DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received March 27, 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 6.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUBA et al (2005/0153230) in view of TADOKORO et al (2018/0107114) is withdrawn in view of the arguments by applicant.
New grounds for rejection are made in view of new art found.
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 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being clearly anticipated by KODAMA et al (USRE43,560), KODAMA (7,960,087), KAWABATA et al (2011/0076615) and INABE et al (7,906,268).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
334
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KODAMA et al ‘560 disclose composition comprising an acrylic resin having an acid non-dissociable group wherein the solvent in include those listed in Table 2. Of note is Example 15 wherein the polymer contains the repeating units reported in Table 1 and a solvent comprises a mix of heptanone and ethyl lactate at a 90/10 ratio meeting claims 1, 2, 3, 5-7:
PNG
media_image2.png
380
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
P15 contains repeating unit b62 which is an acid non-dissociable group see col. 56, lines 26-37 shown here:
PNG
media_image3.png
180
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Group a5 and b1 units are shown below from col. 35 and 45, respectively:
PNG
media_image4.png
158
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
186
280
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KODAMA ‘087 anticipate the claimed photosensitive dry film at col. 67, Table 1 Ex. 2, 3, 5 , 8 and 11.
PNG
media_image6.png
514
546
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The acrylic resin having an acid non-dissociable group are met by RA-2, RA-3, RA-5, RA-8 and RA-11 wherein RA-2 is shown here with the acid non-dissociable group highlighted, from col. 69, lines 35-57:
PNG
media_image7.png
342
354
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The solvent in Example 2 is a cyclohexanone having a boiling point of 155.65o C and a Hansen Solubility Parameter δH of 5.1. The specific resins are found in col. 60-67 and the solvents are listed in col. 68, lines 18-23, below:
PNG
media_image8.png
80
382
media_image8.png
Greyscale
KAWABATA et al report radiation sensitive resin compositions which anticipate the claimed invention at claims 1-5, in Table 2, Examples 2C and 3C wherein the resins R-18 include the following repeating unit and solvents A2 which is 2-heptanone, A3 is cyclohexanone and A4 is γ-butyrolactone on page 84, para [0569] to [0571]with a ratio of 6/4 between A2/B2 and A3/B1, see below:
PNG
media_image9.png
502
788
media_image9.png
Greyscale
INABE et al likewise disclose a resist composition comprising a resin having an acid non-dissociable group and solvents having a boiling point above 150o C with a Hansen Solubility Parameter for δH less than 11 (MPa)0.5 , see Table 1 for the Examples 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33, 46 and 47 comprising resins 1, 5 and 8 shown here having the acid non-dissociable group from col. 122-125:
PNG
media_image10.png
438
660
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
784
664
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
212
366
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
182
288
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
416
322
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
358
390
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
234
228
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
148
392
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-4 are reported above for the polyimide resin.
Claim 7-9 are met in PAWLOWSKI et al at para. [0240] which uses PMDA, disclosed in para. [0230].
Claims 8-11 are met at
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODAMA et al (USRE43,560), KODAMA (7,960,087), KAWABATA et al (2011/0076615) and INABE et al (7,906,268). as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-11 above, and further in view of PAWLOWSKI et al (6,358/,665).
The claims have been recited above and is included by reference.
The rejection includes the discussion of the references above for the copolymer and solvents used in a coated composition further includes PAWLOWSKI et al to address claim 4 for the coating thickness of the chemically amplified radiation sensitive composition. Applicants are directed to col. 21, lines 20-22 wherein the composition of PAWLOWSKI et al is coated at a thickness of 0.1 µm to 200 µm, see below:
PNG
media_image18.png
514
384
media_image18.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive compositions to coat the chemically amplified resist compositions of any of the listed disclosures above at a thickness of 0.1 µm to 100 µm for the desired application as taught by PAWLOWSKI et al with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for high sensitivity, resolution and good pattern formation.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HAYASHI et al (2006/0183876) is cumulative to the references above for disclosing a resin having an acid non-dissociable group and a solvent which meets the claimed Hansen solubility value of δH recited in claim 1.
JOHNSON et al (2005/0266335 and WEBER et al (2005/0260522) disclose dry film composition which are typically coated at 0.1 µm to 100 µm and processed photolithographically by lamination, exposure, development, see Example 11 page 14 in JOHNSON et al and page 8, para. [0065] for the layer thickness.
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
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights