DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received June 26, 2026.
Bolded text is new to the OA.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of TAKEDA et al (2002/0039701), HATAKEYAMA et al, (2021/0080828) and KATO et al (2020/0393756).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
888
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
TAKEDA et al report a positive photosensitive resin composition comprising a polymer comprising a benzyl cyclopentyl methacrylate with a hydroxystyrene the composition further contains a photoacid generator and basic compound, see page 10, column [0138] to [0140]:
PNG
media_image2.png
86
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
TAKEDA et al lack additional recite comonomers such as a lactone methacrylate as recited in claim 6 and a photoacid generator having iodine substituents.
HATAKEYAMA et al disclose a resist composition comprising a copolymer having lactone ring containing (meth)acrylate monomers, see page 88. These monomers provide adhesive properties to the copolymer to adhere to the substrate.
HATAKEYAMA et al further disclose iodine substituted photoacid generators shown on page 88, para. [0185] to PAG 2:
PNG
media_image3.png
172
370
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-5 are met by the disclose PAG2 above having an iodine substituent, the anion being a sulfonate, and the comonomer in TAKEDA et al being benzyl cyclopentyl methacrylate and the comonomer in TAKEDA et al being a hydroxystyrene.
Claims 6 for the lactone methacrylate as disclosed by HATAKEYAMA et al as seen in Polymer 4 on page 88:
PNG
media_image4.png
252
368
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 is met by the disclosure in KATO et al (2020/0393756) for the hydrophobic resin found on page 41, Table 1, Examples 1-4 shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
280
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 9 are met by the method as disclosed in either of TAKEDA et al at para. [0158] to [0159] and/or HATAKEYAMA et al, para. [0188] and the exposure to EUV or EB as disclosed in para. [0168]:
PNG
media_image6.png
258
368
media_image6.png
Greyscale
KATO et al teach equivalent repeating unit having an acid decomposable group wherein there is second ester linking group see page 5 for the following structure:
PNG
media_image7.png
188
154
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 10-13, 18 and 19 to the Y1 divalent linking group is met by the disclosed structural unit on page 5, shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
188
154
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-16 and 20 for the content of the structural unit of the acid-decomposable group is met by the disclosure on page 36, para [0580] wherein the content of the acid-decomposable units is at 50 molar ratio:
PNG
media_image9.png
400
350
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 would be met by the equivalent use of the acid-decomposable groups as seen in KATO et al for suitable use of cycloaliphatic group to the alkyl groups, see page 5.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition having a copolymer as disclosed in TAKEDA et al for a photoresist composition and add known comonomers such as those reported in KATO et al for the acid-decomposable units wherein a second ester linking group off the backbone and add a butyrolactone methacrylate to improve adhesion of the copolymer to the substrate, add an iodine substituted photoacid generator to give improved sensitivity to EUV and EB radiation with the reasonable expectation of same or similar results for high sensitivity, suppression of acid diffusion, improved resolution LWR and CDU.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights