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35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORIUMI et al (2009/0317742) in view of TSUCHIHASHI et al (2017/0285482) is withdrawn in view of the amendment which removes the scope which is met by the diphenylamine and the 4,4’-diaminodiphenyl ether compounds in the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected 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.
The amendment to claim 1 inserting “one or more ligands that are detachable from the metallic core” finds no support in the specification as originally filed. Any of the bonds to the metallic core can be “detached” by various chemical reactions, and the specification does not disclose which bonds to which they are referring that are detachable.
Correction to the amendment is necessary to comply with written description in the specification.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 as amended recite a confusing and indefinite structures in Formula (1) and Formula (2), when the variables “x” defined to be 0 to 6 and “y” defined to be 1 to 6 are greater than 2. Likewise in Formula (2) when “x” and “j” defined as 0 to 6 and “y” and “k” defined as 1 to 6 become confusing and indefinite when the value is greater than 2. Because there are no compounds which have more than 2 repeating units of the same functional group as claimed. For example, in Formula (1), if the value for “x” is 3 then we expect a repeating structure defined for “L” like -L-L-L and if selected to be “-S-“ then we arrive at a structure of -S-S-S- which not a real structure. Any of the functional groups in repeating units of three or more directly bonded to one another is not a known compound with the only exception being the alkyl groups.
Correction is necessary unless applicants can provide evidence of repeating units having 3 or greater units in a row as defined in claims 1, 17 and 19.
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, 9-16, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOH et al (2021/0380612) and/or MOON et al (2022/0194968).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
866
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
722
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
68
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
860
674
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
234
690
media_image6.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_image7.png
322
382
media_image7.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_image8.png
344
362
media_image8.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_image9.png
182
384
media_image9.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 lack as 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).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of organometallic containing photosensitive composition to use methyl benzoate or ethyl benzoate as a developer in KOH et al and/or use anisole as a solvent for the photoresist composition in MOON 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.
Claims 17-18 and 21 would be allowable upon correcting the indefiniteness for Formula 1 and 2 as seen above in paragraph 6 to the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the claimed treating the photoresist layer with a treatment solution containing an additive as recited in the method of claim 17.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OUYANG et al (2021/0080832) is cited of interest wherein performing an infiltration step of introducing a metallic compound into the photoresist composition after coating the photoresist composition on a substrate.
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 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights