DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by either U. S. Patent No. 3,565,860 (hereinafter referred to as Pande) as evidenced by U. S. 2004/0202956 (hereinafter referred to as Takahashi).
Pande, in col 1, and col 2, discloses an organotin composition, that comprises an organometallic compound (organotin compound) (see abstract, and remainder of col 1), and an organic solvent (see col 2, lines 15-17). Pande, in col 1, discloses that the organotin compound has the following formula , see below,
PNG
media_image1.png
92
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the metal (Sn) is bonded to the same claimed oxime recited as chemical formula 1A, and R is the same as the claimed R1, and in col 1, Pande, discloses that the R can be an aliphatic group or aromatic group and includes the claimed alkyl and branched alkyl groups and aryl groups that can be substituted or unsubstituted. Pande, in col 1, discloses that the R’ can include phenyl or alkyl radicals and is the same as the claimed R3 and R” can be aliphatic or aromatic groups and includes the claimed groups recited for the claimed R2. Pande, in col 1, lines 31-46, discloses that the n=4 (claimed n+m). Pande teaches the same claimed functional groups of the claimed ligand and the same claimed R group and encompasses the structures recited in the claims. Pande teaches the same claimed composition with the same claimed components recited and as evidenced by Takahashi, in [0050]-[0052],[0056], [0063], that teaches a photoreactive composition that comprises an organometallic complex, that comprises a metal-containing compound bonded to an organic group and is complexed with a ligand that comprises an oxime, and in [0048], discloses that the photoreactive composition has the same components as Pande, can be used as a resist material or a semiconducting material composition for used in patterning (lithography) by irradiating with light (claims 1-11).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent No. 3,565,860 (hereinafter referred to as Pande) in view of U. S. 2004/0202956 (hereinafter referred to as Takahashi).
Pande as evidenced by Takahashi is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
The difference between the claims and Pande is that Pande does not disclose the claimed component recited in claim 12.
Takahashi, in [0050], discloses that the metal compound containing photoreactive composition includes a crosslinking compound (claimed crosslinking agent).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Pande by including the crosslinking compound taught by Takahashi because Pande does not prohibit the use of a crosslinking component or compound and Takahashi in [0078], discloses that the using the claimed crosslinking compound in the photoreactive composition enables the polymerization or crosslinking upon being irradiated with light.
Claim(s) 13-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent No. 3,565,860 (hereinafter referred to as Pande) as evidenced by U. S. 2004/0202956 (hereinafter referred to as Takahashi) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0266670 (hereinafter referred to as Hansen).
Pande as evidenced by Takahashi is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Takahashi, in [0183], [0314], discloses the coating of the photoreactive composition (used as a resist material) and patterning the resist by irradiation with UV light (includes the claimed 150nm or less wavelengths) through a photomask followed by developing to form desired patterns (claims 13-14)
The difference between the claims and Pande as evidenced by Takahashi is that Pande as evidenced by Takahashi does not disclose the claimed etching-objective layer or it’s etching as recited. Pande as evidenced by Takahashi does not disclose the claimed resist pattern width (photoresist pattern has a width) recited in claim 15.
Hansen, in [0083], discloses the use of resist that are patterned as mask for etching underlying layers. Hansen in [0004]-[0005], discloses patterning via photolithography can form features less than 100nm, and Hansen, in [0029], discloses the patterning of a metal-precursor containing resist film by patterning using radiation exposure to obtain sub 300nm (or even sub 30nm) resolution.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Pande as evidenced by Takahashi by using the resist pattern to etch an underlayer on the substrate as taught by Hansen because Takahashi teaches the use of the organometallic compound containing photoreactive composition as a resist material on a substrate for patterning via exposure and development and Hansen, in [0083]-[0084], and [0180], teaches the use of metal- containing resist in lithography by patterning the metal-containing resist and using the metal-containing resist as a mask to transfer the pattern to an underlayer on the substrate and thereby enabling the use of organometallic resist as directly photopatternable resist that includes metal mixed with organic components and show increased selectivity to an underlying film stack or device layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 29, 2026.
