Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/310,573

INSPECTION METHOD, METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOSITION, AND METHOD FOR VERIFYING COMPOSITION

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 02, 2023
Examiner
CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
696 granted / 971 resolved
+6.7% vs TC avg
Strong +24% interview lift
Without
With
+23.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1007
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
34.9%
-5.1% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 971 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. Claim(s) 1-9, 15-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. 60-177624 (hereinafter referred to as Kawanabe). Kawanabe, in the overview, and Technical field, discloses an inspection method to detect foreign matter (defect) on a wafer that is used for coating photoresist (the claimed actinic-ray sensitive or radiation-sensitive composition). Kawanabe, in the Purpose of the invention, and Summary of the Invention discloses that the coated wafer (wafer used in semiconductor manufacturing such as silicon wafer) that is coated with photoresist (claimed substrate X) and then inspected, and as disclosed in the Example and in figures 1, and 2, and are returned to cleaning step 1 and cleaned and regenerated and then checked through an inspection step and determined any foreign matter, and if none (i.e., defect less than the set value or defect not determinable to be present on the regenerated wafer includes zero defect), the wafer is proceeded for further processes and is the same as that claimed since the resist-coated wafer is not subjected to exposure or any subsequent processes of photolithography, and the resist is removed from the wafer by cleaning thereby regenerating the wafer and further inspection is conducted to determine the removal of the defect to a desired value (such as no foreign matter or defect, measuring the number of defects) and includes the claimed number of defects that is as low as zero. Kawanabe, in the Background technology, discloses that the foreign matter (defect) can have a size greater than 19nm (claims 1-5). Kawanabe, discloses in Description, and Example, and in figures 1-2, that an automatic inspection is installed that wafers before coating and after coating are inspected, and that wafer (claimed substrate Z or substrate ZX) before coating is inspected via the automatic inspection process (see figure 2) and if the defect (foreign matter) is detected (any foreign matter) the wafer is unloaded and separated from the non-defective products and returned to cleaning (cleaning with solvent etc.) and then inspected again to determine the number of foreign matter (if any) i.e., Kawanabe’s inspection process counts the desires an absence of any foreign matter (defect) i.e., almost zero and is the same as the claimed defect/area recited, and once determined that the wafer has no foreign matter or meets the set value (target or reference) then the substrate is returned after cleaning for further processes and is the same process as that recited in claims 6-9. Kawanabe, in the Example, discloses photolithographical processes (photoresist processing) that can be performed that includes the removal process of photoresist, which inherently and necessarily uses organic solvents to remove the photoresist, so as to regenerate the substrate. Kawanabe in the Description, in the Working Examples, and in figures 1-2, discloses that the automatic inspection inspects both wafers that are uncoated and coated, and that the uncoated wafer subjected to inspection is determined defective if the number of foreign matter is greater than the set value or if the foreign matter is detected during inspection, and removed and cleaned and then inspected again to determine the number of foreign matter or if any foreign matter is present i.e., Kawanabe determines the count of defect before and after cleaning and determines the effect of the cleaning to remove the foreign matter and desires a clean wafer that has no foreign matter and is the same as the claimed defect count, or at least that the foreign matter is present is below the set value (below target), and Similarly, Kawanabe determines if the wafer before coating has any defect, and then if the wafer is clean with no foreign matter, proceeds to coat the wafer with photoresist and then inspects the coated wafer again to determine any foreign defect, and for coated wafers that does not meet set value the resist is removed (cleaned) and regenerated and inspected again to determining the foreign matter (defect) count i.e., if the foreign matter count is below the set value or at least close to none (zero) and is that same as recited in claims 15, and 18-21. Kawanabe, in the Working Examples, discloses that the resist coated on the wafer for inspection, is a photoresist (claimed actinic ray sensitive or radiation sensitive composition) and coats the wafer in the same claimed manner and is the same as the claimed producing a composition recited in claims 16-17. 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. Claim(s) 1-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication No. 60-177624 (hereinafter referred to as Kawanabe) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0085480 (hereinafter referred to as Vereecke). Kawanabe, in the overview, and Technical field, discloses an inspection method to detect foreign matter (defect) on a wafer that is used for coating photoresist (the claimed actinic-ray sensitive or radiation-sensitive composition). Kawanabe, in the Purpose of the invention, and Summary of the Invention discloses that the coated wafer (wafer used in semiconductor manufacturing such as silicon wafer) that is coated with photoresist (claimed substrate X) and then inspected, and as disclosed in the Example and in figures 1, and 2, and are returned to cleaning step 1 and cleaned and regenerated and then checked through an inspection step and determined any foreign matter, and if none (i.e., defect less than the set value or defect not determinable to be present on the regenerated wafer includes zero defect), the wafer is proceeded for further processes and is the same as that claimed since the resist-coated wafer is not subjected to exposure or any subsequent processes of photolithography, and the resist is removed from the wafer by cleaning thereby regenerating the wafer and further inspection is conducted to determine the removal of the defect to a desired value (such as no foreign matter or defect, measuring the number of defects) and includes the claimed number of defects that is as low as zero. Kawanabe, in the Background technology, discloses that the foreign matter (defect) can have a size greater than 19nm (claims 1-5). Kawanabe, discloses in Description, and Example, and in figures 1-2, that an automatic inspection is installed that wafers before coating and after coating are inspected, and that wafer (claimed substrate Z or substrate ZX) before coating is inspected via the automatic inspection process (see figure 2) and if the defect (foreign matter) is detected (any foreign matter) the wafer is unloaded and separated from the non-defective products and returned to cleaning (cleaning with solvent etc.) and then inspected again to determine the number of foreign matter (if any) i.e., Kawanabe’s inspection process counts the desires an absence of any foreign matter (defect) i.e., almost zero and is the same as the claimed defect/area recited, and once determined that the wafer has no foreign matter or meets the set value (target or reference) then the substrate is returned after cleaning for further processes and is the same process as that recited in claims 6-9. Kawanabe, in the Example, discloses photolithographical processes (photoresist processing) that can be performed that includes the removal process of photoresist which inherently and necessarily uses organic solvents to remove the photoresist to regenerate the substrate. Kawanabe in the Description, in the Working Examples, and in figures 1-2, discloses that the automatic inspection inspects both wafers that are uncoated and coated, and that the uncoated wafer subjected to inspection is determined defective if the number of foreign matter is greater than the set value or if the foreign matter is detected during inspection, and removed and cleaned and then inspected again to determine the number of foreign matter or if any foreign matter is present i.e., Kawanabe determines the count of defect before and after cleaning and determines the effect of the cleaning to remove the foreign matter and desires a clean wafer that has no foreign matter and is the same as the claimed defect count, or at least that the foreign matter is present is below the set value (below target, reference data, claimed verifying), and Similarly, Kawanabe determines if the wafer before coating has any defect, and then if the wafer is clean with no foreign matter, proceeds to coat the wafer with photoresist and then inspects the coated wafer again to determine any foreign defect, and for coated wafers that does not meet set value the resist is removed (cleaned) and regenerated and inspected again to determining the foreign matter (defect) count i.e., if the foreign matter count is below the set value (reference data, verifying) or at least close to none (zero) and is that same as recited in claims 15, and 18-21. Kawanabe, in the Working Examples, discloses that the resist coated on the wafer for inspection, is a photoresist (claimed actinic ray sensitive or radiation sensitive composition) and coats the wafer in the same claimed manner and is the same as the claimed producing a composition recited in claims 16-17. The difference between the claims and Kawanabe is that Kawanabe does not disclose cleaning the substrate (wafer) to remove the photoresist using an organic solvent or the recited organic solvent (or organic solvent) for a duration as recited in claims 10-14. Vereecke, in the abstract, and in [0082], discloses that the substrate coated with a resist layer is subjected to a stripping process that uses an organic solvent to remove the resist from the substrate, by dissolving the resist in the organic solvent for a duration of at least about 0.5 minutes (30 seconds) so as to completely remove the resist layer from the substrate. Vereecke, in [0012], discloses that the organic solvent used for stripping can be a mixture of organic solvents. Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Kawanabe by employing the stripping process taught by Vereecke for cleaning the substrate as taught Vereecke because Kawanabe teaches photoresist processing steps are implemented and photoresist stripping is a final process of a photolithographic process and Vereecke in [0012], discloses organic solvents that dissolve the photoresist are selected to remove the photoresist and Vereecke, in [0017], discloses that the organic solvent cleans the substrate during the stripping such that the SEM pictures reveal a substrate that has the resist layer stripped by the organic solvent, while leaving the substrate undamaged. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark F. Huff can be reached on (571) 272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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. /DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 November 15, 2025.
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 03, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601974
BAKE STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE LITHOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE OF METAL-CONTAINING RESIST
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600134
METHOD FOR PRODUCING LAMINATES AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING LIQUID DISCHARGE HEADS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585191
PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575370
METAL FOIL WITH CARRIER AND USE METHOD AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572068
TIN COMPOUNDS CONTAINING A TIN-OXYGEN DOUBLE BOND, A PHOTORESIST COMPOSITION CONTAINING THE SAME AND A METHOD OF FORMING A PHOTORESIST PATTERN USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+23.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 971 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month