DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received July 30, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is WITHDRAWN in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is WITHDRAWN in view of the amendment to claim 1 amending the definition for variables “x” and “y” to 0 to 2 which define actual groups.
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, 3-7, 9-18, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOH et al (2021/0380612) and/or MOON et al (2022/0194968) and FARID et al (4,742,529).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
746
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
714
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
244
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
888
696
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KOH et al report a photoresist composition comprising an organometallic nanoparticle, and/or an organometallic cluster, as reported on page 1, para [0015] to [0025] for a metal core bonded to a ligand by an ionic bond, a covalent bond, a metallic bond, and/or van der Waals bond.
Applicants are further directed to page 7, para. [0069] wherein the developer used in the pattern forming method include compounds which meet the claimed additive in claim 1 as a developer, such as methyl benzoate and ethyl benzoate as seen below:
PNG
media_image5.png
322
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The working examples lack the use of methyl benzoate or ethyl benzoate, however because of the equivalence disclosed by KOH et al, the one would expect same or similar results when developing the photoresist with any of the listed developers.
MOON disclose a semiconductor photoresist composition comprising organotin compounds of the following formula:
PNG
media_image6.png
344
362
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The photoresist composition comprises a solvent which can be used such as anisole as reported on page 4, para. [0067] shown here:
PNG
media_image7.png
182
384
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The solvents disclose in MOON et al as solvents can also be used as developer, based on the teaching in FARID et al (4,743,529) at col. 14, lines 54-56 wherein the liquid solvent for the photoresist can be used as the liquid developer, see below:
PNG
media_image8.png
322
386
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Anisole meets the structure of Formula 1 in claim 1 when L is “-O-“ and R is methyl. (variables x is 1 and y is 1).
The reference lacks a working example using anisole as a solvent, however each of listed solvents is disclosed would be seen as equivalent to PGMEA and can be substituted in for PGMEA in Examples 1 to 5 expecting same or similar results.
Claims 3-7 are met by MOON et al when the solvent is xylene or toluene. These compounds met Ar as phenyl, x is zero, R is a saturated hydrogen, have MW of less than 220 and are xylene or toluene, see para. [0067] in MOON above.
Claims 9 – 11 are rejected as further defining Formula 2 which is an alternative additive in claim 1 which has been rejected.
Claim 12 is met by xylene or toluene in MOON having a MW of about 78 to 780.
Claims 13-15 further limit the (B) option for the additive in a treatment solution which can be seen as a developer and/or is rejected wherein claim 1 has been rejected on option (A).
Claims 17-18 and 21 are rejection wherein the comprising language for the method steps may be in any order, so the treatments step may be after the development step, thus being met by the prior art references of KOH et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organometallic containing photosensitive composition to use methyl benzoate, anisole or ethyl benzoate as a developer in KOH et al for the photoresist composition as taught by and MOON for the solvent of organometallic resists and FARID et al for the use of solvents as developers with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for improved resolution etch resistance and sensitivity as reported in both KOH et al and MOON.
KOH et al remains in the rejection for disclosing the additive in a developer wherein claim 1 recites that the coated substrate is treated with a treatment solution that contains the additive during or after the exposing, optional post-exposure bake, or developing steps, wherein the developer is a treatment solution after exposing , after post-exposure bake or during developing steps.
Claims 23-25 are rejected based on the comprising language of the method steps which allows for any order of the steps, so the treating solution can be done during the developing step.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon wherein is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ROWELL et al (2017/0255102) and (2017/0225103) are cited of interest a disclosing a pattern trimming composition is used on a photoresist pattern to remove the surface region thereby forming a trimmed photoresist pattern.
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 on M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1401. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
September 24, 2026
