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 and specification were submitted with corrections on 02/23/2026, objections to the specification and abstract are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are under consideration
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezaki (US20160347965A1, published 2016).
Regarding claims 1-20,
Umezaki teaches a film forming composition for use in a lithography process and a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device (electronic device) using the film forming composition comprising of forming a resist film on a substrate [0019], reading on instant claims 9 and 15, and performing an edge rinse (washing an outer peripheral portion of the substrate) using an organic solvent which is a mixed solution of propylene glycol monomethyl ether and propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate in a weight ratio of 7/3 while rotating the substrate at 1200 rpm (20 rotations/second) for 6 seconds followed by 1500 rpm (25 rotations/second) for 10 seconds [0107-0108]. Umezaki teaches subsequently performing an exposure with light, EUV, or an electron beam, and performing a development after exposure [0019]. Umezaki teaches an organic solvent for development such as including butyl acetate as the second of the provided list [0079], where organic solvents are known in the art to function as positive developers. Umezaki also teaches positive photoresists [0075].
Given that Umezaki discloses the solvent that encompasses the presently claimed organic solvent, including butyl acetate, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application, to use the organic solvent, which is both disclosed by Umezaki and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Umezaki teaches an example of their film forming composition comprising of the following polymer in example 3 [0099], comprising of a repeating unit with a polar phenolic hydroxyl group without including a repeating unit that decreases solubility in the developer by an action of an acid, reading on instant claims 5-8, 11-14, and 17-20.
PNG
media_image1.png
125
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Umezaki teaches including a photoacid generator into their composition, where examples of the preferable photoacid generator include onium salt-based photoacid generators such as triphenylsulfonium trifluoromethanesulfonate [0067], reading on the instant compound with an ion pair which is decomposed by irradiation.
Umezaki teaches their polymer in example 3 with an organic solvent mixture of PGMEA and PGME [0102].
While Umezaki is silent to the instantly claimed expressions, the methods and compositions of Umezaki overlap those of the instant claims.
The film forming composition of Umezaki is similar to that of the instant resist composition R-3 per Table 1 of the instant specification at [0343], comprising of a polymer with a hydroxystyrene repeating unit, a photodegradable ion compound (ion pair containing compound) where the ion pair is a triphenylsulfonium trifluoromethansulfonate, and solvents including a mixture of PGMEA and PGME. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the film forming composition of Umezaki would have a solubility parameter similar to that of instant resist composition R-3, where SP1 is about 27.3 in example 8 of table 2 of the instant specification at [0355].
The washing solution of Umezaki is the same as that of the instant example 8, where SP2 is 20.1, satisfying expression (1).
The organic solvent developer butyl acetate, per the instant example 8, has an SP3 value of 17.4 satisfying expressions (2), (4), and (5), reading on instant claims 4, 10, and 16.
The edge rinse of Umezaki, as disclosed above, may be performed at 25 rotations/second (R) for a total of 16 seconds (t), satisfying expressions (3), (3-A1), and (3-A2), and value of R x t is 400, reading on instant claims 1-3.
While Umezaki does not explicitly disclose an example where the edge rinse is performed at 25 rotations/second for the total 16 seconds, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try adjusting the rotation speed, such as by using the higher of the two disclosed rotation speeds for the full duration of the edge rinse, in an effort to further optimize the rinse process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 regarding the claim amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
Conclusion
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 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