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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2025 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant's amendment/remarks filed 06/12/2025.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are currently pending, of which claims 1-5 and 12-19 are withdrawn. Claims 6, 7, and 9-11 are currently under examination.
The rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi (JP H1164180 A, hereinafter Takanashi) in view of Saito (JP 2013042093 A, hereinafter Saito), “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA” (“Reassessment of Three Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Cyclohexane and Cyclohexanone”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 25, 2005, hereinafter “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA”), “Cyclohexanone Property” (“Cyclohexanone Property”, June, 1999, hereinafter “Cyclohexanone Property”), and Tomizawa (WO 20000/04579 A1 as cited in IDS, hereinafter Tomizawa) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi (JP H1164180 A, hereinafter Takanashi) in view of Saito (JP 2013042093 A, hereinafter Saito), “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA” (“Reassessment of Three Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Cyclohexane and Cyclohexanone”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 25, 2005, hereinafter “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA”), “Cyclohexanone Property” (“Cyclohexanone Property”, June, 1999, hereinafter “Cyclohexanone Property”), and Tomizawa (WO 20000/04579 A1 as cited in IDS, hereinafter Tomizawa), and further in view of Chang (US 2011/0160112 A1, hereinafter Chang) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi (JPH1164180, hereinafter Takanashi) in view of Saito (JP2013042093, hereinafter Saito), “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA” (“Reassessment of Three Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance for Cyclohexane and Cyclohexanone”, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 25, 2005, hereinafter “Reassessment of Cyclohexanone from USEPA”), “Cyclohexanone Property” (“Cyclohexanone Property”, June, 1999, hereinafter “Cyclohexanone Property”), and Tomizawa (WO2000004579 as cited in IDS, hereinafter Tomizawa), and further in view of Muraoka (US6699330, hereinafter Muraoka), as evidenced by Dioctylphthalate-Sigma (dioctyl phthalate property information from Sigma Aldrich, hereinafter Dioctylphthalate-Sigma) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takanashi (JP H1164180 A, hereinafter Takanashi) in view of Saito (JP 2013042093 A, hereinafter Saito), Spencer (“Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (PGME): Inhalation Toxicity and Carcinogenicity in Fischer 344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice”, Spencer et al., Toxicologic Pathology, vol 30, no 5, pp 570–579, 2002, hereinafter Spencer), “Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether Property” (Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (Methyl Proxitol) Property Information from Shell Chemicals, 2007, hereinafter “Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether Property”), and Tomizawa (WO 20000/04579 A1 as cited in IDS, hereinafter Tomizawa) is withdrawn in view of the above amendments.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
1. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A, hereinafter Matsumura).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, "[E]ven 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). See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the recited method except it suggests structure of the claimed liquid chemical.
Here, claim 6 merely requires a liquid chemical comprising: at least one organic solvent; and a metal impurity containing a metal atom,
wherein the metal atom includes at least one kind of a specific atom selected from the group consisting of Fe, Cr, Ti, Ni, and Al, the organic solvent is at least one selected from the group consisting of butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, and propylene carbonate,
wherein a calculated value (i.e. a measured value divided by a concentration rate) of the metal atom is 1.0 x 102 to 1.0 x 106 atoms/cm2.
The method of obtaining the calculated value (i.e. concentrating the liquid chemical at a predetermined rate (a concentration rate) to obtain a concentrated liquid, then coating the concentrated liquid on a substrate to obtain a coated substrate, then measuring the coated substrate by using a total reflection X-ray fluorescence analysis method) is extended little patentable weight.
Matsumura teaches an analytical method to measure a trace component contained in an organic film with excellent accuracy ([0008]); the analytical method comprising a step of placing a droplet on the surface of an organic film on a substrate, a step of moving the droplet on the substrate so that the droplet comes into contact with the organic film, wherein the droplet dissolves or disperses the organic film ([0009], [0109], claim 1), and the substrate can be a silicon wafer ([0018]).
Matsumura also teaches that the droplet comprises an organic solvent ([0044]), and the examples of the organic solvent include butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, and propylene carbonate ([0052]).
Matsumura also teaches that the droplet after the movement is concentrated to remove a portion of the liquid component by heating ([0074]-[0075], [0109]), then is analyzed by a total reflection X-ray fluorescence analysis method to obtain that Fe has a measured value of about (4.4-6.1)×109 atoms/cm2, Ni has a measured value of about (1.8-2.3)×109 atoms/cm2, and Al has a measured value of about (4.1-7.2)×109 atoms/cm2 ([0109], Table 2, Examples 1-3).
Thus, the droplet after the movement as taught by Matsumura comprises a metal atom and an organic solvent, wherein the metal atom can include Fe, Ni, and Al, and the organic solvent can be butyl acetate, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, or propylene carbonate.
Matsumura does not teach the calculated value (i.e. a measured value divided by a concentration rate) of the metal atom.
However, Matsumura teaches that the droplet after the movement is concentrated to remove a portion of the liquid component; thus, the organic film component in the droplet is concentrated, and the analysis accuracy is further improved ([0074]-[0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration rate of the droplet after the movement as taught by Matsumura, in order to make the organic film component in the droplet being concentrated, and make the analytical method being more accurate, thereby obtaining the present invention (the claimed calculated value) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the concentration rate controls the mass percentage of the organic film component in the droplet, and controls the analysis accuracy as recognized by Matsumura.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably get a calculated value of a metal atom such as Fe at about (4.4-6.1)×104 atoms/cm2 from the measured value of Fe at about (4.4-6.1)×109 atoms/cm2, a calculated value of Ni at about (1.8-2.3)×104 atoms/cm2 from the measured value of Ni at about (1.8-2.3)×109 atoms/cm2, a calculated value of Al at about (4.1-7.2)×104 atoms/cm2 from the measured value of Al at about (4.1-7.2)×109 atoms/cm2, by concentrating the droplet after the movement as taught by Matsumura, because the calculated value is obtained by the measured value divided by the concentration rate/predetermined rate.
It is well established that optimization of a prior art range flows from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. see Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382. If the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. Id. ('A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.'). See MPEP 2144.05. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A, hereinafter Matsumura) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2011/0160112 A1, hereinafter Chang).
The disclosure of Matsumura is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura teaches that the droplet after the movement is concentrated to remove a portion of the liquid component by heating ([0074]-[0075], [0109]), then is analyzed by a total reflection X-ray fluorescence analysis method to obtain that Fe has a measured value of about (4.4-6.1)×109 atoms/cm2, Ni has a measured value of about (1.8-2.3)×109 atoms/cm2, and Al has a measured value of about (4.1-7.2)×109 atoms/cm2 ([0109], Table 2, Examples 1-3).
The calculated value is obtained by the measured value divided by the concentration rate/predetermined rate. Thus, in the droplet after the movement as taught by Matsumura, the ratio of the calculated value of Fe to the calculated value of Al is about 1, which falls within the claimed range of "0.8 to 100".
Matsumura does not teach the metal atom of Cr and Ti.
However, Chang teaches that the chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process provides a global planarization of a wafer surface, but leaves metal contaminants on the wafer surface ([0005]-[0006], [0091]).
Chang also teaches that the metal contaminants left on the wafer surface by CMP process are measured with total reflection X-ray fluorescence (TXRF) spectroscopy ([0091]), and the metal contaminants include Fe, Cr, Ti, and Ni ([0093], Table 7), Fe has a measured value of about 174.68×1010 atoms/cm2, Ti has a measured value of about 69.75×1010 atoms/cm2, Cr has a measured value of about 17.96×1010 atoms/cm2 ([0093], Table 7).
The calculated value is obtained by the measured value divided by the concentration rate/predetermined rate. Thus, on the wafer surface after CMP process as taught by Chang, the ratio of the calculated value of Fe to the calculated value of Cr can be about 10, the ratio of the calculated value of Fe to the calculated value of Ti can be about 2.5, which both fall within the claimed range of "0.8 to 100".
Chang also teaches that the metal contaminants found on the wafer surface which is not cleaned with the cleaning solution still include Fe, Cr, Ti, and Ni ([0093], Table 7), Fe has a measured value of about 0.97×1010 atoms/cm2, Ti has a measured value of about 0.05×1010 atoms/cm2, Cr has a measured value of about 0.14×1010 atoms/cm2 ([0093], Table 7). Thus, on the wafer surface after cleaning as taught by Chang, the ratio of the calculated value of Fe to the calculated value of Cr can be about 7, the ratio of the calculated value of Fe to the calculated value of Ti can be about 19.4, which both fall within the claimed range of "0.8 to 100".
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the droplet dissolving the organic film components on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) as taught by Matsumura would comprise metal contaminants such as Cr and Ti as taught by Chang with a reasonable expectation of success, because Cr and Ti are common metal contaminants on the wafer surface under conventional silicon wafer manufacturing conditions as recognized by Chang.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration rate of the droplet after the movement on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) as taught by Matsumura, in order to make the analytical method being more accurate, thereby obtaining the present invention (the claimed ratio) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the concentration rate controls the mass percentage of the metal contaminants in the droplet, and controls the analysis accuracy as recognized by Matsumura. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A, hereinafter Matsumura) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Muraoka (US 6,699,330 B1, hereinafter Muraoka).
The disclosure of Matsumura is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Matsumura does not teach those organic compounds represented by Formulae (1) to (7).
However, Muraoka teaches that in usual instances, dioctyl phthalate (DOP) is the major organic contaminant detected on the wafer in a clean room for semiconductors (col. 3, II. 20-22), dioctyl phthalate (DOP) is from atmosphere in a clean room for semiconductor device fabrication (col. 1, II. 53-58). Dioctyl phthalate (DOP) is the claimed compound (5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the droplet dissolving the organic film components on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) as taught by Matsumura would comprise dioctyl phthalate as taught by Muraoka with a reasonable expectation of success, because dioctyl phthalate is the major organic contaminant detected on the wafer in a clean room for semiconductor device fabrication as recognized by Muraoka. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A, hereinafter Matsumura) as applied to claims 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Muraoka (US 6,699,330 B1, hereinafter Muraoka), as evidenced by “Dioctylphthalate-Sigma” (“Dioctyl phthalate property information from Sigma Aldrich”, hereinafter “Dioctylphthalate-Sigma”).
The disclosure of Matsumura is relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, Matsumura teaches that the volume of the droplet placed on the surface of the organic film can be appropriately adjusted according to the components of the droplet; it is preferably small enough to allow the droplet to move as a unit, and large enough to dissolve or disperse the organic film ([0067]).
Matsumura does not teach an organic compound having a boiling point of 300° C or higher, and a content of the organic compound is 0.01 ppt by mass to 10 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the liquid chemical.
However, Muraoka teaches that in usual instances, dioctyl phthalate (DOP) is the major organic contaminant detected on the wafer in a clean room for semiconductors (col. 3, II. 20-22), dioctyl phthalate (DOP) is from atmosphere in a clean room for semiconductor device fabrication (col. 1, II. 53-58).
Muraoka also teaches that it has increasingly become important to reduce organic contamination on wafer surfaces (col. 2, II. 27-35), and it is desired for organic contaminants to remain only in a very small quantity (2x1013 atoms/cm2 or less as organic carbon concentration) (col. 9, II. 9-11).
“Dioctylphthalate-Sigma” as an evidentiary reference shows that dioctyl phthalate (DOP) has a boiling point of 384 °C (p. 3), which is higher than 300 °C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect that the droplet dissolving the organic film components on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) as taught by Matsumura would comprise dioctyl phthalate as taught by Muraoka with a reasonable expectation of success, because dioctyl phthalate is a common organic contaminant detected on the wafer surface in a clean room for semiconductor device fabrication as recognized by Muraoka.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the volume of the droplet after the movement on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) as taught by Matsumura, in order to allow the droplet to move as a unit and also allow the droplet to dissolve or disperse the organic film, thereby obtaining the present invention (the claimed content of the dioctyl phthalate) with a reasonable expectation of success, because the volume of the droplet placed on the surface of the organic film on the substrate (i.e. a wafer) can be appropriately adjusted as recognized by Matsumura, and dioctyl phthalate as an organic contaminant is desired to remain only in a very small quantity on the wafer surface as recognized by Muraoka. Thus, the invention as a whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior rejections have been considered but are moot, because the arguments do not apply to all of the references being used in the current rejection. The current rejection utilizes a new reference, Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A), under a new ground(s) of rejection which renders obvious the instant claims.
As stated above, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (JP 2017020992 A, hereinafter Matsumura).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIAJIA JANIE CAI whose telephone number is 571-270-0951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/JIAJIA JANIE CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761