DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the arguments received February 17, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being clearly anticipated by MEYER et al (2017/0102612) is withdrawn in view of the arguments by applicant as the product of the organotin compounds do not explicitly disclose the claimed organotin structure recited in claim
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, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYERS et al (2017/0102612).
The claimed invention continues to recite the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MEYERS et al disclose the same or similar precursor organotin oxide hydroxide coating. This coating is exposed in air, heated to form an insoluble pattern.
MEYERS et al lack the claimed n-butyl group recited in claim 4 in a working example, however the alkyl group is reported in para. [0037], claim 7 and claim 14.
Claims 2 is met by the tert-butyl group and the Me group in Example 6
Claim 8 discloses a substrate and film and is met in para. [0139] of Example 6.
Claim 9 is met in para. [0140] of Example 6.
Claims 5 and 6 would be met by the precursor organotin compound of MEYERS et al if exposed to the CO2 in the air would yield the claimed organotin compounds in claim 1.
Claim 10 met by the teachings in para. [0072].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organotin compounds to use n-butyl groups in the tin compounds as taught in MEYERS et al along with the conversion of the precursor organotin compounds to the claimed compounds as a result of the contact with CO2 in the air and coating the film at any of the thicknesses in reported in para. [0072] for 1 µm or 100 nm with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for patternability with EUV light at a wavelength of 13.5 nm in a pattern of 16-nm lines on a 32-nm pitch to achieve critical dimension of 16 nm with a does from about 8mJ/cm2 to about 25 mJ/ cm2.
The processing of the organotin coating in MEYERS et al include a structure disclosed in para. [0047] that is similar to the precursor in the current application para. [0086] having a hydrolysate giving an organotin oxide hydroxide coating. Each of these precursors are then exposed in the presence of air and form condensed bonds which are differentially soluble. Because of the exposure in air the presence of CO2 may react giving the claimed bicarbonate group in claim 1. Thus, the art of MEYERS et al may contain a bicarbonate structure as claimed and the rejection is repeated and made final.
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 on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights