DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received June 15, 2023.
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 CHEN et al (2022/0163889) in view of FREEDMAN et al (2015/0079393) and ZI et al (2019/0384171) and YOSHINO et al (2016/0147156).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
254
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CHEN et al report a metallic photoresist comprising an organometallic compound having partial hydrolysable ligands as reported in the abstract.
The metal is selected from tin, antimony and indium, with the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
460
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants are directed to para. [0059] wherein it is taught that the use of a photoacid generator may be included in the photoresist composition.
CHEN et al lacks the specifics as to how the photoacid is incorporated into the photoresist composition.
FREEDMAN et al report a photoresist composition comprising an organometallic or inorganic compound with the metal including those listed on page 3, para. [0023] to include tin antimony and indium, like CHEN et al.
Applicants are further directed to page 6, para. [0047] wherein the photoresist may include photoacid generators which are conventional to the art and may be replace a ligand on the metal or blended with the complex prior to film formation, thus teaching the claimed organometallic compound in the method.
The claimed method steps are seen in CHEN et al on page 8, paras [0066] to [0074] wherein the photoresist is coated, exposed, and developed.
Claim 2 to the exposure is met by para. [0068] for patterning with excimer laser, EUV radiation, an e-beam and x-ray radiation.
Claim 3 would be inherent as the same metals are reported in CHEN et al as in claim 3.
Claim 4 and 5 have been discussed above in para. [0057] of CHEN et al for the metals.
Claim 6 would be met by ZI et al para. [0049] which disclose photoacid compounds in an amount 1 wt% to about 10wt%. which are a conventional amounts of the photoacid used in photoresist compositions having metal particles.
Claim 7 is met by the disclosure above in para. [0057] for the R group ligands, which include halogen, alkoxy, and acyloxy.
Claim 8 to the photoacid is met by ZI et al para. [0045] which include onium type photoacids.
Claim 9 is met by FREEDMAN et al in para. [0051] for the spin coating of the photoresist onto a substrate.
Claim 10 is met by ZI et al, para. [0088] and [0089] for the baking and crosslinking of the photoresist composition.
Claims 11-14 has been discussed above wherein para. [0057] in CHEN et al disclose two ligands with the hydrolyzable group, the onium photoacids, the metals, the acid hydrolyzable groups like methoxy, ethoxy, etc.
Claims 15 for the deposition methods is taught in ZI et al para. [0108].
Claim 16 meets the etching step is reported in CHEN et al para. [0075] for the etching of the patterned photoresist layer.
Claim 17 is met by the combination of CHEN et al for their formula in para. [0056] with the teaching in FREEDMAN et al for photoacid ligands in para. [0047].
Claims 18-19 have been discussed above for the metal groups and the Q ligand such as methoxy in CHEN et al para. [0057].
Claim 20 is met by the disclose photoacid in YOSHINO et al at page 70, compound (z92) which matches the second photoacid in claim 20 and can replace a ligand as taught by FREEDMAN et al see below:
PNG
media_image3.png
194
368
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition having metal ligands to select photoacid generators to replace a ligand with conventional coordinate bonds, such as alkene and ester bonds and have a hydrolyzable ligand bonded to the organometallic complex with the reasonable expectation of highly resolved patterns for semiconductor formation.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YAMASHITA et al (2015/0192851) is cited of interest for a negative resist composition with metal complexes such as hafnium and zirconium.
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, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 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 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
December 27, 2025