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 .
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
The processes using the photosensitive element using etching processes (species 1) or plating (species II)
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The groups and species lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the photoresist with the recited development characteristics (development interfacial ratio) , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of the X refence JP 2016-0878544 citing in the search report of April 11, 2022
During a telephone conversation with Gerald M. Murphy Jr (28977) on March 30, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of group I (which does not require an election of species), claims 14-18,21-23,26,27,30-32. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19,20,24,25,28,29 and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-18,21-2326,27,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Inventive examples 26,14 and 1 correspond to comparative examples 1-5,8 and 9.
The inventive examples and their corresponding comparative examples (pairs) appear to use the same substrates and a 15 nm thickness of photosensitive composition 1 and projection i-line exposure, but yield different results (surface particle number, surface particle size, developed interfacial ratio, protrusion number, etc.) in tables 3-5. The examiner reproduces portions of the tables with the inventive (upper) and comparative examples (lower) paired.
PNG
media_image1.png
227
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
156
80
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
107
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
71
70
media_image4.png
Greyscale
comparative
PNG
media_image5.png
247
245
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
250
71
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
244
365
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
257
70
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It is not clear what the differences are which yield the differences between the inventive and comparative examples using the same supports, photosensitive compositions and thicknesses thereof. The specification does not teach how to use the same supports and photosensitive layer to yield the inventive results, rather than the comparative results.
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 14-18,21-23,26,27,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Kosaka WO 2020032133, as evidenced by Irizawa CN-117264256
Kosaka WO 2020032133 (machine translation attached, spot/translation of table incorporated into description) in example 14 (see table 1, page 58) combines resin A-3, which is a methacrylic acid/methylmethacrylate/styrene/butylacrylate copolymer (25/10/60/5) with a MW of 20,000, monomers B-1 to B-3, a dimethacrylate of bisphenol A with 5 ethyleneoxide linklages (B-1), Tetramethacrylate obtained by adding 15 mol of ethylene oxide to benzoylerythritol (B-2) and dipentaerythritol hexamethacrylate with 13 ethyleneoxide linkages) , 2-(o-chlorophenyl)-4,5-diphenylimidazole dimer (photoinitiator), 9,10-diphenylanthracene (sensitizing dye) Diamond green (E-1), leucocrystal violet (E-2). These were mixed and coated to a thickness of 30 microns on a 16 micron PET substrate (FB-40) and then overcoated with a 19 microns polyethylene protective film [0152]. The minimum line width of example 1 is 9.6 microns. The minimum line width of example 8 is 9.2 microns. The surface roughness of the support is 30 nm or less, preferably 20 nm or less and particularly preferably 10 nm or less [0124]. The thickness of the photosensitive resin layer in the photosensitive resin laminate varies depending on the application, but is preferably 1 μm to 300 μm, more preferably 3 μm to 100 μm, particularly preferably 5 μm to 60 μm, and most preferably 10 μm to 30 μm. As the thickness of the photosensitive resin layer is smaller, the resolution is improved, and as the thickness is larger, the film strength is improved [0128].
Partial Translation of WO 2020/032133
[0167]
[Table 3]
Component A-1 This has a composition of methacrylic acid / benzyl methacrylate / styrene (mass ratio: 25/50/25), and is a copolymer wherein the acid equivalent is 344, the Tg of the Fox equation is 98°C, the I/O value is 0.552, the weight average molecular weight is 50,000, and the degree of dispersion is 2.3.
Component A-2 This has a composition of methacrylic acid / benzyl methacrylate / methyl methacrylate (mass ratio: 20/79.5/0.5), and is a copolymer wherein the acid equivalent is 430, the Tg of the Fox equation is 79°C, the I/O value is 0.583, the weight average molecular weight is 53,000, and the degree of dispersion is 2.2.
Component A-3 This has a composition of methacrylic acid / benzyl methacrylate / styrene / butyl acrylate (mass ratio: 25/10/60/5), and is a copolymer wherein the acid equivalent is 344, the Tg of the Fox equation is 112°C, the I/O value is 0.552, the weight average molecular weight is 48,000, and the degree of dispersion is 4.3.
Component A-4 This has a composition of methacrylic acid / methyl methacrylate / styrene (mass ratio: 29/19/52), and is a copolymer wherein the acid equivalent is 297, the Tg of the Fox equation is 131°C, the I/O value is 0.552, the weight average molecular weight is 48,000, and the degree of dispersion is 4.3.
Component A-5 This has a composition of methacrylic acid / methyl methacrylate / styrene (mass ratio: 25/50/25), and is a copolymer wherein the acid equivalent is 344, the Tg of the Fox equation is 128°C, the I/O value is 0.691, the weight average molecular weight is 65,000, and the degree of dispersion is 3.5.
Component B-1 Polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate obtained by adding an average of 5 mols of ethylene oxide to each end of bisphenol A (manufactured by Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.; product name: FA-321M).
Compopnent B-2 A tetramethacrylate obtained by adding an average of 15 mols of ethylene oxide to pentaerythritol.
Component B-3 Hexamethacrylate of polyethylene glycol obtained by adding 13 mols of ethylene oxide to dipentaerythritol
Component C-1 2-(o-chlorophenyl)-4,5-dimethyl imidazole dimer
Component D-1 9,10-diphenyl anthracene
Component D-2 9,10-diphenyl anthracene (manufactured by Kawasaki Kasei, product name: Anthracure-UVS-1331)
Component D-3 1-phenyl-3-(4-biphenyl)-5-(4-tert-butyl-phenyl)-pyrazoline
Component E-1 Diamond green
Component E-2 Leucocrystal violet
Component F-1 Carboxybenzotriazole
Component G-1 Aluminum salt with 3 mols of nitrosophenylhydroxylamine added
Irizawa CN-117264256 (machine translation attached) evidences that the PET commercially available from Toray include "Lumirror FB-40" and "QS63"[0068]. Example 14 establishes that Lumirror FB-40 has a surface roughness of 8 nm [0281-0282]. Example 15 establishes that QS63 has a surface roughness of 7 nm [0283-0284].
The position of the examiner is that the FB-40 used in the examples of Kosaka WO 2020032133 inherently has a high smoothness (~7 nm RMS) as evidenced in Irizawa CN-117264256 and that this smoothness meets the Sdr limitation of the claims and contributes a uniform exposure. The composition of A-3 includes 60% styrene. The minimum line width of example 14 was 12 microns. The minimum line width of example 1 is 9.6 microns. The minimum line width of example 8 is 9.2 microns.
Claims 14-18 and 26,27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Yamada et al. WO 2018159629, as evidenced by Irizawa CN-117264256.
Yamada et al. WO 2018159629 (machine translation and corresponding Malaysian patent MY-187187 attached) in example 1 (table 1) combines polymer A-1 (Benzylmethacrylate/methacrylic acid) (7/3) with MW of 55,000, table 4), monomers B-1 (dimethacrylate of biphenol A with 5 mol ethyleneoxide linklages, table 5), B-5 (pentaerythritol tetramethacrylate with 9 mol ethyleneoxide linkages), B-7 (dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate with 5 propyleneoxide linkages), 2-(o-chlorophenyl)-4,5-diphenylimidazole dimer (photoinitiator, C-1, table 6), 9,10-dibutoxyanthracene (sensitizing dye, C-2, table 6) Diamond green (C10), leucocrystal violet (C-11), Al-N-nitroso-N-phenylhydroxyamine (C12) and carboxybenzotriazole (C-13), which is coated onto a 16 microns PET substrate (FB-40, Toray) to a thickness of 25 microns (WO at [0150] , MY at [0150]). The linewidth of was 11 microns.
The position of the examiner is that the FB-40 used in the examples inherently has a high smoothness (~7 nm RMS) as evidenced in Irizawa CN-117264256 and that this smoothness meets the Sdr limitation of the claims and contributes a uniform exposure.
Claims 14-16,21-23,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Hara et al. JP 2016087854
Hara et al. JP 2016087854 (cited by applicant with machine translation attached) describes coating a negative resist onto a silicon wafer to a thickness of 7 microns, heating the resist for 20 minutes and then contacting the resist with the polyester film, exposing the resist thought a mask to i-line radiation, peeling the polyester film and developing the resist pattern [0057). The surface roughness (SRa)of the polyester films used in the examples are found in table 2 (reproduced below).
PNG
media_image9.png
506
312
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
635
298
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In examples 1-4 and comparative examples 3 and 4, the L/S of 10/10 microns are clear ([0057], table 2) and meets the limitations of claims 21-23 and 30-32
Claims 14-16,21-23,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Kubota 20130266900.
Kubota 20130266900 describes the composition of a-1 (table 1), which in composition 2 (table 2) is combined with b-1 (bisphenol A dimethacrylate with 10 ethylene oxide linkages), b-2 (bisphenol A dimethacrylate with 10 ethylene oxide linkages), b-3 (chloro-2-hydroxypropyl-b’-methacryloyloxyethyl-o-phthalate), c-1 (2-(o-chlorophenyl)-4,5-diphenylimidazole dimer), c-2 (1-phenyl-3-(4-methoxystyryl)-5-(4-methoxyphenyl)pyrazoline) (page 16), 4-butylcatechol, leuco crystal violet, malachite green and solvents. The resolution is 6 microns (table 5). The supports include Three-layer structure biaxially oriented PET film with fine particle-containing layer on front and back: FB40 (trade name of Toray Co., Ltd.) Two-layer structure biaxially oriented PET film with fine particles on only one side: A-1517 (trade name of Toyobo, Ltd.) Three-layer structure biaxially oriented PET film with fine particle-containing layer on front and back: HTR-02 (trade name of Teijin DuPont, Ltd.) The number of such particles is the value measured using a polarizing microscope, as the number of particles of 5 .mu.m and greater present per 1 mm.sup.2 unit. The value of n was 5. The haze value is the value measured according to JIS K 7105. The thicknesses of the support films were all 16 .mu.m. The aforementioned photosensitive resin composition solution was coated to an even thickness onto each PET film, and dried for 5 minutes with a hot air convection current dryer at 100.degree. C. to remove the solvent. After drying, the photosensitive layer was covered with a polyethylene film (trade name: "NF-15" by Tamapoly Co., Ltd., thickness: 20 .mu.m) as a protective film to obtain a photosensitive element. The coating amount of the photosensitive resin composition solution was adjusted so that the thickness of the dried photosensitive layer was the thickness T as listed in Tables 5 to 7 [0173-0174]. The number of particles with a size or 5 microns or greater particles/mm2 is 1 and the haze was 0.4% and the resist had a smooth (A) line edge form and there were no defects (table 5).
The resolution of example 1-16 are 5 or 6 microns (see tables 5 and 6) .
PNG
media_image11.png
250
583
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The resolution in the tables are 5-6 microns which is finer than the limitations of claims 21-23 and 30-32
Claims 14-16,21-23,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Kamouchi et al. WO 2019244724, as evidenced by Irizawa CN-117264256
Kamouchi et al. WO 2019244724 (machine translation and corresponding Malaysian patent MY 200922 attached) exemplifies the copolymers of table 1 (reproduced below)
PNG
media_image12.png
413
402
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
335
372
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Example 1 (see tables 2), combines polymers A-01, A-2, and A-3 with monomers B-1 to B-5, C-1.C-2, D-1 to D4 and methyl ethyl ketone.
PNG
media_image14.png
359
414
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
336
370
media_image15.png
Greyscale
As shown in Tables 1 to 3 below, each component (however, the amount of each component indicates the blending amount (parts by mass) as a solid content) is sufficiently stirred and mixed to obtain a photosensitive resin composition. A mixture was obtained. In Tables 2 and 3, the I value of the binder indicates the I value as a mixture of alkali-soluble polymers represented by symbols A-1 to A-3. A 16 μm-thick polyethylene terephthalate film (FB-40, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.) was used as a support film, and the prepared liquid was uniformly applied to the surface thereof using a bar coater. After drying for a minute, a photosensitive resin composition layer was formed. The dry thickness of the photosensitive resin composition layer was 25 μm. Then, a 19 μm-thick polyethylene film (manufactured by Tamapoly Corporation, GF-818) is laminated as a protective layer on the surface of the photosensitive resin composition layer on the side where the polyethylene terephthalate film is not laminated. A laminate was obtained [0133]. From the viewpoint of suppressing light scattering during exposure, the support layer preferably has a haze of 5% or less, 2% or less, 1.5% or less, or 1.0% or less. From the same viewpoint, the surface roughness Ra of the surface of the support layer in contact with the photosensitive layer is preferably 30 nm or less, 20 nm or less, or 10 nm or less. The thinner the thickness of the support layer is, the more advantageous it is for improving image formability and economy. However, in order to maintain the strength of the photosensitive resin laminate, it is preferably 10 μm to 30 μm. The support layer may contain fine particles such as a lubricant, if desired. The size of the fine particles is preferably less than 5 μm. [0104]. Examples 24-38 have resolution of 7.1 to 8.4 microns (tables 11 and 12)
The position of the examiner is that the FB-40 used in the examples inherently has a high smoothness (~7 nm RMS) as evidenced in Irizawa CN-117264256 and that this smoothness meets the Sdr limitation of the claims and contributes a uniform exposure. The resolution in the tables is 7-1 to 8.4 microns microns which is finer than the limitations of claims 21-23 and 30-32
Claims 14-16,21-23,30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nagoshi et al. WO 2017018053, as evidenced by Irizawa CN-117264256
Nagoshi et al. WO 2017018053 (machine translation attached) teaches supports FB-40, (PET film with 0.04% haze), A4100 (PET film 0.02 haze) which are used in examples 1-3 . See table 4
PNG
media_image16.png
664
158
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The photosensitive layers are use the components: (see table 3)
((A) binder polymer
The first column is methacrylic acid and the second column is styrene, the third column is methylmethacrylate, the fourth column is butyl methacrylate, the fifth column is benzylmethacrylate
PNG
media_image17.png
317
441
media_image17.png
Greyscale
A-14: Cresol novolak-type carboxyl group-modified epoxy acrylate [CCR-1291H (Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd.), does not have a structural unit derived from (meth) acrylic acid]
((B) Photopolymerizable compound)
B-1: 2,2-bis (4- (methacryloxypentaethoxy) phenyl) propane [FA-321M (Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
B-2: Ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate (EO average 4 mol modified) [BPE-200 (Shin Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
B-3: (PO) (EO) (PO) modified polyethylene glycol dimethacrylate [FA-024M (Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.), EO average 6 mol and PO average 12 mol modified]
B-4: Tricyclodecane dimethanol dimethacrylate [NK-DCP (Shin Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
B-5: Ethoxy-modified trimethylolpropane triacrylate [Sartomer SR454 (Somar Corp.)]
B-6: Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate [TMPT (Shin Nakamura Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
((C) Photopolymerization initiator)
C-1: 2,2′-bis (2-chlorophenyl) -4,4 ′, 5,5′-tetraphenylbiimidazole [B-CIM (Hampford)]
C-2: Irgacure 907 [I907 (BASF)]
C-3: Irgacure 819 [I819 (BASF)]
(Other ingredients)
Sensitizer: 4,4'-diethylaminobenzophenone [EAB (Hodogaya Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
Hydrogen donor: Leuco Crystal Violet [LCV (Yamada Chemical Co., Ltd.)]
Dye: Malachite Green [MKG (Osaka Organic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.)]
Polymerization inhibitor: tert-butylcatechol [TBC (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd.)]
Adhesion imparting agent: benzotriazole derivative [SF-808H (Sanwa Kasei Co., Ltd.)]
PNG
media_image18.png
663
386
media_image18.png
Greyscale
The resolution of examples 1-10 is 5 microns, the resolution of example 11 is 6 microns, the resolution is examples 12 and 13 are 7 microns, which is finer than the limitations of claims 21-23 and 30-32
The position of the examiner is that the FB-40 used in the examples inherently has a high smoothness (~7 nm RMS) as evidenced in Irizawa CN-117264256 and that this smoothness meets the Sdr limitation of the claims and contributes a uniform exposure. The low haze for FB-40 and A4100 support the position that these contain no particles and have high smoothness.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seraizawa et al. JP 2006154622 (cited by applicant, machine translation attached) in example 1 formed PET support with 100 ppm of 1.3 micron silica, 200 ppm of 1.0 microns hexamethylene bis(behenate)and lauryl diphenyl ether disulfonate This was coated with 15 microns thick layer of methylmethacrylate/2-ethylhexyl acrylate/benzylmethacrylate/methacrylic acid (50/20/7/23), monomer
PNG
media_image19.png
64
500
media_image19.png
Greyscale
, hexamethylene diisocyanate and tetraethylene oxide monomethacrylate N-methylacridone, s, 2,2-bis (o-chlorophenyl) -4,4 ′, 5,5′-tetraphenylbiimidazole, 2-mercaptobenzimidazole, malachite green Oxalate, leuco crystal violet, methyl ethyl ketone/1-methoxypropanol [0399-0400]. A 20 μm thick polyethylene film was laminated as the protective film on the photosensitive layer of the pattern forming material. Next, a photosensitive layer of the pattern forming material is peeled off from the surface of a copper-clad laminate (no through-hole, copper thickness 12 μm) whose surface is polished, washed and dried as the substrate. Is bonded to the copper-clad laminate using a laminator (MODEL8B-720-PH, manufactured by Taisei Laminator Co., Ltd.), and the copper-clad laminate, the photosensitive layer, and the polyethylene terephthalate film (support) Body) was laminated in this order [0401]. The diffusion angle is 0.9 degrees (table 4)
Kubota et al. JP 2013257596 (machine translation attached) forms a binder of methyl methacrylate/methacrylic acid and styrene (25/30/45). This was combined with 2: 2,2-bis (4- (methacryloxypentaethoxy) phenyl) propane (manufactured by Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd., product name), 3: Polyethylene glycol polypropylene glycol diacrylate (modified with 6 moles of oxyethylene chain, 12 moles of oxypropylene chain) (product name, manufactured by Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.), 4: γ-Chloro-β-hydroxypropyl-β′-methacryloyloxyethyl-o-phthalate (product name, manufactured by Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.), 5: 1,7-bis (9,9′-acridinyl) heptane (product name, manufactured by Asahi Denka Kogyo Co., Ltd.), 6: 9-phenylacridine (manufactured by Nippon Steel Chemical Co., Ltd., product name) [0142-0145]. These were coated on various polyethylene terephthalate substrates described in table 2.
PNG
media_image20.png
147
501
media_image20.png
Greyscale
1 particles 1/mm2 having a size of at least 5 microns was detected in examples 10 and comparative example 1. These also had a haze of 0.4%. The resolution was 11 microns. (table 1)
PNG
media_image21.png
147
477
media_image21.png
Greyscale
JP 4285089 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to table 2,. Polyesters used as substrates for resists. Example 2 does not add any particles to the slip/release layer and has zero particles/1000cm2. Example 1 is similar, but adds 5 nm particles and detects 2 particles/1000cm2.
PNG
media_image22.png
496
302
media_image22.png
Greyscale
The resist layer side of the dry film photoresist obtained by removing the protective film on the copper-clad laminate, which is a glass epoxy material laminated with copper foil on both sides, is 120 ° C. 4 kgf / cm.sup.2Laminated with. After that, using an exposure machine having a 3 kW super high pressure mercury lamp, using a photo tool having a 21-step tablet as a negative and a comb pattern of 5 μm, the amount of remaining steps after development is 8.0. Exposed. The support film was then removed and developed by spraying a 1.0 wt% aqueous sodium carbonate solution at 30 ° C. Resolution (μm) was obtained from the remaining resist pattern. The resolution was evaluated as follows.
Okade et al. 20150293443 teaches polymers in table 1
PNG
media_image23.png
166
647
media_image23.png
Greyscale
These are combined with monomers, photoinitiators and the like as in table 2.
PNG
media_image24.png
324
551
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Each of the solutions of photosensitive resin composition obtained above was coated onto a polyethylene terephthalate film with a thickness of 16 μm (“FB-40”, manufactured by Toray Industries, Inc.) and subsequently dried at 70° C. and 110° C. with a hot air current drier, thereby forming a photosensitive resin composition layer with a post-drying thickness of 25 μm. A protective film (“E-200K”, manufactured by Oji Paper Co., Ltd.) was attached onto the photosensitive resin composition layer, thereby obtaining a photosensitive element including the polyethylene terephthalate film (support film), the photosensitive resin composition layer, and the protective film layered in this order [0203].
PNG
media_image25.png
232
461
media_image25.png
Greyscale
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 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights