DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received January 27, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of PETERS et al (2025/0093781) and MEYERS et al (2019/0137870) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 reciting the condition if the reactant gas comprises alcohol the contacting is performed before and/or after the post-exposure bake step.
Any bolded text is new language in the office action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-34 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-34 of copending Application No. 16/845,511 (JIANG et al US PGPUB 2020/0326627) in view of MEYERS et al (2017/0102612).
The claimed method now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JIANG et al claims a method contacting the organometallic composition with a developer composition comprising an alcohol, after a post-exposure bake (PEB) step, see claims 6 and 7 for the solvents, claim 14 for the PEB and claims 20 to 23 disclose conducting a PEB before contacting the radiation exposed organometallic patterning layer with the developer. see the claims below:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
174
382
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
82
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
56
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
358
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
MEYERS et al is cited to disclose that development of the organometallic composition can be done with reactant gas or a liquid as reported in para. [0005] and developer can comprise suitable additives such as amines as reported in para. [0095], see the paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image7.png
212
366
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
234
372
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
218
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
MEYERS et al further disclose the method which are conducted in a chamber with alcohol and the hydrolysable precursor of tin in Table 1 and para. [0077] and [0078].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organometallic photosensitive compositions contact an exposed organometallic composition with either a reactant gas phase or a liquid phase of the developer disclosed in JIANG et al and MEYERS et al
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TSUBAKI et al (2019/0018317), ZI et al (2019/0384171) and MEYERS et al (2019/0137870).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
TSUBAKI et al disclose a method for purifying an organometallic photoresist and a pattern forming method wherein the developers include those recited in pages 11 to 13 for aqueous alkaline solutions such as amines as disclosed in para. [0237] and for organic solvents recited in paras. [0250] to [0255] which include alcohol-based solvents, amide-based solvents, see below for the alcohol-based solvents:
PNG
media_image10.png
414
360
media_image10.png
Greyscale
ZI et al disclose a pattern forming method for photoresist composition comprising metal oxide particles as ligands. The developers are listed on page 12 , para. [0099] which include sulfonic acids, amines and alcohols, see below:
PNG
media_image11.png
400
374
media_image11.png
Greyscale
MEYERS et al disclose organometallic composition comprising tin oxo hydroxo networks, see para. [0075] and [0084] which are exposed to form condensed oxo-hydroxo networks.
Claims 2-5 are met by the composition of MEYERS et al, in para. [0008].
Claim 6-16 are met by the disclosure in TSUBAKI et al in para. [0253] for the alcohol solvent as a developer liquid which break bonds that were formed after the composition is exposed. The the exposure process and para. [0088] for the breaking of the metal-ligand bonds, semiconductor wafer.
Claims 17-25 are reported in MEYERS et al para. [0082] – [0083] for the pressure and flow rate.
Claims 26-34 are met in MEYERS et al for the development process for forming negative or positive patterns the heating steps (para. [0116])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pattern forming methods to duplicate the methods of any of TSUBAKI et al, ZI et al or MEYERS et al with the use of a reactant gas as a developer selected from a gas or liquid as taught by MEYERS et al. and to select any of the developers such as alcohol, amines, sulfonic acid or amides as taught in TSUBAKI et al or ZI et al all performed in an isolated chamber disclosed by MEYERS et al with the reasonable expectation of improved smaller features on the semiconductor substrate materials.
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
May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights