DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received March 9, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 4.
New language in the current OA is in bold.
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, 3, 4, 6-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIMURA et al (WO-20130111396A).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
608
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KIMURA et al report an underlayer for resist compositions which comprise a polysiloxane, and a solvent of the following formula (B1) which meets the claimed formula (1), see para. [0096] below with the English translation of the compound:
PNG
media_image2.png
30
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
36
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicants are directed to page 11, para. [0107] wherein the content of solvent [B1] is disclosed to be 1% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less, see the text below:
PNG
media_image4.png
84
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It is noted in KIMURA et al that the content of solvent (B1) is based on the content of only the solvents. Once the solid components are added, the content of a 1% by mass of a solvent such as tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether of para. [0096] in KIMURA et al would be less than 1% by mass relative to the total mass of the silicon-containing composition, thus meeting the claimed invention as recited in claim 1.
Claims 3 is met by the (B2) solvents above from para. [0109].
Claim 4 recites a polysiloxane which is reported in para. [0040] of KIMURA et al.
Claim 6 is met wherein TANAKA et al fail to disclose a curing catalyst in their underlayer.
Claims 7-9 are found in para. [0113] for water, para. [0118] for the pH adjuster/acid diffusion control agent which is a basic compound and para. [0132] for the surfactant.
Claim 11 is met by para. [0153] for exposure to the extreme uv (13 nm).
Claims 12 and 13 are met by paras. [0142] to [0159] for the photolithographic method steps.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of underlayer compositions to replace tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether in place of the (B1) solvent of Examples 1, (B1) and reasonably expect of same or similar results for improved coating defect suppression properties and storage stability.
Claims 5 and 10 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 nitric acid in the underlayer or the metal oxide in the underlayer.
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
March 25, 2026