DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received January 7, 2026.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14-16, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OFIR et al (2009/0047485) in view of WUISTER et al (2018/0004085).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
400
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OFIR et al report a film comprising nanoparticles which are exposed to radiation. The particles comprise metals as recited in para. [0063] such as zinc oxide wherein the ligands are complexed with the metal particles to stabilized the clusters as disclosed in para. [0066], such as carboxylic acid shown here:
PNG
media_image2.png
332
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This ligand meets amended claim 1 as now recited.
WUISTER et al (20180004085) report a lithographic resist comprising a metal nanoparticles with complementary ligands that include sulfonyl and carboxylic groups seen in para. [0029]. Here the skilled artisan can see that equivalent ligands such as sulfonyl oxy and carboxylic groups are interchangeable with a metal particles and would be expected to give same or similar results:
PNG
media_image3.png
130
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here the (sulfonic group is seen as a sulfonyl oxy group) and meets the claimed -SO2 – group in claim 1.
Clearly the skilled artisan has at his disposal the organotin complexes having a ligand reported in OFIR et al and WUISTER et al above.
Claims 6-9 are met at para. [0067] for the suitable solvents and the concentration of the nanoparticles are in a weight percent reported in a range of 10 to 80% as seen in para. [0068] and the use of a mixture of ligands is reported in para. [0066].
Claim 12 for the solvent and metal core concentration is met by the same paragraphs for previous paragraph for claims 6-9.
Claim 14-16 are for the second ligand is found in para. [0066] and [0068] of OFIR et al.
Claims 21-32 for the solvent concentrations disclosed above. With respect to the metal particles, OFIR et al report them in para [0062]. The polymers can be used as reported in para. [0059] meeting claim 23. For the size of the particles, applicants are directed to para. [0064].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition having metal-containing compounds with two compositions of the compound reported in OIFR et al with two different ligands and ligands of linear, branched or cyclic alkyl group as reported in para. [0066] and [0068] substituted with the claimed -SO2 – group as suggested in para. [0051] and para. [0029] of WUISTER et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for high resolution and high-integration densities.
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
January 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights