Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/900,578

METHOD OF FORMING A PHOTORESIST ABSORBER LAYER AND STRUCTURE INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 31, 2022
Examiner
LEE, ALEXANDER N
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Asm Ip Holding B V
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
72 granted / 98 resolved
+8.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 10/29/2025. Claim Objections Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 15-23 are under consideration Claims 3 and 13-14 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12, 15-17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nardi (WO 2021/067632, equivalent to US 2022/0365434, IDS 11/22/2022) as evidenced by Luo (Review of recent advances in inorganic photoresists, Chaoyun Luo, Chanchan Xu, Le Lv, Hai Li, Xiaoxi Huang, and Wei Liu, RSC Adv., 2020, 10, 8385-8395). Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US2020/0310244) as evidenced by Luo (Review of recent advances in inorganic photoresists, Chaoyun Luo, Chanchan Xu, Le Lv, Hai Li, Xiaoxi Huang, and Wei Liu, RSC Adv., 2020, 10, 8385-8395). Regarding claims 1-2, 5-9, 12, 15-17, 19, and 23, the rejections filed 08/29/2025 are expressly incorporated herein. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 regarding the rejections to claims 1 and 23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argued that the absorber layer does not comprise metal halide. Examiner noted that a metal halide may be used when forming the absorbing layer [0129]. Further, surface modification using elements such as I, F, Sn, Bi, Sb, and Te ; I and F with any of the metals would generate metal halides at this surface of the absorber layer [0173]. Regarding Claims 23, Applicant argued that the proposed amendment now forms a device structure and suggests this places the prior art outside the scope of Nakagawa. However, Nakagawa discloses a reflective mask of their embodiment may be used to manufacture semiconductor devices on which desired electronic circuits are formed, reading on the instant “forming a structure in the manufacture of an electronic device”. The instant claim 23 as written does not require that the structure is a portion of the electronic device, but rather a structure in the manufacture of an electronic device. Examiner notes that Nardi discloses in Fig. 8 photoabsorption cross section properties for various metals. Nardi discloses Fe, Co, Ni Cu, Zn as selected metals with similar photoabsorption coefficient properties; other metals listed such as Ge and Mg have very similar photoabsorption coefficients based on the Figure 8. It would be obvious to substitute in other metals having similar photoabsorption properties. Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments filed 10/29/2025 with respect to the rejections to claims 4, 9-11, 18, and 20-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the new claim amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-11, 20, and 22 are allowed. Claims 4, 9, 18, and 21 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 18 and 21 have been amended to further require the capping layer to comprise of a metal oxycarbide. Dependent claim 4 has been amended to require the reactant to be one of HF, TiF4, and HFac. Dependent claim 9 has been amended require the absorber layer to contain two or more elements selected from the group consisting of AI, Mg, Ti, Y, La, Sr, Tb, Yb, Ge or Ir. A search did not find the claimed invention. The closest prior art Nardi et al. teaches the limitations disclosed in the office action filed 08/29/2025. However, Nardi fails to teach a capping layer comprising of a metal oxycarbide. Nardi also fails to teach a reactant which is one of HF, TiF4, and HFac, or an absorber layer containing at least two elements selected from the group of AI, Mg, Ti, Y, La, Sr, Tb, Yb, Ge or Ir. Neither Nardi nor the prior art in general provide sufficient motivation to make it obvious to modify their methods or structures to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. Claims 10-11 and 22 depend on allowable independent claim 20. Conclusion 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, Mark Huff can be reached at (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 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. /A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 31, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 17, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596304
Silanol-containing organic-inorganic hybrid coatings for high resolution patterning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566383
Non-Destructive Coupon Generation via Direct Write Lithography for Semiconductor Process Development
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547075
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12535738
PHOTORESIST TOP COATING MATERIAL FOR ETCHING RATE CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12535739
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+5.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 98 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month