Detailed Action
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025, 02/26/2026, and 03/04/2026 are considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment field 11/21/2025 has been entered and is being considered. Claim 3 has been canceled and its subject matter moved into claim 1. Claim 1 has been amended with the subject matter of claim 3 and further subject matter. No new matter appears to have been added with these amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments have narrowed the scope of the claims so as to render the rejections made over 35 USC 103 in the prior office action moot. These rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are considered but are not persuasive. While the examiner does agree that LWR is a parameter having practical significance with regards to unexpected superior results in this application’s field of endeavor, the scope of the claims is much larger than the limited embodiments pointed to in the examples by Applicant. Applicant points to B-2 and B-3, which are salts comprising two distinct instances of fluorinated sulfonium cations and a corresponding single instance of a fluorosulfonic acid anion having a bis-phenyl-fused bicyclooctyl group present thereon. The scope of the independent claim is not restricted to a single anion embodiment and one or a couple of sulfonium cation embodiments – experimental results abetting an assertion of superior unexpected results must be commensurate with the scope of the claims to be fully persuasive.
Further, regarding the statistical significance of the results – applicant points to B-2 and B-3 at Examples 2 and 3 for giving superior LWR, but the spread of LWR results pointed to in Table 3 also feature examples using B-3 that have lower and higher LWR than Example 3 (See Example 9, where B-3 is used and LWR = 3.67, and Example 7 where B-3 is used and LWR = 3.15), and Example 2 (B-2) features a higher LWR than Example 3. The statistical relevance of the data cannot be considered persuasive to overcome the rejection given that a wide range of LWR have been exhibited by compositions comprising the compound(s) pointed to by applicant as displaying unexpectedly superior results.
After further search and consideration, the Examiner makes a new grounds of rejection as set forth in the office action below, as required by the amendment made.
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 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) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masahiro et al (JP 2011257635 A) and Arai et al (US 20180149973 A1).
Regarding Claim 1-2, and 4-8, Masahiro teaches an electronic components and a photosensitive composition for forming an imaged film (Background).
The composition of Masahiro comprises a silsesquioxane resin, an acid generator, and a crosslinking agent ([0006]).
The silsesquioxane resin A is described from [0011]-[0018], where the resin has the general formulas (I) and (II) delimiting its subunit structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
298
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The resin above meets the limitations of the claim for here the resin contains a silicon containing polymer and at least one phenolic hydroxyl group is present. The unit (1) also rads upon the claimed subunit (a1-1) for where claimed Ra1 is a hydrocarbon having a phenolic hydroxyl group. In the examples, 9 parts by mass of polymer is mixed with 0.09 parts of acid generator and 0.9 parts of crosslinker ([0044]-[0052], as such the polymer is present in 90% by mass of the solid content of the composition (claim 6).
The acid generator of Masahiro is disclosed from [0019]-[0025], where preferred embodiments include sulfonium and iodonium salts that product fluorinated sulfonic acids when exposed to radiation.
The crosslinker of the reference is described from [0026]-[0028], where the crosslinker may be a urea or melamine crosslinker, or other example compound delimited in the cited section.
The composition may further comprise a nitrogen-containing organic compound (a base component – claim 4), where the compound is described from [0029]-[0032] and may be an amine. Solvents and other components are disclosed from [0033]-[0043].
The compositions of Masahiro are dissolved in solvent to arrive at a coating composition, then coated onto a support such as a silicon substrate or glass plate. After coating, the composition is heated and then exposed to radiation, where the radiation may be UV, excimer radiation, or electron beams. After exposure, development is performed to form the pattern (claim 7).
Masahiro does not teach an acid generator having a fluorine present on the cation.
This limitation is met by Arai.
Hirayama discloses a resist composition which generates acid upon exposure, wherein the resist comprises a base polymer and a photoacid generator, as well as a quencher compound.
The photoacid generators of Arai are disclosed from [0357]-[0530], where the anion component is bounded by formula (b1-an1-0) as described from [0431]-[0443[ and exemplified in [0444], while the cation embodiment is described from [0446]-[0469] and exemplified in [0470]. Specific embodiments of cation-anion salt pairings are given at [0478]-[0486], ], such as the ones depicted below:
PNG
media_image2.png
138
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
138
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
89
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
89
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above exemplary salts meet the limitations of the claim for where:
Cation:
Rb1 is F, q1 is 2
One of Rb2 or Rb3 is a C6 hydrocarbon (phenyl) group with F substituents
The other of Rb2 or Rb3 is a phenyl group (C6 hydrocarbon)
Anion
R101 is a condensed cyclic group having a condensed ring assembly having two or three phenyl rings attached and optional substituents thereupon
Y101 is a divalent linking group comprising an ester group and methylene group conjoined
V101 is a single bond
R102 is a F atom
Arai ascribes improved LWR and sensitivity to compositions comprising the photoacid generators as described above at [0487].
Further recited is a base compound from [0535]-[0586], where the base compound is preferably a salt that generates a weak acid upon exposure to light. Exemplary anions are discussed from [0540]-[0551]:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
120
316
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Cationic moieties of these quenchers may be the same as for the photoacid generator described above as discussed at [0554] – such as (ca-1-71] and (ca-1-74) (claims 4 and 5)
PNG
media_image5.png
144
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
176
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hirayama ascribes improved resolution and pattern shape to compositions using the quencher/basic compound of the disclosure ([0583].
Hirayama also performs a patterning process ([0639]-[0680], wherein the resist is coated upon a substrate, dried, exposed, post-baked, and then developed with an organic solvent for negative pattern formation or basic solution for positive development. The radiation used in exposure may be EUV (claim 8). At [0653], EUV and EB radiation are described as the most effective options for conducting exposures.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention from the combined disclosures of Masahiro and Arai - incorporating the photoacid generators and quencher of Arai into the composition of Masahiro to improve contrast between exposed and unexposed portions during patterning and incorporating the EUV-exposure so as to improve the resolution of a final patterned product.
Conclusion
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 ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Mark 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.
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.
/A.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights