DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received October 31, 2023.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, 7, 8, 15 and 18 in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged and the restriction is withdrawn in view of the product claims being seen as allowable.
Claims 5, 6, 9-14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejoined in view of In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995) which sets precedent that the method of use of allowable products is also seen as an allowable method. As a results restricted methods of use and methods of making are rejoined and are prosecuted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a statutory category of invention with an asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The claims above to the method of using lack an action with a series of steps to recite a proper method.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a proper method claim reciting more than one step. A method defines an action which is an act or a series of acts performed upon the subject-matter or be transformed and recued to a different state or this “Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673 676 (1972) a well-established asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-15, 18-20 are allowed.
None of the prior art references of record disclose the claimed resist composition for use in fabrication of integrated circuits wherein the resist composition comprises an alkyltin-oxo cage as recited in claim 1 or disclose the lithographic method of claim 9, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
184
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
240
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAITO et al report a metal containing onium salt having borate anion in a composition for photoresists.
LEE et al (2023/0400764) disclose the use of tin-oxo cage nanoclusters with conventional carboxylic anions para. [0045].
IMAI et al disclose the equivalence of carboxylic ligands with tetrakis (2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorophenyl) borate used in photoresists, see para. [0165].
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 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights