DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received December 10, 2025.
The provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 17/893,458 is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer received December 10, 2025.
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, and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATAKEYAMA et al (2017/0199457) in view of OKUYAMA et al (2013/0189533).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
716
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
826
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
644
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The amendment inserts a specific linking group for variable “
Z’”, wherein the heteroatom is now oxygen or sulfur. The heteroring can be monocyclic or a fused having up to a total of 10 rings as defined by the variable “d” and “e” being 0-5.
HATAKEYAMA et al report an underlayer comprising a polymer having the structure shown here on page 5, para. [0050]:
PNG
media_image4.png
192
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The defined group for R3 include a carbazole which contains a heteroatom in the ring wherein each of the independent R3 groups include an arylene group meeting the claimed structure of Chemical formula 1.
Applicants are further directed to para. [0071] wherein HATAKEYAMA et al report that other copolymerizable monomers may be used to include benzofuran (d=1 and d=0) as seen here which would meet amended claim 1 for Z’ being oxygen (O).
PNG
media_image5.png
222
376
media_image5.png
Greyscale
OKUYAMA et al is cited to disclose resist underlayer film comprising a polymer containing fluorene units and comonomer units which include heterocyclic groups such as thiophene (Z’=S, d =1 and e = 1) and furan (Z’=O, and d=0 and e=0) and carbazole. These monomer groups meet amended claim 1 for Z’ being oxygen (O) or sulfur (S), see page 3, para. [0036].
PNG
media_image6.png
92
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Exemplary copolymers are reported on page 3-5, such as Formula (3-1) wherein the listed monomers disclosed would be in a random order in the copolymer/terpolymer.
PNG
media_image7.png
192
566
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-7 include a benzofuran unit in the copolymer which is met by HATAKEYAMA et al above in para. [0071) and the thiophene is reported in OKUYAMA et al, para. [0036].
Claims 8 is met by the formula above in HATAKEYAMA et al formula (2) for ring “X”.
Claim 9 and 10 exemplify a furan comonomer and a benzene comonomer taught in HATAKEYAMA et al. page 6, para. [0050], line 2:
PNG
media_image8.png
888
370
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-15 are met by the molecular weight disclosed on page 22 for the polymer structures. The solvent is found in page 25 to 26, Table 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of underlayer composition to select known units such as thiophene, furan and benzofuran as other polymerizable monomers in the copolymer of HATAKEYAMA et al wherein equivalent comonomers can be used with the reasonable expectation of having an underlayer which is excellent in reducing reflection with pattern formation which high dimensional accuracy.
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
March 18, 2026