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and specification were submitted on 04/08/2026, claims 2, 4, and 8 are canceled, the objection to the specification is withdrawn, the 112(b) rejection to claims 1-9 are withdrawn, the 112(d) rejection to claims 4 and 8 are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 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, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US20190250515A1, published 8/19/2019).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, and 9,
Yamamoto teaches a method to manufacture a semiconductor device [0039] comprising forming a photoresist film on a substrate, exposing and developing the photoresist film to form a resist pattern, and cleaning the resist pattern with their rinse composition [0032-0033], reading on instant claims 6-7 and 9.
Yamamoto teaches exposure of the photoresist film using EUV irradiation [0032].
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition (process solution composition) comprising of a surfactant with the following formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
130
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X is an oxygen, nitrogen or carbon,
R1, R2 and R3 are independently hydrogen, fluorine or C1-5 alkyl,
Y is a hydrogen, fluorine, or C1-5 alkyl,
each Z is independently hydrogen, fluorine, or C1-5 alkyl,
or Y and Z are taken together to form a single bond,
l is 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5,
m is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, and
n is 0, 1 or 2 [0015].
Yamamoto further teaches examples of their formula (I) such as 1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylimide [0016], reading on the instant pattern reinforcing agent.
Yamamoto teaches further including a diol derivative with the following formula (II), where R4 to R7 are more preferably H, methyl, or ethyl, “o” is preferably 0-1, L1 and L2 may each independently be a C1-5 alkane linker and may each be substituted by a hydroxyl group [0017].
PNG
media_image2.png
192
822
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When L1 and/or L2 are substituted with a hydroxyl group, the diol derivative would be a triol or tetraol compound. For example, when R4-R7 are each H, “o” is 0, and L1 is a hydroxyl substituted C1 alkane linker, the resulting compound would be 1,2,3-propanetriol, reading on instant claim 5.
Given that Yamamoto discloses the diol derivative that encompasses the presently claimed triol and/or tetraol derivatives, including 1,2,3-propanetriol, 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 diol derivative, which is both disclosed by Yamamoto and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition can comprise 2 or more different surfactants from each other, with exemplified examples of the surfactant comprised by their invention rinse composition is Bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,3-heptafluoro-1-propanesulfonyl)imide, Bis(1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluoro-1-butanesulfonyl)imide, 1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylmide, Bis(trifluoromethanesulfonyl)imide, Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid (a perfluorinated acid), and a mixture thereof (each of which may read on the instant fluorine-based surfactant and/or the instant pattern reinforcing agent), reading on instant claim 3.
Given that Yamamoto discloses the surfactants that encompasses the presently claimed fluorine-based surfactant and pattern reinforcing agent, including components such as Nonafluorobutanesulfonic acid and 1,1,2,2,3,3-Hexafluoropropane-1,3-disulfonylimide, 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 surfactants, which is both disclosed by Yamamoto and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Yamamoto teaches that relative to the total mass of the rinse composition, the content ratio of the surfactants of the rinse composition is preferably 0.01 mass % or more and 0.5 mass % or less [0016], where if 0.01 mass % of two surfactants, each would be less than 0.01 mass %, where at least one of the two would be less than 0.005 mass %, overlapping the instantly claimed ranges.
Yamamoto teaches their rinse composition further comprises water most preferably comprising of 95 mass % or more to 99.98 mass % or less [0018].
Yamamoto also teaches their diol derivative is preferably 0.01 mass % or more and 0.5 mass % or less relative to the total mass of the rinse composition [0017], overlapping the instantly claimed range, reading on instant claim 1.
Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts Yamamoto fails to disclose the three-component combination required by amended claim 1. The applicant asserts Yamamoto’s formula (1) compounds function as the surfactant itself as the sole primary surface-active component of their rinse composition, failing to disclose their compound as a second independent component in addition to and separate from a primary fluorine-based surfactant, as well as failing to contemplate their function as a distinct “pattern reinforcing” component. The applicant further asserts the additional surfactants of Yamamoto are not a primary fluorine-based surfactant.
However, the instant claims make no mention of a “primary” surfactant component. Further, it would be unclear how a “primary” surfactant would function differently from another surfactant present in the composition. Additionally, as the chemical structure of the formula (1) compound aligns with that of the instant pattern reinforcing agent, it would inherently function as the instant pattern reinforcing agent.
The applicant asserts Yamamoto fails to disclose or suggest triol or tetraol derivatives, as they consistently identify their component as a C2-C12 diol derivative, while also failing to provide examples with additional hydroxy groups.
However, the diol derivative of Yamamoto clearly discloses that each of L1 and L2 may be substituted with a finite list of substituents (F, C1-C5 alkyl, or OH). Given that Yamamoto discloses the diol derivative that encompasses the presently claimed triol or tetraol derivative, including hydroxyl substituents, 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 diol derivative comprising of additional hydroxyl substituents, which is both disclosed by Yamamoto and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Thus while Yamamoto refers to their compound as a diol compound, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that their compound may further include compounds with more than two hydroxyl groups, such as triols and tetraols, due to their inclusion of additional hydroxyl substituents.
As Yamamoto clearly teaches a composition aligning with the instant composition, as noted above, the examiner maintains their previous rejection. The above rejection has been updated to account for the new claim amendments.
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
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights