DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received July 17, 2023.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of URANO et al (6,033,826), FUKUI et al (5,916,728), MALIK et al (2003/0022097) and HAGA et al (2018/0188648).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
534
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
URANO et al discloses a resist comprising a photosensitive resin of the following structure as seen in Production Example 11, col. 30, line 55 – col. 31, line 29 wherein the terpolymer is the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
218
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
346
392
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The resin above anticipates the claimed polymer having a first repeat unit of formula (3) and the second repeat unit of formula (4).
Applicants are directed to Example 20 in col. 36, lines 56-67 wherein a bis (1,1-dimethylethyl sulfonyl) diazomethane is disclosed as the photoacid generator and N, N-dimethylacetamide is reported as a quencher, see below:
PNG
media_image4.png
178
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. A second photoacid generator is reported as bis (p-toluene sulfonyl) diazomethane in the formulation:
This working example lacks the presence of a 2-mercaptobenzoxazole, however teach the use of the photosensitizer in col. 23, lines 27-37 as seen below:
PNG
media_image5.png
176
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
URANO et al disclose sensitivity adjusting agents which include tribenzylamine and others.
FUKUI et al report equivalent photoacid generators in col. 2, lines 65 - col. 3, line 19, such as bis (cyclohexylsulfonyl) diazomethane with trifluoromethylsulfonyloxy) phthalimide, see below:
PNG
media_image6.png
232
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
600
402
media_image7.png
Greyscale
MALIK et al discloses functionally equivalent basic/quencher compounds used in a photoresist, see para. [0019], page 2 which list Troger’s Base with equivalents such as tribenzylamine, shown here:
PNG
media_image8.png
464
374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
HAGA et al disclose a radiation sensitive composition wherein the resin is the same as in claim 1, see the abstract.
The reported equivalent quenchers are found in para. [0008], such as allyl caprolactam, N, N- diethyldodecamide, 1,1-dimethylethyl-4-hydroxypiperdine-1-carboxylate with Troger’s Base (2,8-diemthyl-6H, 12H-5, 11-methanobibenzo[b,f][1,5]diazocine), shown here:
PNG
media_image9.png
720
368
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The skilled artisan would know of the equivalent quenchers and expect same or similar results from the use of any of those listed in a photoresist composition.
HAGA et al also report conventional photolithographic plating method as seen in para. [0007] and [0041] shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
306
380
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 recite base quenchers which are disclosed in MALIK et al above.
Claim 4 is met by the ratio when calculated from the mass of the ingredients disclosed in URANO et al, Example 1.
Claim 5 for the photoacids are met by the equivalent photoacids reported above in FUKUI et al.
Claim 6 is met by the disclosed amounts of the photosensitizer at 0.5 parts to 100 parts of the polymer which translate to 0.1 parts to 1 part of the photoacid generator in Example 20.
Claim 7 to the 2-mercaptobenzoxazole is reported in URANO et al above.
Claim 8 to components (a) thru (e ) are reported above in each of the references for the photoacid generator, the base quencher, solvent and the mercaptobenzoxazole compound.
Claim 9 to the second base quencher is taught wherein 2-mercaptobenzoxazole is seen as a photosensitizer that can be used with a base quencher (URANO et al)
Claim 10 to the process where a pattern is formed followed with immersing in a metal plating solution is taught in HAGA et al. above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive compositions to add a photosensitizer such as 2-mercaptobenzoxazole into any of working examples in URANO et al as well as substitute known photoacid generators as disclosed in FUKUI et al and known equivalent quenchers as reported in MALIK et al and/or HAGA et al used in a photolithographic plating method disclosed in HAGA et al and reasonable expect to have a photosensitive composition which is excellent in focus margin, side wall patterns and heat resistance as disclosed in Table 10, in col. 37, line 60 to col. 38, line 22 see here:
PNG
media_image11.png
134
378
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
334
380
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MASUDA et al (2023/0106185) disclose chemically amplified resist composition comprising equivalent photoacid generators in para. [0063] like bis(cyclohexylsulfonyl) diazomethane and N-(trifluoromethylsulfonyloxy) phthalimide.
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
February 6, 2026