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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, line 5, filed 11 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko; and Claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0084527 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama; Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Masunaga et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2018/0039177 A1), hereinafter Masunaga; Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, wherein Shiratani et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0299962 A1), hereinafter Shiratani, serves as a teaching reference; and Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Shimura (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0299962 A1), hereinafter Shimura; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kaneko fails to teach or suggest 85 mol% or more of aromatic content. Applicant points to some of the exemplary polymers of Kaneko which have less than 85 mol% of aromatic content to support their argument. MPEP 2123(II) states: “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).” Therein, even if not shown in their exemplary polymers, Kaneko clearly teaches repeating units (a), (b), and (c), wherein either of (b) or (c) may be included in the repeating units (a). Thus, Kaneko teaches a polymer comprising one repeating unit within the scope of repeating unit (a) therein, and one repeating unit within the scope of repeating unit (b) therein. The first listed exemplary repeating unit (a) of Kaneko (Paragraph [0245]), as well as several others, is an aromatic ring-containing repeating unit and first listed exemplary repeating unit (b) of Kaneko (Paragraph [0277]), i.e. p-hydroxystyrene, as well as several others, is an aromatic ring-containing repeating unit. Furthermore, Paragraphs [0320-0328] of Kaneko teaches as much as 80 mol% repeating unit (a) therein and as much as 90 mol% repeating unit (b) therein. Thus, a polymer comprising 90 mol%, for example, p-hydroxystyrene is clearly within the scope of the teaching of Kaneko. Furthermore, as shown by the exemplary polymer of Kaneko, e.g. the aforementioned Ab-16 of Kaneko, teaches an acrylic repeating unit with an acid-labile moiety comprising 15 mol% or less of the polymer.
3. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the present application represents unexpected results, but the present claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence offered to support said argument. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 716.02. An exponential number of possible repeating units would be within the scope of the broadly defined repeating units of the claims of the present application. Furthermore, the independent claim 1 of the present application, from which all claims of the present application depend, limits only the resin of the composition, whereas all working example compositions further comprise compound such as photoinitiators, quencher, and additive compound. Furthermore, P-8 of the present application, which is outside the scope of the claims of the present application, produces a composition that performs as well or better than compositions within the scope of the claims of the present application, thus rendering the results within the scope of the claims of the present application neither unexpected or improved. For all said reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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:
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko.
7. Regarding Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-19, Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0277 and 0674-0677]) a polymer comprising a phenolic hydroxy group-containing unit. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0245 and 0674-0677]) a polymer comprising a unit containing a phenolic hydroxy group protected with an acid labile group. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0355 and 0674-0677]) a polymer comprising a unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0277 and 0674-0677]) the phenolic hydroxy group-containing unit is a repeat unit having the formula (A1) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0245 and 0674-0677]) the unit containing a phenolic hydroxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A2) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0355 and 0674-0677]) the unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A3) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0320-0328]) aromatic ring-containing repeat units account for at least 85 mol% of the overall repeat units of the polymer in said base polymer. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0277 and 0674-0677]) the phenolic hydroxy group-containing unit is a repeat unit having the formula (A1-1) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0245 and 0674-0677]) the unit containing a phenolic hydroxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A2-1) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0355 and 0674-0677]) the unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A3-1) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0277 and 0674-0677]) a repeat unit having the formula (B3) of the present application. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0320-0328]) the repeat unit having formula (B3) of the present application is at least 50 mol% of the overall repeat units of the polymer. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0477-0499]) an organic solvent. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0418-0476]) a photoacid generator. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0559-0567]) applying the chemically amplified positive resist composition onto a substrate to form a resist film thereon. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0572-0575]) exposing the resist film patternwise to high-energy radiation. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0581-0594]) developing the exposed resist film in an alkaline developer. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0572-0575]) the high-energy radiation is EUV or EB. Kaneko teaches (Paragraph [0562]) the substrate has the outermost surface of a material containing silicon. Kaneko teaches (Paragraphs [0723 and 0727]) the substrate is a photomask blank. Kaneko teaches (Paragraph [0727]) aphotomask blank which is coated with the chemically amplified positive resist composition.
8. However, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach all components of the composition limited by the present application with a single experimental example. That said, all components of the composition are described with sufficient detail by the prior art. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Ishikawa would have found it obvious to try the combinations of components herein limited with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Ishikawa et al. (Chinese Patent Publication No. WO 2023/067908 A1), hereinafter Ishikawa, and in further view of Fujimoto et al. (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2012-014053 A), hereinafter Fujimoto.
10. Regarding Claim 4, An teaches all limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Ishikawa fails to explicitly teach the length of the major axis of Blue pixel is 21.3 μm to 25 μm and the length of the minor axis of Blue pixel is 15.6 μm to 18.5 μm.
11. Fujimoto teaches (Paragraphs [0068 and 0187]) the length of the major axis of Blue pixel is 21.3 μm to 25 μm and the length of the minor axis of Blue pixel is 15.6 μm to 18.5 μm. Fujimoto teaches (Paragraph [0018]) pixels of such size are useful in the fabrication of LCD display devices.
12. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ishikawa to incorporate the teachings of Fujimoto wherein the length of the major axis of Blue pixel is 21.3 μm to 25 μm and the length of the minor axis of Blue pixel is 15.6 μm to 18.5 μm. Doing so would be useful in the fabrication of LCD display devices, as recognized by Fujimoto.
7. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Hatakeyama et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0084527 A1), hereinafter Hatakeyama.
8. Regarding Claims 5-7, Kaneko teaches all limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach the unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A3-2) of the present application. Furthermore, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach the repeat unit having formula (A3-2) of the present application has the formula (A3-3) of the present application. Furthermore, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach, with regards to formula (A3-2) of the present application, the moiety R7 is fluorine, trifluoromethyl or trifluoromethoxy.
9. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0053]) the unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A3-2) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0053]) the repeat unit having formula (A3-2) of the present application has the formula (A3-3) of the present application. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0053]) with regards to formula (A3-2) of the present application, the moiety R7 is fluorine, trifluoromethyl or trifluoromethoxy. Hatakeyama teaches (Paragraph [0043]) polymers comprising said repeating units exhibit high contrast, high resolution, good pattern profile, and minimal edge roughness.
10. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Hatakeyama wherein the unit containing a carboxy group protected with an acid labile group is a repeat unit having the formula (A3-2) of the present application; the repeat unit having formula (A3-2) of the present application has the formula (A3-3) of the present application; and with regards to formula (A3-2) of the present application, the moiety R7 is fluorine, trifluoromethyl or trifluoromethoxy. Doing so would result in polymers that exhibit high contrast, high resolution, good pattern profile, and minimal edge roughness, as recognized by Hatakeyama.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Masunaga et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2018/0039177 A1), hereinafter Masunaga.
12. Regarding Claim 10, Kaneko teaches all limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach a fluorinated polymer comprising repeat units of at least one type selected from repeat units having the formula (C1) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C2) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C3) of the present application, and repeat units having the formula (C4) of the present application
13. Masunaga teaches ([0106-0120]) a fluorinated polymer comprising repeat units of at least one type selected from repeat units having the formula (C1) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C2) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C3) of the present application, and repeat units having the formula (C4) of the present application. Masunaga teaches ([0106]) the fluorinated polymer has the effect of enhancing contrast, preventing chemical flare of acid upon exposure, and suppressing pattern degradation.
14. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Masunaga to further comprise a fluorinated polymer comprising repeat units of at least one type selected from repeat units having the formula (C1) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C2) of the present application, repeat units having the formula (C3) of the present application, and repeat units having the formula (C4) of the present application. Doing so would result in enhancing contrast, preventing chemical flare of acid upon exposure, and suppressing pattern degradation, as recognized by Masunaga.
15. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, wherein Shiratani et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0299962 A1), hereinafter Shiratani, serves as a teaching reference.
16. Regarding Claim 13, Kaneko teaches all limitations of Claim 12 above. However, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach the photoacid generator contains an anion having an acid strength pKa of -2.0 or more.
17. Shiratani teaches (Paragraphs [0190 and 0195]) the photoacid generator anion of Kaneko, such as the anion of photoacid generator (z19), is structurally close to the photoacid generator (C1-1) of Shiratani which having an acid strength pKa of -1.44 as thus assumed to have a similar pKa value.
18. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kaneko et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2019/0219922 A1), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Shimura (United States Patent Publication No. US 2017/0299962 A1), hereinafter Shimura.
19. Regarding Claim 14, Kaneko teaches all limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Kaneko fails to explicitly teach a resist film formed of the composition has a dissolution rate of at least 50 nm/sec in an over-exposed region.
20. Shimura teaches (Paragraph [0265]) a resist film formed of the composition has a dissolution rate of 50 to 100 nm/sec in an over-exposed region. Shimura teaches (Paragraphs [XXXX]) a dissolution rate in this range results in less residue and improved sensitivity.
21. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaneko to incorporate the teachings of Shimura wherein a resist film formed of the composition has a dissolution rate of 50 to 100 nm/sec in an over-exposed region. Doing so would result in less residue and improved sensitivity, as recognized by Shimura.
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
23. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F 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.
24. 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).
25. 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.
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights