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 specification and claims was submitted with corrections on 08/25/2026, claim 4 is canceled, the 112(b) rejection to claims 1-8 is withdrawn, the objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are under consideration
Claim 4 is canceled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (WO2020032398A1, published 2020, references made to related US publication US20210333709A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5,
Lee teaches a liquid composition comprising of a ketone, an ester, an ether, an additive, or a mixture thereof, where organic solvents, such as ketones, esters, and ethers, may be mixed and used, and additionally, in order to improve the rate of dissolution of organic materials, a mixture thereof may be used [0041-0042]. Further, Lee teaches an example composition 11 in table 1 comprising of 95 parts of AA (acetyl acetone) and PGME (organic solvents) and 5 parts of OA (oxalic acid, AMW is about 11.26 per the instant specification) [0050], reading on instant claims 2-3.
Examiner notes that the latest amendment to independent claim 1 discloses that the organic solvent includes one of the instant Markush group, such as PGME, and does not exclude the inclusion of additional components to the organic solvent, such as AA.
Lee teaches forming an organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist film comprising of dibutyltin dilaurate (alkyl tin carboxyl group) [0052-0054], reading on instant claim 5.
Lee further teaches that in order to evaluate the edge-cutting performance of the organic-inorganic hybrid compound processing solvent prepared in each of Examples and Comparative Examples, evaluation was performed while applying the DTD solution prepared as described above on an 8-inch silicon wafer through spin coating. The performance of removal of beads was evaluated using an optical microscope [0054], reading on the instant removing edge beads from metal containing resists, reading on instant 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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2020032398A1, published 2020, references made to related US publication US20210333709A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waller (US20180046086A1, published 2018).
Regarding claim 6,
Lee teaches the above limitations set forth.
Lee fails to teach including a compound aligning with instant chemical formula 1.
Waller, analogous art, teaches methods for removing edge bead on a wafer associated with a resist coating comprising a metal containing resist compositions, where organometallic tin-based resists (organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist) include compounds with formula RnSnX4-n where R may be a hydrocarbyl group with 1-20 carbon atoms and n may be 1, in which X is a ligand with a hydrolysable M-X bond. In general, suitable hydrolysable ligands (X in RSnX3) may include alkoxides RO− or carboxylates RCOO− [abstract, 0017], reading on instant claim 6.
As both Lee and Waller teach organometallic photoresist composition comprising of organo-tin compounds, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the RSnX3 compound of Waller in the organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist film of Lee would result in a comparable and expected photoresist film.
That is, the substitution of the RSnX3 compound of Waller for the organic-inorganic hybrid compound of Lee, 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 photoresist film. 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).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2020032398A1, published 2020, references made to related US publication US20210333709A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahn (US20160202610A1, published 2016).
Regarding claims 7-8,
Lee teaches the above limitations set forth.
Lee teaches a rework process for removing the photoresist using the organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist where a process and a processing solution capable of completely removing the thin film (which the examiner interprets to include both patterned and un-patterned photoresist films) without the presence of inorganic particles are required [0031], where the best way to process a mixture of organic and inorganic materials is to have high solubility of the organic material and high chelating performance for the inorganic material [0033], such as their organic-inorganic hybrid photoresist processing solution [0040], reading on instant claim 8.
Lee teaches forming a pattern using the photoresist composition [0027], where a pattern may be formed in a photoresist through exposure to a light source and development [0002].
However, Lee fails to explicitly teach a post exposure bake step.
Ahn, analogous art, teaches a thinner composition for cleaning an edge portion of a substrate [abstract, fig 1], where a post exposure baking (PEB, heating and drying) process may be further performed after the exposure process, where the acid may be uniformly distributed in the exposed portion by the PEB process. Thus, a leaving group such as an acetal group or an ether group combined with the back-bone chain of the photoresist material may be deprotected or separated in the exposed portion [0108].
As both Ahn and Lee teach compositions for rinsing an edge portion of a substate coated with a photoresist film, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further perform a post exposure bake step as taught by Ahn in the method of Lee for the benefits disclosed by Ahn, reading on instant claim 7. Further, PEB processes would be well known and expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026 regarding the claim amendments to overcome the 102 rejection to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The above rejections have been updated accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights