DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This Office action is in response to the RCE received January 6, 2026.
The rejection 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1 canceling the broad limitation.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (2017/0115573) in view of PARK et al (2012/0181248).
The claimed invention now recites the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
638
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
444
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PARK et al report a stripper composition to the LG CHEM, LTD. wherein the tertiary amine such as triethanolamine is disclosed in para. [0031] and is seen to be equivalent to the 2-aminoethoxyl-1-ethanol (AEE) component of the Examples 1-4 in Table 1 on page 6. The reference teaches the use of the amines in a mixture of two or more. The aprotic solvent is taught in the Examples 1-4 for the diethyl carboxamide, the protic solvents are disclosed in the examples as well for diethylene glycol mono butyl ether BDG, EDG and MDG as seen in Table 1 and the corrosion inhibitor is taught in para. [0073] which include triazole-based compounds, tetrazole-based compounds and the like.
PARK et al ‘248 disclose a stripper composition comprising a secondary amine formulated with a tertiary amine solvent as seen in page 5, Table 1, Example 2 which disclose a secondary amine NMEA in an amount of 10 wt% and NMP (a tertiary amine) in an amount of 24.5 wt%. This meets the claimed ratio of a) to b) in the range of 1:0.05 to 1:0.8. Paragraph [0024] disclose the use of more than one aprotic solvent. Thus, a combination of NMP and one of the imidazolidinones would be a formulation having each of the ingredients as recited in claim 1 for a tertiary amine, a secondary amine, an aprotic solvent, a protic solvent and a corrosion inhibitor.
With respect to claim 3-4 are inherent due to the amines listed in Table 1.
Claims 5-9 are known equivalents as seen in PARK et al ‘248 para. [0015] to [0017].
Claims 10-15 are met by the amounts in the Tables and for the method of Test Example 1.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of stripper compositions to use any of the aprotic equivalent solvents disclosed in para. [0024] in a mixture as reported in PARK et al ‘248 with the addition of a corrosion inhibitor to given a stripper composition with the reasonable expect same or similar results for high stripping and rinsing abilities and of minimizing reduction in its physical properties in storage.
The arguments have been carefully considered; however, the rejection is repeated wherein the amendment adding the copper oxide removal force in the claim is a property characteristic which would be inherently present in the prior art references due to the similar function of the stripper compositions including a corrosion inhibitor in both the PARK et al references. The results would be an expected property characteristic when added to the stripper composition.
Comparative evidence showing unexpected results and non-obviousness of the claimed invention over the closest prior art compositions reported in the working examples of the PARK et al references would be helpful in overcoming the obviousness rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-1329. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, IFP-Flex.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.1,3-9a and
/John S. Chu/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
J. Chu
January 21, 2026