Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Responses to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 1,3-4,6,8,12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being fully anticipated by Takano JP 2010002750.
Takano JP 2010002750 (machine translation attached) teaches a 13.1 nm TiO2/ZrO2 colloidal composite nanoparticles (85% TiO2) which is combined with 50 parts of a trimethylolorpane acrylate, a photoinitiator, silicone oil in isopropanol. This is filtered to form a high refractive index coating [0109]. The high refractive index coating was applied to the hard coat layer, dried and exposed to UV (600 mJ/cm2) to cure the layer [0114].
In the response of 3/2/2026, the applicant argues that Takano only discloses a colloidal of TiO2 and ZrO2 which are distinct phases formed by mixing two different sols together. The examiner points out that the sizes of these particles is 13.1 nm, which suggest the formation of these by hydrolysis of a mixture of titanium and zirconium precursors, rather than the asserted mixture of a titanium sol and a zirconium sol. The applicant argues that the 85% TiO2 yields a molar ratio of 8.7:1 . First the 85% TiO2 represents an average, there are obviously no partial atoms in the particles (look up Greek root of the word “Atom”), so none of the actual particles can be formed of fractional atoms. The typical oxides of zirconium and titanium are TiO2 and ZrO2, which have integer relationships with oxygen (1:2). As they are colloidal particles, they are formed in solution, not in the sputtering process of Jia et al., “On the crystal structural control of sputtered TiO2 thin Films, Nanoscale Research Letters Vol. 11, article 324 (9 pages, 2016) and do not have to the have the crystalline structure of Jia.et al. . The ratio of 85/15 yields 5.7 (5.7:1 in the parlance of the claims), which is based upon the ratio of the titanium and zirconium precursors. The position of the examiner is that the composition contains particles within the scope of the claims where the ratio of Ti:Zr is 5 and particles where the Ti:Zr ratio is 6 each nanoparticles having an appropriate number of oxygens and ligands. The examiner points out that the case where there are 5 or 6 titanium atoms for each zirconium atoms is bounded by the claims and include ligands which are bonded to the Ti or zirconium of the particles to stabilize them in the same manner as in the instant specification. The trimethylol propane triacrylate is a polymerizable ligand. The rejection stands.
Claims 1,3-6,8 and 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being fully anticipated by Nakayama et al., “Preparation and characterization of TiO2–ZrO2 and thiol-acrylate resin nanocomposites with high refractive index via UV-induced crosslinking polymerization”, Composites Part A, Vol. 38 pp 1996-2004 (2007).
Nakayama et al., “Preparation and characterization of TiO2–ZrO2 and thiol-acrylate resin nanocomposites with high refractive index via UV-induced crosslinking polymerization”, Composites Part A, Vol. 38 pp 1996-2004 (2007) synthesizes TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles in ratios of Ti:Zr of 10:1, 4:1, 2:1 and 1:1 (section 2.2.1) These are then stabilized/modified by acrylic acid and dispersed in ethyl cellosolve or methanol (section 2.2.2). These were combined with a urethane acrylate and a photoinitiator. This solution was coated upon a substrate and cured using UV exposure (section 2.3.2)
The applicant argues that Nakayama et al., “Preparation and characterization of TiO2–ZrO2 and thiol-acrylate resin nanocomposites with high refractive index via UV-induced crosslinking polymerization”, Composites Part A, Vol. 38 pp 1996-2004 (2007) forms an titanium core and then a ZrO2 layer over it in a two step process (section 4). The examiner disagrees that the claims exclude particles having different phases. The examiner has interpreted the claims as requiring the recited nanoparticles to have the recited composition as an average. Also there is no language in the claims describing the crystal structure or the arrangement of the atoms relative to each other, although (re)crystallization is described in the inventive examples at [0084] of the instant specification. The rejection stands.
Claims 1,3-6,8 and 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being fully anticipated by Sullivan et al. 20130011630.
Sullivan et al. 20130011630 in example 5 describes titanium/Zirconium nanoparticle hardmask formed by the reaction of 1.94 g of Ti(tetra)N-butoxide (0056 moles) and 2.71 g zirconium (tetra)n-butoxide (0.0077 moles) in butyl alcohol and then 4.17 g of methacrylic acid was added. The solution was allowed to form particles for a week, which were then isolated by decanting and vacuum drying [0069-0070]. These were then dispersed ion PGMEA to form a 5.6% solids solution and spin coated upon a hot plate. [0071-0072]. The motivation is to form hardmasks with increased resistance to reactive ion etching (RIE) relative to silicon oxide films [0008]. The composition use metal oxide precursor compounds of aluminum, titanium, zirconium, vanadium, germanium, aluminum, hafnium, gallium, thallium, antimony, lead, bismuth, indium, tin, boron, germanium, arsenic, tellurium, rare earth metals (e.g., scandium, yttrium, and the lanthanides), or a combination thereof, which are used to form sol-gel or metal oxide nanoparticles which are considered metal oxide polymers to form the hardmask compositions [0018]. When forming nanoparticles or clusters, the ligands ae carboxylic acids, alkoxides, acetoacetals or pentanediones [0028]. Suitable ligands for use in the hardmask materials include those selected from the group consisting of alcohols (alkoxides), phenols (phenoxides), beta-diketones, beta-diketoesters, aromatic or aliphatic carboxylic acids (carboxylates), thiols, and derivatives thereof. The ligands may also contain an additional functional group that allows for other chemical reactions to occur, such as an acrylate that can be polymerized. Particularly preferred ligands include acetoacetates, pentanedionates, and alkoxides [0027].
This is a new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma et al. 20150234272, in view of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018).
Sarma et al. 20150234272 in figure 10A teaches a resist based upon ZrO2-dimethylacrylic acid and 5 wt% of a non-ionic PAG which exposed used EUV was developed in 4-methyl-2-pentanol. Figure 10B teaches a resist including ZrO2-methylmethacrylic acid/ZrO2-dimethylacrylic acid which was exposed using EUV and developed in 4-methyl-pentanol. There is also a resist which is a ZrO2-methylmethacrylic acid/HfO2-dimethylacrylic acid which was exposed using EUV and developed in 4-methyl-pentanol. ZrO2-methylmethacrylic acid and non-ionic PAG which was exposed using EUV and developed in 4-methyl-pentanol. The HfO2/benzoate particles have a particles size of 3.2 nm [0124]. The exposure of HfO2-methacrylic acid particles combined with N-hydroxynaphthalimide using EUV, followed by development in 4-methyl-2-pentanol is disclosed [0133]. A photoresist composition was prepared by dispersing HfO.sub.2-benzoate nanoparticles in PGMEA at 5-10 wt % of the final dispersion and adding a small amount (1-7 wt % per gram of nanoparticle) of a photoacid generator, N-hydroxynaphthalimide triflate. The hybrid nanoparticles were spin coated on bare silicon wafers using standard protocols as described in Krysak et al., Development of an inorganic nanoparticle photoresist for EUV, e-beam, and 193 nm lithography, Proceedings of SPIE 7972, (Pt. 1, Advances in Resist Materials and Processing Technology XXVIII), 2011, 7972, 79721C1-C6, and Trikeriotis et al., Development of an inorganic photoresist for DUV, EUV, and electron beam imaging, Proceedings of SPIE 7639, (Pt. 1, Advances in Resist Materials and Processing Technology XXVII), 2010, 7639, 76390E1-E10, forming uniform films without any crystalline domains (see FIG. 6) [0126]. The nanoparticle core is selected from titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), and/or hafnium (Hf and oxide of these. The nanoparticle of the invention comprises 35 wt % to 75 wt % (e.g., 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75 wt %, etc.) core (i.e., the core constitutes 35-75 wt % of the entire nanoparticle), including any and all ranges and subranges therein. In some embodiments, the nanoparticle comprises 35-75 wt % titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, or hafnium oxide, or combinations thereof [0074-0076]. In some embodiments, the invention provides a photoresist composition comprising a nanoparticle that includes a coating having a ligand selected from methacrylic acid, trans-2,3-dimethylacrylic acid, ethylacrylic acid, propylacrylic acid and methylbutyric acid, and carboxylates thereof (i.e., carboxylates of any of the listed acids) [0101]. Synthesis of an Embodiment of the Inventive Nanoparticle --HfO.sub.2 Core with Benzoate Ligand Coating: Hafnium isopropoxide, benzoic acid and PGMEA were purchased from Sigma Aldrich. Solvents like THF and acetone were obtained from Fisher Scientific. A typical synthesis consists of reacting 3g of hafnium isopropoxide and 5g of benzoic acid dissolved in 20m1 of THF respectively. The reactants were stirred at 65.degree. C. for 2 hours followed by addition of 2 ml of DI water, to initiate sol-gel reaction. After 18 hours of reaction time, the reaction mixture was precipitated and washed with a mixture of acetone/water (1:4, vol) and the nanoparticles were dried for 24 hours under vacuum.
The mild reaction conditions of sol-gel chemistry allowed for efficient incorporation of the organic moieties into the inorganic components. HfO.sub.2-benzoate nanoparticles were isolated as white amorphous powders as confirmed from x-ray diffraction.
Nanoparticle particle size was determined by dynamic light scattering techniques (FIG. 2A), where an HfO.sub.2-benzoate dispersion of 10 wt % in PGMEA was prepared for the measurements, giving an average particle size of 3.2 nm with a narrow size distribution. From calculations based on atomic composition and correlating them with mass loss results as obtained from TGA, it has been determined that each HfO.sub.2 nanoparticle core is covered with .about.5 benzoate ligands at their surface. [0118-0124].
Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) teaches Zr based methacrylate oxo clusters having the formula Zr6O4(OH)4Mc12 and Ti based clusters having the formula Ti8O8Mc16. These are coated onto wafers, dried, exposed using EUV and developed in Chloroform (section 2.1 to 2.3).
Sarma et al. 20150234272 does not exemplify the use of a Ti-Zr nanoparticle in a resist.
With respect to claims 1,3-9,12-15,17 and 19, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Sarma et al. 20150234272 by replacing the methacrylate stabilized ZrO2, TiO2 or HfO2 nanoparticles with the methacrylic acid stabilized TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photoresists based upon the direction to Ti, Hf, and/or Zr oxide nanoparticles in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0074-0076], the disclosed equivalence of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid as photoactive ligands in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0101] and the exemplified use of Ti and Zr oxo resists in Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018). Further, it would have been obvious to expose them using EUV and develop them in the disclosed developers with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful resist pattern.
With respect to claims 1,3-9,12-15,17 and 19, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Sarma et al. 20150234272 by replacing the methacrylate stabilized ZrO2, TiO2 or HfO2 nanoparticles with the acrylic acid or dimethylacrylic acid stabilized TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photoresists based upon the direction to Ti, Hf, and/or Zr oxide nanoparticles in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0074-0076], the disclosed equivalence of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid as photoactive ligands in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0101] and the exemplified use of Ti and Zr oxo resists in Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018). Further, it would have been obvious to expose them using EUV and develop them in the disclosed developers with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful resist pattern.
With respect to claims 1,3-9,12-17 and 19, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Sarma et al. 20150234272 by replacing the methacrylate stabilized ZrO2, TiO2 or HfO2 nanoparticles with the methacrylic acid stabilized TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photoresists based upon the direction to Ti, Hf, and/or Zr oxide nanoparticles in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0074-0076], the disclosed equivalence of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid as photoactive ligands in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0101] and the exemplified use of Ti and Zr oxo resists in Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and the exposing the resists using UV or electron beam followed by development rather than EUV with a reasonable expectation of forming a resist pattern based upon the disclosed use of DUV, electron beams and EUV at [0126] of Sarma et al. 20150234272
With respect to claims 1-15 and 17-20, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Sarma et al. 20150234272 by replacing the methacrylate stabilized ZrO2, TiO2 or HfO2 nanoparticles with the methacrylic acid stabilized TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles similar to those of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 but where the oxide nanoparticles are Ti2Zr6O6, Ti2Zr4O4, Ti2Zr4O5 or Ti2Zr4O6 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful resist based upon the use of 100% ZrO and 100% TiO nanoparticle resists in Nakayama et al., “Preparation and characterization of TiO2–ZrO2 and thiol-acrylate resin nanocomposites with high refractive index via UV-induced crosslinking polymerization”, Composites Part A, Vol. 38 pp 1996-2004 (2007) and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photoresists based upon the direction to Ti, Hf, and/or Zr oxide nanoparticles in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0074-0076] and the exemplified use of Ti and Zr oxo resists in Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018). Further, it would have been obvious to expose them using EUV and develop them in the disclosed developers with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful resist pattern.
With respect to claims 1-15, 17 and 19-20, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Sarma et al. 20150234272 by replacing the methacrylate stabilized ZrO2, TiO2 or HfO2 nanoparticles with the methacrylic acid stabilized TiO2-ZrO2 nanoparticles similar to those of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 but where the oxide nanoparticles are Ti2Zr6O6, Ti2Zr4O4, Ti2Zr4O5 or Ti2Zr4O6 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful resist based upon the use of 100% ZrO and 100% TiO nanoparticle resists in Nakayama et al., “Preparation and characterization of TiO2–ZrO2 and thiol-acrylate resin nanocomposites with high refractive index via UV-induced crosslinking polymerization”, Composites Part A, Vol. 38 pp 1996-2004 (2007) and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photoresists based upon the direction to Ti, Hf, and/or Zr oxide nanoparticles in Sarma et al. 20150234272 at [0074-0076] and the exemplified use of Ti and Zr oxo resists in Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and the exposing the resulting resists using UV or electron beam followed by development rather than EUV with a reasonable expectation of forming a resist pattern based upon the disclosed use of DUV, electron beams and EUV at [0126] of Sarma et al. 20150234272
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma et al. 20150234272, in view of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018), further in view of Sato et al. JP 2004-345922.
Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 (machine translation attached) exemplifies in example 1, the hydrolysis of One mole each of titanium isopropoxide and zirconium isopropoxide was dissolved in 1202.07 g of a propylene glycol monomethyl ether solvent while stirring. After dissolving uniformly, water diluted with 684.58 g of propylene glycol monomethyl ether was added dropwise while stirring 2 mol. Thereafter, an appropriate amount of nitric acid was added with stirring, and the mixture was stirred for 2 hours to perform a hydrolysis reaction. The obtained hydrolysis solution is concentrated at 60 ° C. and 10 Torr by an evaporator, and then diluted with propylene glycol monomethyl ether until the oxide solid content becomes 4.6% by mass, and the metal composition ratio is Zr: Ti = 4415.17 g of a 1: 1 sol-gel solution (coating material) was obtained [0052-0053]. Example 2 is similar, but uses a Zr/Ti of 1:0.5 [0060]. Example 3 is similar, but uses a Zr/Ti of 1:2 [0064]. Example 4 is similar, but uses a Zr/Ti of 1:4 [0068].
In addition to the basis above, the examiner cites Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 to clearly establish that control of the zirconium and titanium content of the resulting particles/hydrolysis product is controlled by controlling the molar ratio of the zirconium and titanium starting materials and that this ratio can be varied widely over the range of Zr:Ti of at least 1: 0.5-4 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma et al. 20150234272, in view of Sullivan et al. 20130011630 and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922, further in view of Toriumi et al. 20170277036.
Toriumi et al. 20170277036 teaches that core may be a fine particle of an oxide of a metal selected from the group consisting of Ti, Zr and Hf, for example. Specific examples thereof are titanium oxide fine particles, zirconium oxide fine particles and hafnium oxide fine particles. It is desirable in practical use to select appropriate type of particles from those metal oxide particles mentioned with consideration of resist characteristics such as the optical property and the resistance to dry-etching [0014]. In recent years, with progress of the miniaturization of patterns, the thickness of the resist, which is a photosensitive composition used for pattern formation, is reduced. Therefore, when etching is carried out on an underlying layer using a micro-patterned resist as a mask, such a drawback arises prominently that the etching resistance of the resist is insufficient. In order to reinforce the etching resistance of this resist, various resist materials containing metal oxides having resistance to etching are examined [0006]. The unsaturated carboxylic acid can include vinylbenzoic acid [0019]. The particles are formed by the hydrolysis reaction of zirconium propoxide using hydrochloric acid in the presence of 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl methacrylic acid, and later methacrylic acid the resault yielded a zirconium oxide particle with a silylated shell, stabilized with methacrylic acid [0077-0079]
The combination of Sarma et al. 20150234272, Sullivan et al. 20130011630, Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 does not describe etching the substrate after patterning the photoresist.
In addition to the basis above, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to extend the processes rendered obvious by the combination of Sarma et al. 20150234272, Sullivan et al. 20130011630 , Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 by using the etch resistance of Ti, Zr and Hf oxide based resists discussed at [0014] of Toriumi et al. 20170277036 to pattern the underlying layer/substrate as taught at [0006] of Toriumi et al. 20170277036 with a reasonable expectation of successfully patterning the underlying layer in correspondence with the opening in the resist pattern.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarma et al. 20150234272, in view of Sullivan et al. 20130011630,Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 , further in view of Mizuno et al. 20080152933 or Lee et al. 20150056745
Lee et al. 20150056745 teaches the addition of phenylacetic acid compounds of formula (2) as stabilizers for titanium dioxide nanoparticles.
PNG
media_image1.png
100
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R2 is hydrogen, C1-20 alkyl;, C2-20 alkenyl, C2-20 alkynyl or C6-30 aryl [0013-0014].
Mizuno et al. 20080152933 in example 5 teaches the surface treatment of the ZrO.sub.2 nano-particles was carried out using 10 g of 4-vinylbenzoic acid, in place of 25 g of biphenyl-4-carboxylic acid used in Example 2. Except for this, a curable resin-fine particle composite material was produced similarly to as described in Example 2.
The combination of Sarma et al. 20150234272, Sullivan et al. 20130011630, Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 does not teach polymerizable ligands other than acrylic acid, methacrylic acid and dimethylmethacrylic acid.
In addition to the basis above, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to extend the processes rendered obvious by the combination of Sarma et al. 20150234272, Sullivan et al. 20130011630 and Castellanos et al., “Ti, Zr, and Hf-based molecular hybrid materials as EUV photoresists”, Proc. SPIE 10583, Article 105830A (12 pages) (2018) and Sato et al. JP 2004-345922 by using other polymerizable ligands known to be useful for stabilizing zirconia or titania particles such as that vinylbenzoic acid of Mizuno et al. 20080152933 or the C2-20 alkene phenylacetates taught by Lee et al. 20150056745 which embrace 4-vinylpheynlacetate, 4-(2-methylvinyl)phenylacetate or 4-(3methyl-2-propenyl)phenylacetate with a reasonable expectation of forming useful polymerizable compositions having stabilized TiZr oxides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark F Huff can be reached at 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 March 23, 2026