Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/447,568

PHOTORESIST MATERIALS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Examiner
LEE, ALEXANDER N
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
72 granted / 98 resolved
+8.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
132
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.1%
+15.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 98 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Amendment to the claims was submitted with corrections on 12/03/2025. Claim Status Claims 1-3, 10-13, 15-16, 21, 27, 29-37 are under consideration. Claims 4-9, 14, 17-20, 22-26, 28 are canceled. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered. Claim Objections Claims 1-3, 10-13, 15-16, 21, 27, 29-37 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each instance of “carboxylate acid” should be “carboxylic acid”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 1-3, 10-13, 15-16, 21, 27, and 29-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 each disclose a first substituent of a first carboxylate acid is bonded directly to a first tin atom. However, the specification fails to teach this limitation. Rather, the instant specification, as seen in figures 3A and 3B, teaches that a first substituent that is included in a carboxylate ligand is bonded to tin atoms indirectly, through at least some portion of the carboxylate structure (such as the instantly claimed oxygen atoms). As seen in figures 3A and 3B, the substituent of a carboxylic acid is indirectly bonded to a tin atom through a carbon and oxygen atom (such as R1 and R2 of figure 3A and R2 in figure 3B). There is no support in the specification for direct bonding a substituent of a carboxylic acid to a tin atom. PNG media_image1.png 603 848 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 10 also discloses the EUV material is a reflux of a compound, a sodium hydroxide (NaOH), a carbon dioxide (CO2), and an ethanol, the compound comprising the tin clusters and chlorine (Cl), and the plurality of tin clusters being a precipitant of the chlorine and the sodium hydroxide. However, claim 10 has been amended to require carboxylate ligands instead of carbonate ligands. The aforementioned reflux reaction is only supported in forming carbonate ligands, not carboxylate ligands, as seen in paragraphs [0046-0047] of the instant specification. Claim 12 discloses the first substituent comprises a benzyl. However, claim 122 depends on claim 10 which has been amended to require carboxylate ligands instead of carbonate ligands. The benzyl is only disclosed as a substituent for tin clusters comprising of carbonate ligands, not carboxylate ligands, as seen in paragraphs [0046-0047] of the instant specification. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 27 discloses the first carboxylate acid comprises the formic acid and the second carboxylate acid comprises the acetic acid. However, Claim 1 requires the second carboxylate acid to comprise of propionic acid or butyric acid, not acetic acid, thus failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 regarding the 112(a) and 112(d) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly. Applicant asserts that the instant specification discloses the limitation of a first substituent of a first carboxylate ligand directly bonded to a first tin atom, referring to R1 of figure 3B and paragraph [0040]. However, as previously indicated in the office action filed 10/03/2025, each substituent of a carboxylic acid, such as R1 and R2 of figure 3A and R2 in figure 3B, is necessarily indirectly bonded to a tin atom through a carboxylate group. Paragraph [0040] which discloses the R1 group is a substituent of a carboxylic acid refers only to figure 3A, not figure 3B. The Applicant asserts that the examiner agreed during the interview on 11/06/2025 to call the applicant’s representative to resolve any remaining issues if the application is not in condition for allowance. However, no such agreement was made during the interview, as noted in the examiner interview summary filed 11/10/2025. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Mark Huff can be reached at (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 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. /A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 24, 2024
Interview Requested
Oct 30, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 30, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 03, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §112
Jan 13, 2025
Interview Requested
Jan 23, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 23, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 01, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
May 21, 2025
Interview Requested
Jun 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jun 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §112
Oct 31, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 06, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 06, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 07, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 18, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 18, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596304
Silanol-containing organic-inorganic hybrid coatings for high resolution patterning
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566383
Non-Destructive Coupon Generation via Direct Write Lithography for Semiconductor Process Development
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12547075
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12535738
PHOTORESIST TOP COATING MATERIAL FOR ETCHING RATE CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12535739
METHOD OF FORMING PHOTORESIST PATTERN
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+5.8%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 98 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month