DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendment to the claims was submitted on 04/08/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24-27, and 31-33 are under consideration
Claims 3-4, 8, 11, 13-14, 19-21, 23, and 28-30 are canceled
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 15, due to blurry text, it is unclear if the instant formula is “formula (i)”, “formula (I)”, “formula (1)”, or “formula (2)”. The examiner will be interpret this as “formula (i)”.
In claim 7, due to blurry text, it is unclear if the instant formula is “formula (ii)” or “formula (II)”. The examiner will be interpret this as “formula (ii)”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “per cent” seems to be a typographical error, which the examiner believes should be “percent”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-4 illustrate example polymers. However, they seem to be missing the parentheses, such as seen in formula (i) of the newly amended claim 1. For example, the left-most structure drawn in figure 2 appears to be a 4-(3-Methyl-3-pentanyl)phenol, rather than a repeating unit of a polymer.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24-27, and 31-33 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.
Instant claim 1 has been amended to disclose a polymer including an acid labile group (ALG), where the polymer including the ALG is entirely made of a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the following structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
151
79
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant claim 7 has been amended to disclose a polymer including an acid labile group (ALG), where the polymer including the ALG is entirely made of a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of the following structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
113
76
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the above repeating units of instant claims 1n and 7 seem to only contain hydroxyl groups, not acid labile groups, which have been disclosed in the specification as being components of alternative embodiments of the instant polymer, where “the polymer may be a polymer with an ALG or a hydroxyl group” [0028]. It is unclear whether or not the polymer contains an ALG.
Instant claim 15 has been amended to disclose a polymer including an acid labile group (ALG) or a hydroxyl group, where the polymer is entirely made of a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of formula (2). However, formula (2) is not provided, as the amended claim only disclose a repeating unit with formula (i). It is unclear what repeating unit makes up the entirety of the instant polymer.
The examiner further notes that, if amended to “the polymer is entirely made up of a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of formula (i)”, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation of “a polymer including an acid labile group (ALG) or a hydroxyl group”, and the claim also recites the polymer is entirely made of a repeating unit selected from the group consisting of formula (2) (interpreted as formula (i), which contains a hydroxyl group, failing to contain an ALG), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9-10, 12, 16-18, 22, 24-27, and 31-33 depend on independent claims 1, 7, and 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-18, 22, 24-27, and 31-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20160109803A1 teaches a chemically amplified negative resist composition comprising of a polymer and an acid generator, where the polymer may have the following repeating unit (a1) or (a2), where R1 and R3 may be methyl, R2 and R5 are H or an acid labile group, and Ax and X2 may each be phenylene. Hatakeyama teaches further including a quencher and dissolution regulator (inhibitor), as well as a method that includes EUV exposure and development.
PNG
media_image3.png
117
249
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US5532113A teaches a negative-tone photoresist composition comprising of a polyhydroxystyrene polymer, a photo-acid generator, and a crosslinking agent (dissolution inhibitor, crosslink-unit) which may contain four hydroxy groups (crosslinking sites), as well as a method including exposure and development.
US20110129765A1 teaches a negative resist composition comprising of a polyhydroxystyrene polymer, where at least some of the hydroxy groups have been replaced with an electron donative group X.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 EST.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights