DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received May 18, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by HONG et al (2022/0252982) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of LEVENSON et al (5,763,016) and CHEN et al (8,815,489) is withdrawn in view of the lack of a chain transfer agent recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being clearly anticipated by KRAMER (2012/0328983 A1).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
346
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KRAMER report a photolabile protected photoresist polymer comprising a chain transfer agent of the following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
206
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The end group Rd is defined to be an alkyl group and optionally an initiator meeting the claim polymer having a photo-radical generator group co-monomer comprising a trithiocarbonate moiety.
The method is reported in page 13, para. [0073] which meets the steps in claim 1 for cleaving, by irradiating effective to cleave the light responsive photoresist wherein the initiator portion at Rd would be cleaved or the acid that is generated in the composition would cleave the photoacid labile groups on the polymer followed by removing the cleaved photoresist from the substrate.
Claim 3 is met wherein there is a post-exposure bake at 100o C in para. [0073].
Claims 5 and 6 seen in the polymer side chains of the polymer on page 11.
Claim 11 is met in para. [0073] for the exposure to KrF excimer laser or EUV.
None of the claims above are allowable.
Claims 2, 4, 7-10 and 12 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.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the claimed method limitations include cleaving and removing are simultaneous, the cleaved portions are a gas and wherein the light responsive photoresist comprises a specific polyolefin sulfone of claim 8 having a photocleavable group (II) as claimed in claims 8-10 and the light consists of light of two or more wavelengths within a range of 10 nm.
Claims 13-20 are seen as allowed over the prior art of record.
None of the prior art of record disclose the claimed method wherein the light responsive photoresist is cleaved by irradiation with light, removing the first portion by vacuum wherein the cleaving and the removing occur simultaneously, plating the substrate cleaving and removing the second portion (stripping the remaining resist) of the photoresist.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KRAMER et al (2014/0065550 A1) report a composition which contains a polymer comprising a chain transfer agent of formula (I) wherein the end group is a photoacid generator.
FARNHAN et al (2005/0119378 A1), FEIRING et al (2005/0112495 A1) and SOUNIK et al (2004/0248039 A1) disclose polymer made with a chain transfer agent meeting the xanthate, dithioester and trithiocarbonates claimed in claim 1. The method steps include irradiation, cleaving from an acid, heating and development. The methods lack the simultaneous removal and cleaving of the photoresist polymer.
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 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
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights