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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending. Claim 6 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s response filed March 23, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 1, 2024.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 11/21/25 have been withdrawn:
None.
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/086374 in view of Andou et al (US2008/0045016).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘374 teaches the use of a non-aqueous composition comprising an organic solvent and at least one particular siloxane-type additive for treating substrates comprising patterns having line-space dimensions of 50 nm or below and aspect ratios of 4 or more. See Abstract. A first embodiment is the use of a nonaqueous composition comprising an organic solvent and at least one additive which is a compound as recited by the instant claims. See pages 3 and 4. The concentration of the additives falling within the scope of the instant claims is from about 0.00005 to about 3% by weight. See page 9. Suitable organic solvents are one or more organic solvents, which may be protic or aprotic organic solvents. Suitable polar protic organic solvents include isopropanol, etc. See page 6. Additionally, other additives may be used such as buffers, surfactants, dispersants, etc. In one embodiment, the composition is used in a method for manufacturing integrated circuit devices, optical devices, micromachines, and mechanical precision devices. See page 10. The composition may be used after application and removal of a photoresist by applying the composition to the developed patterned photoresist layer. See page 11.
‘374 does not teach the use of ammonia or a non-aqueous composition containing an organic protic solvent, ammonia, a specific silicone containing additive, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Andou et al teach a cleaning composition that can decontaminate a surface of a chemically mechanically polished semiconductor substrate having a metal wiring and a low dielectric constant film and can highly remove impurities such as residual abrasive grains, residual polishing waste, and metal ions on the metal wiring. A cleaning method of a semiconductor substrate uses the cleaning composition, and a manufacturing method of a semiconductor substrate includes a step of performing the cleaning method. See Abstract. The composition includes organic polymer particles having a crosslinked structure, a complexing agent, a surfactant, and dispersant. See paras. 24-25. Suitable complexing agents include ammonia, etc., wherein the complexing agent is capable of being coordinated to metal ions dissolved by the cleaning composition to form a more stable complex, wherein the complex may be reliably removed. See paras. 52-56. The complexing agent may be use in amounts from 0.001% to 3% by weight. See para. 73.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use ammonia in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Andou et al teach that the use of ammonia in a similar composition serves as a complexing agent to bind to metals present in solution that could contaminate the substrate being treated and further, ‘374 teaches the use of various optional ingredients and the use of a complexing agent to complex with undesirable metals would be desirable in the composition taught by ‘374.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a non-aqueous composition containing an organic protic solvent, ammonia, a specific silicone containing additive, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou et al suggest a non-aqueous composition containing an organic protic solvent, ammonia, a specific silicone containing additive, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 4, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/086374 in view of Andou et al (US2008/0045016) as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Shirai et al (US2018/0254182).
‘374 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘374 does not teach the use of an alkane such as heptane or an additive such as trimethylsilane in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Shirai et al teach a surface treatment method and a surface treatment liquid. See para. 2. A silylating agent is included in the surface treatment liquid. See paras. 26-40. Suitable silylating agents include those having a formula which would clearly suggest trimethyl silane, triethylsilane, etc. See paras. 55-60. Solvents may be used in the composition and include n-heptane, n-octane, etc. See paras. 88-89.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a solvent such as n-heptane in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shirai et al teach the use of solvents such as n-heptane in a similar composition and further, ‘374 teaches the use of aprotic and protic solvents in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use trimethylsilane in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shirai et al teach the use of a similar composition containing various silane compounds such as trimethyl silane, etc., and further, ‘374 teaches the use of a wide range of related silane compounds in general.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2019/086374 in view of Andou et al, Applicant states that even if a composition based on the combination of '374 and Andou et al would have inherently lacked metal ions before use, such a composition still would not read on the present claims at least because there would not have been sufficient motivation for a combination prior to use and that a lack of a useful composition would have removed any motivation to combine. Additionally, Applicant states that a person skilled in the art would not have combined a non-aqueous composition disclosed in '374 to avoid pattern collapse with a water-based post CMP cleaning composition disclosed by Andou et al that aims to remove CMP residues from the surface of the substrate. Also, Applicant states that a person having ordinary skill in the art therefore could not have selected ammonia from the immense number of possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success and that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in rendering the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that Andou et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed composition and ‘374 since it is drawn to the same field of endeavor, namely semiconductor/microelectronic treatment compositions, and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Andou et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘374. Andou et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of ammonia. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use ammonia in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Andou et al teach that the use of ammonia in a similar composition serves as a complexing agent to bind to metals present in solution that could contaminate the substrate being treated and further, ‘374 teaches the use of various optional ingredients and the use of a complexing agent to complex with undesirable metals would be desirable in the composition taught by ‘374.
Additionally, as stated previousy, the Examiner would like to point out that the metal ions which are complexed by ammonia as taught by Andou et al are not part of the compositions suggested by the teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou et al and therefore, the actual compositions suggested by ’374 in view of Andou, prior to the use of such compositions, would be free of metal ions. The metal ions complexed by the compositions suggested by the teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou are ions which are come into contact with during the use (i.e., intended use) of the composition suggested by ‘374 in view of Andou when treating a semiconductor/microelectronic substrate during various states of the manufacturing process, and not part of the actual composition taught and suggested by ‘374 in view of Andou. Using ammonia as taught by Andou in the compositions taught by ‘374 would benefit the compositions as taught by ‘374 when actually utilized on a semiconductor/microelectronic substrate and therefore, prior to use, the compositions as taught by ‘374 in view of Andou et al would not contain metal ions produced during semiconductor processing; the metal ions would be removed by the application of the composition taught by ‘374 in view of Andou et al when actually applied to the semiconductor substrate. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claims 4, 10, and 18 under 35 USC 103 using WO2019/086374 in view of Andou et al, further in view of Shirai et al, Applicant states that the teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou et al are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of Shirai et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘374 in view of Andou et al. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘374 in view of Andou et al are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that Shirai et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ’374 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Shirai et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘374 in view of Andou et al. Shirai et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of an alkane such as heptane or an additive such as trimethylsilane. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a solvent such as n-heptane in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shirai et al teach the use of solvents such as n-heptane in a similar composition and further, ‘374 teaches the use of aprotic and protic solvents in general.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use trimethylsilane in the composition taught by ‘374, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shirai et al teach the use of a similar composition containing various silane compounds such as trimethyl silane, etc., and further, ‘374 teaches the use of a wide range of related silane compounds in general.
Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of WO2019/086374 in view of Andou et al, further in view of Shirai et al, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/May 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights