DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the election received June 1, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, and 17-20 in the reply filed on June 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 1, 2026.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Component B is misspelled for the “orgoigianic” ligand. Appropriate correction is required.
Newly submitted claim 20 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claim 20 recites a product-by-process made from the process of claim 14 which is distinct and
Since applicant has received a restriction on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of CHEN (2021/0389670 A1)) and HO et al (2020/0272051 A1).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CHEN report an organometallic material including a metal core and a first ligand which his photocleavable and a second ligand which is non-photocleavable having a crosslinking group. The specific embodiments of the metal core are disclosed in para. [0080] wherein Zn is one of the selected metal.
The ligand is disclosed in para. [0081] which include the first photo-cleavable ligand comprising an aliphatic or aromatic cyclic or non-cyclic C1-C30 group and is substituted with a carboxyl group (-COOH), an amine (NH2) group and other as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
168
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
214
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
HO et al report photoresist composition comprising metal oxide nanoparticle with one or more organic ligands as disclosed in para. [0046] with their sizes from 2 nm to 5 nm The specific metal oxide includes zinc oxide as seen below:
PNG
media_image4.png
238
364
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
192
384
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 for the ligand groups as disclosed above in CHEN, para. [0081].
Claim 7 for the size of the nanoparticles is disclose above in para. [0046] of HO et al.
Claim 8 for the aliphatic ligands are disclosed above in para. [0081] of CHEN.
Claim 9 to the specific substituted ligands can be found in para. [0081] of CHEN.
Claim 10 to the aromatic ligand group is also found in para. [0081] of CHEN.
Claim 11 to the second ligand the chain amine found in para. [0081] of CHEN.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to formulate a photoresist composition comprising a known metal core nanoparticle such as zinc oxide as reported in HO et al with two different ligands . CHEN further teaches that of two different ligands, one is photo-cleavable and the other is non-photo-cleavable polybenzoxazole precursors for insulating layers to use any of the listed diacid dichlorides as reported in NAIINI et al, column 48 such as adipoyl chloride and 1,4-cyclohexyldicarbonyl dichloride in place of the isophthaloyl chloride and 4-oxydibenzoyl chloride in a 5/5 ration of Synthesis Example 2 with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for reduced stress on negative tone photoresists.
Claims 4-6, 12, 13 and 17-19 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 disclose the claimed embodiments recited in claim 4 for the specific location of the two N atoms.
The specific zinc-based formula in claims 6 and 7.
The specific substitution groups of the organic amine in claim 12.
The specific zinc-based nanoparticle of claim 13.
Or the crystals of the zinc-based nanoparticle of claims 17-19.
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, 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 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
August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights