DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/395922 by Won et al.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 5, Line 8: It appears there should be a comma between “C12 aryl” and “C1-C5 alkyl”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryu et al. (US 2021/0175073 A1), herein referred to as Ryu.
Ryu (Figure 21) teaches a semiconductor device. Claim 14 is considered to be a product-by-process claim. Although claim 14 is dependent on the method for forming a photoresist pattern recited in claim 13, the structural limitations of the semiconductor device in claim 14 are not further limited by the method recited in claim 13.
MPEP Chapter 2113 states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isoda et al. (US Patent 4,927,728), herein referred to as Isoda.
Regarding claim 1, Isoda teaches (Column 5, Lines 43-44, Compound No. 3) an organotin compound having a chemical formula that satisfies the limitations of claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The organotin compound taught by Isoda has R groups that satisfy the claimed R groups recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isoda et al. (US Patent 4,927,728), herein referred to as Isoda.
Regarding claim 2-4, although Isoda does not appear to explicitly teach the claimed substitutent groups for R1 to R3, Isoda does teach (Column 5, Lines 34-35) R groups for organotin compounds that include alkyl groups of 1 to 12 carbons. Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the organotin compounds taught by Isoda to include various R groups because it would have been within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute known carbon containing groups based on well-known chemical synthesis reaction mechanisms established in the field of chemistry.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-13 are considered to be allowable over the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest a photoresist composition comprising Applicant’s claimed organostannyl silicate compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights