as titanium butoxide in a reaction process to form a reverse film, see para. [0244].
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
February 19, 2026