DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the application received October 5, 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being clearly anticipated by any one of NEMOTO et al (2025/20004375) or BEKKI ET AL (2024/0427242).
The claimed invention recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
518
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
NEMOTO et al discloses the claimed onium salt on page 37-38, compounds (C-8) and (C-13), see below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
228
882
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein each of those components are disclosed in Examples 10 and 15 of Table 4 on page 42, below:
PNG
media_image4.png
1198
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
BEKKI et al discloses the claimed base resin A-5 meeting claim 11 for units (a1) and/or (a2) with onium salt disclosed on page 71, compound D-5, see below:
PNG
media_image5.png
208
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
206
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-10 are met by the components for the acid diffusion controller, an acid generator, an organic solvent, a base polymer and the repeating units (a1) and/or (a2) as seen in
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HATAKEYMA et al (2021/0080828) in view of NEMOTO et al (2025/0004375) or BEKKI et al (2024/0427242).
The claimed invention has been recited above and is included by reference.
HATAKEYAMA report a positive photosensitive resin composition comprising a base polymer meeting the units recited in claims 11 and 15, see Polymer 3 below, a photoacid generator and an onium salt “Additive” quenchers 1, 2 and 3 below. Each of the components are in a working example, see Examples 11-13 in Table 1, page 90 wherein the polymer contains an acid generator unit meeting claim 15 in a formulation with a carboxylate salt quencher as seen below:
PNG
media_image7.png
282
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
544
390
media_image8.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA lacks the claimed carboxylate onium salt of claim 1, but teaches similar carboxylate salt quenchers.
NEMOTO et al as reported above disclose carboxylate onium salt of claim 1, wherein the skilled artisan would be motivated to use any of the known carboxylate salts from NEMOTO et al as a quencher for chemically amplified resist compositions in HATAKEYAMA.
BEKKI et al likewise disclose known carboxylate salt quencher for chemically amplified resist compositions as seen above.
The polymer discloses the repeating units from claims 11 and 15, see below:
PNG
media_image9.png
622
438
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and any of the skilled artisans could substitute known quenchers of BEKKI et al in those of HATAKEYAMA and expect excellent pattern improvement.
Claims 1-14 are met by the compositions in Examples Table 1
Claim 16 for the surfactant is found in para. [0031] of HATAKEYAMA.
Claims 17-18 for the pattern forming process is found in para. [0188] of HATAKEYAMA.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of photosensitive composition to use any of the known carboxylate salts from NEMOTO et al such as C-8, C-13 from BEKKI et al such as D-5 as a quencher and formulate them with the chemically amplified resist compositions in HATAKEYAMA et al. and reasonably expect of same or similar results for improved sensitivity, CDU and pattern circularity.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of the references below are assigned to Fujifilm Corp and have a similar disclosure for the quencher being a carboxylate salt of a sulfonium onium, see below:
BEKKI et al (2024/0427242) discloses the same compound above as BEKKI et al ‘331 on page 78, compound D-5 below:
PNG
media_image6.png
206
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
HATAKEYAMA et al discloses the claimed onium salt on page 81, compounds (D-5), see below:
PNG
media_image6.png
206
414
media_image6.png
Greyscale
OKUAKI et al (likewise discloses the claimed onium salt on page 79, compounds C-5.
KOJIMA et al also to Fujifilm Corp. discloses the claimed onium salt on page 87, compounds C-5.
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
February 27, 2021
Prosecution Insights