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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 12 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of WO 2018/131628 A1 (hereby referred to as Masuda).
Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to adjust the contents of the acid component and the organic solvent in the cleaning composition. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art (Aoki) fails to disclose or suggest a composition wherein the acid component content is in the range of 0.1 to 5.0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the cleaning composition and the organic solvent content is in the range of 95 to 99.9 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the cleaning composition. Upon review of Aoki’s disclosure, the Examiner agrees with this argument. Therefore, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of WO 2018/131628 A1 (hereby referred to as Masuda), as explained below.
Additionally, the Applicant alleges that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly superior results, citing the inventive examples and their respective results. See, for instance, Examples 4-6 compared to Examples 1-3 (pages 170 and 174 of the instant application’s specification). Applicant argues that having two or more of the acid components, as recited by instant claim 1, in an amount that falls within the range recited by instant claim 1 provides improved results over the case wherein only one acid component is provided in the composition. The data provided in Tables 2 and 3 of the instant application’s specification suggest such a result. However, the inventive examples are limited in scope to only three different acid components. Specifically, Examples 4-6 only include the acid components (CB1)-1, (CB2)-1, and (CB3)-1), which are salicylic acid, an acid generator formed of a compound represented by Chemical Formula (CB2-1), and a polymer compound represented by Chemical Formula (CB3-1) (refer to paragraph 0385 of the instant application’s specification). By contrast, instant claim 1 recites that the acid component includes at least two selected from the group consisting of an organic acid, an acid generator component that generates acid upon light exposure, and an aromatic compound containing a hydroxyl group which is represented by Formula (a0-3). MPEP 716.02(d) requires that the unexpected results be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In the case of the Applicant’s results, the alleged unexpected results have not been demonstrated to occur over the entire claimed range of claimed acid components. In other words, the Applicant has only demonstrated such effects for a small subset of acid components (specifically, the compounds CB1-1, CB2-1, and CB3-1). The data provided by the Applicant does not demonstrate, for instance, that the unexpected results are observed when an organic acid other than salicylic acid is used. Similarly, only one acid generator and one aromatic compound having a hydroxyl group are used in the inventive examples. Thus, the results demonstrated by the Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments in regards to unexpected results are not considered persuasive.
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) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0040282 A1 (hereby referred to as Aoki) in view of WO 2018/131628 A1 (hereby referred to as Masuda).
Regarding Claim 1, Aoki discloses a cleaning composition for cleaning a semiconductor substrate. In a comparative example (Comparative Example 2), Aoki discloses a composition comprising 10 parts by mass of resin a-2, 0.04 parts by pass of organic acid B-1, and 100 parts by mass of a mixed solvent system comprising 35 parts by mass of solvent C-4 and 65 parts by mass of solvent C-6. Refer to Table 1 on page 10 of Aoki. Aoki discloses that resin a-2 is a parahydroxystyrene resin (Aoki, paragraph 0114), organic acid B-1 is acetic acid (Aoki, paragraph 0116), and solvents C-4 and C-6 are isopropyl alcohol and ethyl lactate, respectively (Aoki, paragraphs 0129 and 0131). Acetic acid has a pKa of 4.79 ± 0.10, per the instant application’s specification (see paragraph 0027 of the instant application). Furthermore, the structure of parahydroxystyrene resin is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in the above structure, the polymerized form of parahydroxystyrene has a repeating unit analogous to Formula (a0-3) as recited by instant claim 1, wherein W3 is a polymerized vinyl group, Wax3 is a phenyl ring, and nax3 has a value of 1. This repeating unit is included in the copolymer represented by Chemical Formula (A1-2) as disclosed on page 167 of the instant application’s specification. Therefore, Comparative Example 2 of Aoki represents a cleaning composition comprising an acid component having a pKa of 12 or less and an organic solvent, wherein the acid component contains both an organic acid and an aromatic compound containing a hydroxyl group represented by Formula (a0-3).
However, Aoki fails to disclose that the cleaning composition comprises 0.1 to 5 parts by mass (based on 100 parts by mass of the cleaning composition) of the acid component and 95 to 99.9 parts by mass (based on 100 parts by mass of the cleaning composition) of the organic solvent. Masuda teaches a method for cleaning a substrate of a semiconductor element. The cleaning composition used for the cleaning of the substrate comprises an organic acid and an organic solvent (Masuda, paragraph 0053 of the English translation). The content of the organic acid in the cleaning composition is preferably 0.08% by mass or more and 1.0% by mass or less (Masuda, paragraph 0057 of the English translation). Notably, if two or more types of acid component is included, it is preferably that the total amount of the acid component fall within the aforementioned range (Masuda, paragraph 0057 of the English translation). The acids described by Masuda (see paragraph 0056 of the English translation) include some described by the instant application, such as dibutyl phosphate and diphenyl phosphate. Thus, the acid may have a pKa of 12 or less. The organic solvent preferably has a content in the cleaning composition of 99.0% to 99.999% by mass (Masuda, paragraph 0064 of the English translation). The ranges of the contents of the acid component and the organic solvent overlap with those recited by instant claim 1, and thus, per MPEP 2144.05 I., a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Aoki and Masuda are analogous art because both references pertain to cleaning compositions for removing residues during semiconductor manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to modify Aoki’s cleaning composition such that the acid components and organic solvent have their respective contents within the ranges taught by Masuda because having the acid components in an amount between 0.08 mass% to 1.0 mass% and the organic solvent in an amount between 99.0 mass% to 99.999 mass% provides improved removability of residues during the cleaning process (see Masuda, paragraph 0064 of the English translation). The Examiner notes that the limitation “…which is used for cleaning a coating film forming device…” of instant claim 1 is interpreted as an intended use limitation, and thus is not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.02.
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0040282 A1 (hereby referred to as Aoki) in view of WO 2018/131628 A1 (hereby referred to as Masuda) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0029893 A1 (hereby referred to as Koshiyama), citing “PubChem Compound Summary for CID 9007, 3-Methoxyphenol” as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding Claims 5-8, the combination of Aoki and Masuda renders obvious a cleaning composition according to instant claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Aoki and Masuda are silent in regards to using the cleaning composition for cleaning a coating film forming device. Koshiyama teaches a cleaning liquid for lithography and a cleaning method using the same. The cleaning liquid is used to remove unnecessary residues of coating films (Koshiyama, paragraph 0011). For instance, the pipe of a chemical supplying device is cleaned using the cleaning solution (Koshiyama, paragraph 0039). The chemical supplying device is used to form coating films on a base material (Koshiyama, paragraph 0038). To clean the chemical supplying device’s pipe, the chemical solution within the pipe is discharged, the pipe is filled with the cleaning solution, the residues are dissolved in the cleaning solution following a standing time, the pipe is drained of the cleaning solution, and the pipe is charged with a fresh chemical solution (Koshiyama, paragraph 0039). Koshiyama further teaches the formation of a resist film, which is done by coating a resist film on a base material (i.e. a substrate), exposing the resist film to a light source to form a pattern, and developing the patterned film to form a resist pattern (Koshiyama, paragraph 0003-0004). Following the cleaning of the supplying device, the fresh chemical solution for forming a coating film is supplied to the pipe, and the supplying of the chemical solution onto a substrate is restarted (Koshiyama, paragraph 0039). Thus, following the cleaning of the supplying device, another patterned film may be formed by the method taught by Koshiyama.
Aoki, Masuda, and Koshiyama are analogous art because each reference pertains to cleaning compositions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the cleaning solution obtained by combining the teachings of Aoki and Masuda to clean the piping system of a coating film applying device, as taught by Koshiyama, because cleaning the coating film applying device in this regard allows for a different composition to be used in the apparatus used to produce patterned films (Koshiyama, paragraph 0038-0040). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the cleaned coating film forming device to form a resist pattern because it is common practice in the art to use a film applicator to apply a resist film and then further process the coated resist film to produce a patterned resist for use in semiconductor devices (Koshiyama, paragraph 0002-0005).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0040282 A1 (hereby referred to as Aoki) in view of WO 2018/131628 A1 (hereby referred to as Masuda) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0118165 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee) and US 2018/0180997 A1 (hereby referred to as Nakamura).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Aoki and Masuda renders obvious a cleaning composition according to instant claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Aoki and Masuda are silent in regards to the inclusion of an acid generator in the cleaning composition. Lee teaches a composition and method for treating semiconductor substrates. The composition taught by Lee is used as a cleaning composition (Lee, paragraph 0051), which is used to remove resist materials and residues (Lee, paragraph 0056). The cleaning composition comprises one or more sulfonium or a salt thereof (Lee, paragraph 0052). The sulfonium compounds correspond to general formula II (Lee, paragraph 0079-0080), which is analogous to the cation moiety represented by formula (ca-1) of the instant application (see paragraph 0065-0066 of the instant application’s specification). The anion used is not limited, but may be anionic groups such as halogens, acetate, and tosylate (Lee, paragraph 0079-0080). Paragraphs 0097-0099 of Lee show specific examples of sulfonium salts useful in a cleaning composition. Whilst not explicitly stated by Lee, the sulfonium salt compounds taught by Lee act as photoacid generators, as the instant application’s specification admits that sulfonium salts act as photoacid generators (see paragraph 0029 of the instant application’s specification).
However, Aoki, Masdua, and Lee are each silent in regards to acid generators according to Formulas (b-1), (b-2), and/or (b-3) as recited by instant claim 9. Nakamura teaches a resin composition that generates acid upon light exposure (Nakamura, abstract). The composition includes an acid-generating component that comprises an anionic moiety and a cationic moiety (Nakamura, paragraph 0117). The cationic moiety may be represented by general formula (ca-1) (Nakamura, paragraph 0168), which includes specific examples (ca-1-1) and (ca-1-47) (Nakamura, paragraph 0190, see the structures on pages 13 and 18 of Nakamura). The cation (ca-1-47) is identical to one of the suitable sulfonium cations taught by Lee (see paragraph 0098 of Lee, including the structures shown on page 9 of Lee). As the anion, a species represented by formula (3) is used (Nakamura, paragraph 0119). Specific examples of the photoacid generator include PAG-1, PAG-2, and PAG-5 (Nakamura, paragraph 0164). PAG-1 has an anionic structure analogous to formula (b-1) as recited by instant claim 9, and includes an onium cation.
Aoki, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura are analogous art because each reference shares the common goal of reducing defects and/or residues that cause defects in photolithography processes (see Aoki, paragraph 0170-0172; Masdua, paragraph 0053 of the English translation; Lee, paragraph 0050; and Nakamura, paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a sulfonium salt as a photoacid generating component, as taught by Lee, as one of the acid components in the cleaning composition obtained by combining the teachings of Aoki and Masuda because sulfonium compounds inhibit metal corrosion (Lee, paragraph 0050 and 0102), and because cleaning composition comprising sulfonium compounds exhibit excellent removing efficiency of resist residues (Lee, paragraph 0180). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the photoacid generator PAG-1, as taught by Nakamura, in place of the sulfonium salts taught by Lee to be the acid component in the composition obtained by combining the teachings of Aoki and Masuda because cleaning compositions comprising sulfonium compounds exhibit excellent removing efficiency of resist residues (Lee, paragraph 0180) and the photoacid generator taught by Nakamura provides improved acid strength, which reduces defects (Nakamura, paragraph 0165).
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Mark Huff can be reached at (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 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734