DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending. Claim 12 has been canceled.
The foreign priority application No.10-2022-0051653 field on April 26, 2022 in the Republic of Korea has been received and it is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (US Patent 2,283,336).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 21, Neal et al. teach zinc cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate, cadmium cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate, and lead cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate (page 5, left column, lines 27-29), but these compounds do not meet the limitations for the compound of Formula 1.
However, the compounds above are metal salts of dithiocarbamic acids of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein X is a metal (page 1, right column, lines 43-51), and Neal et al. further show that X may be silver, cadmium, zinc, or lead (see examples in the right column on page 4 and the left column on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain silver cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate, because silver is functionally equivalent to cadmium, zinc, and lead as metal X in the metal salts of dithiocarbamic acids.
Silver cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate is a compound of Formula 1 in claims 1, 3,and 4, wherein A is NR2, R2 is hydrogen, and R1 is an aliphatic carbon ring group having 6 carbon atoms.
Neal et al. teach zinc diallyl dithiocarbamate and cadmnium diallyl dithiocarbamate (page 5, left column, lines 53-54), but these compounds do not meet the limitations for the compound of Formula 1.
However, the compounds above are metal salts of dithiocarbamic acids of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
178
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein X is a metal (page 1, right column, lines 43-51), and Neal et al. further show that X may be silver, cadmium, or zinc (see examples in the right column on page 4 and the left column on page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain silver diallyl dithiocarbamate, because silver is functionally equivalent to cadmium and zinc as metal X in the metal salts of dithiocarbamic acids.
Silver diallyl dithiocarbamate is a compound of Formula 1 in claims 1, 3, 6, and 21, wherein A is NR2, R2 and R1 are alkenyl groups having 3 carbon atoms.
The limitation “resist compound” in claims 1, 3, 4, and 21 show only an intended use and adds no patentable weight to the claims.
With regard to claim 5, silver diallyl dithiocarbamate is a compound of Formula 1 in claims, wherein A is NR2, R2 and R1 are alkenyl groups having 3 carbon atoms, and silver cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate is a compound of Formula 1, wherein A is NR2, R2 is hydrogen, and R1 is an aliphatic carbon ring group having 6 carbon atoms in par. 0008 of the instant application.
The specification teaches that a compound of formula 1 wherein R1 has 13 or less carbon atoms has reactivity to extreme ultraviolet (par.0031-0033).
Absent a record to the contrary, it is expected that silver diallyl dithiocarbamate and silver cyclohexyl dithiocarbamate have reactivity to extreme ultraviolet.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP 2112. I.SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 13-20 allowed.
Neal et al. (US Patent 2,283,336) fail to teach the resist composition in claim 8 and the method in claim 16.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Neal et al. and obtain the resist composition in claim 8 and the method in claim 16 of the instant application.
Claims 2 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Neal et al. (US Patent 2,283,336) fail to teach the compounds in claims 2 and 7.
There are no prior art teachings that would motivate one of ordinary skill to modify Neal et al. and obtain the compounds in claims 2 and 7 of the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to note that:
-the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woods et al. (“Ethyl xanthate chemisorption and Eh-pH diagrams for silver + water + ethyl xanthate system”) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (US Patent 4,036,650) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noglik et al. (US 2004/0081911) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iizuka et al. (WO 2021/200357 A1, with machine translation made of record on February 03, 2026) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1; and
-the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (US Patent 4,036,650) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
However, new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 3-6, and 21 are shown in paragraphs 4-5 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights