DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the amendment received May 5, 2026.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH et al (6,151,042) or NARANG et al (5,849,809) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being clearly anticipated by anyone of KE et al (20230103371 A1) or TAKEI et al (20070238029 A1).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
226
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
KE et al disclose a polyhydroxystyrene or a novolac wherein the monomer is unsubstituted with the functional groups as recited in claim 18, see Table 1 on page 22, below:
PNG
media_image3.png
292
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The CN and PHS are shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
320
276
media_image4.png
Greyscale
TAKEI et al disclose an underlayer composition wherein an acrylate polymer is unsubstituted with the functional groups in claim 18, see the polymer below wherein the comonomer is 1-ethoxyethyl methacrylate which makes the polymer an acrylate:
PNG
media_image5.png
316
368
media_image5.png
Greyscale
No claims above are allowed.
Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are seen as allowable over the prior art of record.
None of the prior art references disclose the claimed method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising a protective layer over a substrate wherein the protective layer is formed by a composition comprising a polymerizing monomer composition comprising first monomers each of the first monomer independently has an aryl 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 hydroxyl groups and the disclosed end groups.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CHAVEZ et al (2023/0057401 A1) report novolak and polyhydroxystyrene polymers which are unsubstituted with the recited functional groups in claim 18, see Table 1 on page 19.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights