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 08/04/2026, claims 30, 33, and 36 are canceled, new claims 40-42 are added, the previous 112(a) rejections to claims 1-3, 13, 15-16, 21, 29, 31-34, 36, and 38-39 are withdrawn, and the previous 112(b) rejections to claims 34 and 37 are withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 21, 29, 31-32, 34-35, and 37-42 are under consideration
Claims 4-9, 12, 14, 17-20, 22-28, 30, 33, and 36 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 15-16, 21, 29, 31-32, 34, and 38-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, independent claims 1 and 15 recite the broad recitation of a first and second carboxylic acid where each has a carbon atom count of 1 to 20 carbon atoms, and the claims also recite that the first carboxylic acid is formic or acetic acid (with a fixed number of carbon atoms each, one and two respectively) and the second carboxylic acid is propionic acid or butyric acid (with a fixed number of carbon atoms each, three and four respectively), which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the sake of examination, the limitation regarding the carbon atom counts of the first and second carboxylic acids in instant claims 1 and 15 will be disregarded, where the first carboxylic acid is formic or acetic acid and the second carboxylic acid is propionic acid or butyric acid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 21, 29, 31-32, 34-35, and 37-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zi (US20200073238A1, published 2020) in view of Hatakeyama (US20120208127A1, published 2012).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 21, 29, 31-32, 34-35, and 37-42,
Zi teaches a method of forming photoresist pattern and a photoresist composition comprising an organometallic compound comprising metal oxide/ligand complexes comprising 1-12 metal core clusters which may be Sn (tin), where the ligand may be carboxylic acid [abstract, 0048-0050, fig 4].
While Zi fails to explicitly teach a plurality of metal core clusters comprising of specifically 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12 metal clusters, they clearly teach forming 1 to 12 metal core clusters, where the metallic core-clusters are complexed with ligands [0050].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this would include a plurality of metal core clusters comprising of 3, 4, 6, 10, and 12 metal core clusters, as the list of possible core clusters is finite and Zi does not teach that only one of a number of core clusters may be included in their photoresist composition, reading on instant claims 3, 11, 16, and 41.
Zi teaches their composition for use with EUV radiation [0027].
Zi also teaches one or more organic ligands [0048], the ligands may be carboxylic acids [0049], with examples with methacrylic acids (a carboxylic acid). Zi also teaches carboxylic acid groups include acrylic acid groups and methacrylic acid groups [0058]. While Zi fails to explicitly teach an example comprising of a plurality of different carboxylic acids (comprising of different substituents), it would have been readily envisioned by a person of ordinary skill in the based on the teachings of Zi.
While the examiner maintains that Zi clearly teaches the use of tin as the metal clusters, and thus their use would be anticipated, it would alternatively be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using tin as the metal in the metal clusters of Zi as their list of possible metals is finite [0050].
However, Zi fails to explicitly teach a first carboxylate ligand comprising of formic or acetic acid and a second carboxylate ligand comprising of propionic or butyric acid.
Hatakeyama, analogous art, teaches a resist composition comprising of a metal salt of carboxylic acids, where the metal may be tin [claim 1]. Hatakeyama further teaches each R1 (substituents of the carboxylic acid groups) may each be independently hydrogen, a straight, branched or cyclic C1-C20 alkyl group, C2-C20 alkenyl group, C2-C20 alkynyl group, or C6-C20 aryl group, which group may contain a hydroxyl, ether, ester, amino, amide, sulfonic acid ester, halogen, cyano, nitro, carbonate, carbamate, thiol, sulfide, thioketone radical, or hetero-aromatic ring [claim 2], implying each carboxylic acid group may be different.
Hatakeyama further teaches several examples of carboxylic acid salt groups such as the following [0045].
PNG
media_image1.png
55
129
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(acetic acid and formic acid)
PNG
media_image2.png
61
56
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(propionic acid)
PNG
media_image3.png
102
76
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(butyric acid)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the arts that using the carboxylic acids taught by Hatakeyama, for example acetic acid and butyric acid, as the organic ligands of Zi would result in a comparable and expected resist composition, as both teach resist compositions comprising of metal cores with carboxylic acid ligands, reading on instant claims 13, 32, 35, and 42.
That is, the substitution of the carboxylic acids of Hatakeyama for the organic ligands of Zi, absent unexpected results, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application with the predictable result of forming a resist composition. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (See MPEP § 2143, B).
Further, Hatakeyama teaches a salt of a carboxylic acid having more carbon atoms is more soluble in organic solvents whereas a salt of a carboxylic acid having less carbon atoms is more soluble in water and more likely to form a hydrate in solid form. A salt of a carboxylic acid having more carbon atoms is more effective for improving coating thickness uniformity when the resist composition is spin coated, but produces a larger amount of outgassing during exposure and undergoes more shrinkage when it is converted into metal oxide [0045]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try using different carboxylic acid ligands as taught by Hatakeyama in order to optimize the resist composition.
Regarding the limitations wherein the EUV photoresist material is a reflux reaction product in claims 2 and 31 and “wherein the EUV photoresist material is a precipitate” in claim 15, the examiner considers these to be product by process claim limitations. As the instantly claimed product substantially aligns with that taught by the prior art, the examiner maintains the obviousness rejection, regardless of the method by which the compositions are formed, reading on instant claims 2, 21, 31, and 40.
While Zi is silent to the tin density of their organometallic compounds, as the organometallic compound of Zi et al. aligns with that of the instantly claimed tin clusters comprising of carboxylate ligands, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the compounds of Zi et al. would expectedly and inherently have a similar tin density of 2.2 to 2.4 mg/cm3.
Regarding the following structural limitations of the tin clusters and ligands:
the first oxygen atom and third oxygen atom are directly bonded to a first tin atom
the second oxygen is directly bonded to a second tin atom
the fourth oxygen atom is not directly bonded to the first tin atom
the first tin atom is directly bonded to a fifth oxygen atom
the fourth oxygen atom is directly bonded to a second tin atom
while Zi is silent to the exact bonds of the carboxylate ligands, as the organometallic compound of Zi et al. aligns with that of the instantly claimed tin clusters comprising of carboxylate ligands, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that at least some of the organotin compounds of Zi et al. would expectedly and inherently form similar bonds, where the double bonded oxygen of a carboxylate ligand would be expected to be capable of forming a resonant bond with another tin atom, as is seemingly disclosed in the instant figure 3A, resulting in a structure aligning with the instant claim limitations. Further, as exemplified by “Organotin(IV)n+ complexes“ (published 2002), a basic structure of a 4-tin oxide cluster with carboxylate ligands may be seen below, aligning with the structure of instant figure 3A, reading on instant claims 1, 10, 15, 29, 34, 37-39.
PNG
media_image4.png
182
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 with respect to the previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in view of the new claim amendments. The previous 112(a) and 112(b) rejections been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner maintains the previous rejection rationale. The examiner further includes “Organotin(IV)n+ complexes“ in the above rejection as a teaching reference of a basic and known 4-tin cluster with carboxylate ligands.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights