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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 9 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended instant claim 1 incorporate limitations previously presented as claim 9. Specifically, claim 1 now recites that the cleaning composition contains all three of an organic acid, an acid generating component, and an aromatic compound containing a hydroxyl group. Claim 1 further specifies the organic acid is one selected from the group consisting of malonic acid, citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, and salicylic acid; the acid generating component is represented by Formula (b-1); and the aromatic compound containing a hydroxyl group is represented by Formula (a0-3).
The Applicant argues that Aoki fails to disclose the organic acid according to instant claim 1. Whilst the previously cited Comparative Example 2 of Aoki utilizes acetic acid, the broader disclosure of Aoki teaches that acetic acid is a functional equivalent to salicylic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, citric acid, and/or malic acid (see paragraphs 0041-0049 of Aoki). Thus, the use of organic acids recited by instant claim 1, as amended, is considered prima facie obvious in view of Aoki’s broader disclosure. Refer to MPEP 2144.06 II. Applicant further argues that the previously cited prior art (Aoki and Masuda) fails to disclose or suggest a composition including one of the above organic acids, an acid generating component represented by Formula (b-1), and an aromatic compound represented by Formula (a0-3). The Examiner acknowledges that Aoki and Masuda fail to disclose or suggest the acid generating component. However, the acid generating component was previously presented as a limitation of claim 9, which has since been cancelled. Claim 9 was rejected in view of the combination of Aoki, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura. The previously cited prior art teaches the limitations of the claimed invention and provides motivation to combine the elements to obtain the claimed invention. Therefore, the amendments to the claims fail to overcome the previously cited prior art. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not found to be persuasive. Claim 1 is now rejected in view of Aoki, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura to reflect the amendments to the claims.
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). The Examiner notes that claim 1, as amended, now requires all three types of acid components, which is shown in Examples 6 and 8-9 of the instant application. Examples 6 and 8-9 use identical cleaning compositions (see page 170 of the instant application’s specification) but utilize different resist compositions (see page 174 of the instant application’s specification). In particular, the cleaning composition contains salicylic acid, the acid generator represented by Formula (CB2-1), and the polymer represented by Chemical Formula (CB3-1). Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides unexpectedly superior results because the inventive examples demonstrate a significant reduction in resist coating defects compared to cleaning compositions lacking all three types of acid components. However, the Applicant’s data is not sufficient to support the allegation of unexpected results. Specifically, MPEP 716.02(d) requires that the unexpected results be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. However, the Applicant’s data fails to support the allegation of unexpected results across the entire scope of the claimed invention. Firstly, the Applicant only provides data for one cleaning composition according to instant claim 1 (that is, the cleaning composition of Examples 6 and 8-9). There is no evidence to support that the results are also unexpectedly superior when the salicylic acid is replaced by any of the other organic acids recited by instant claim 1. Similarly, there is no evidence to support that the results are also unexpectedly superior when an acid generator other than the one represented by Formula (CB2-1) is used in the cleaning composition. The same is true for an aromatic compound containing a hydroxyl group other than Formula (CB3-1) is used in the cleaning composition. In other words, the Applicant has provided only one example of the claimed cleaning composition, rather than a multitude of cleaning compositions that fall under the scope of claim 1. Therefore, it cannot be determined that the claimed unexpectedly superior results hold true for any cleaning composition according to instant claim 1, or if the unexpectedly superior results only exist for the single cleaning composition shown in the inventive examples. Secondly, the Applicant’s results (in particular, Examples 6 and 8-9) show demonstrate that the resist composition also has an effect on the number of resist coating defects. However, the Applicant has not shown the results for cleaning compositions containing only one type of acid component or two types of acid components when other resist compositions are used. For example, the cleaning composition according to Example 1 only has results shown for Resist Composition 1. Example 6, when compared to Examples 1-5, suggests that the number of defects is reduced the most when all three types of acid components are present in the cleaning composition. However, it is unclear if this is true always or just in the case of Resist Composition 1 being used. Additionally, the Examiner notes that the criticality of the content range of the acid component and the content range of the organic solvent has not been established, as required by MPEP 716.02(d) II. Therefore, the Applicant’s allegations of unexpectedly superior results are still considered insufficient to be persuasive due to the evidence to support the Applicant’s allegations not being commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Allegations of unexpected results may be considered to be persuasive of nonobviousness by the Examiner should the Applicant successfully demonstrate that the content ranges of the acid component and organic solvent are critical as well as that the unexpectedly superior results exist for the entire scope of claim 1, rather than one particular example of the cleaning composition.
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), US 2011/0118165 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee), and US 2018/0180997 A1 (hereby referred to as Nakamura).
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). Aoki teaches that acetic acid is a functional equivalent to salicylic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, citric acid, and/or malic acid (see paragraphs 0041-0049 of Aoki). Each of these acids has a pKa less than 12, 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). Furthermore, as noted above, Aoki teaches that acetic acid is a functional equivalent to salicylic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, benzoic acid, citric acid, and/or malic acid (see paragraphs 0041-0049 of Aoki), and thus replacing the acetic acid with any of these other organic acids would be a prima facie obvious substitution, per MPEP 2144.06 II.
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.
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 Formula (b-1), as recited by instant claim 1. 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 1, and includes a sulfonium cation analogous to formula (ca-1).
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; Masuda, 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 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). 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 compositions 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). 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), US 2011/0118165 A1 (hereby referred to as Lee), and US 2018/0180997 A1 (hereby referred to as Nakamura) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0029893 A1 (hereby referred to as Koshiyama).
Regarding Claims 5-8, the combination of Aoki, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura renders obvious a cleaning composition according to instant claim 1, as discussed above. However, Aoki, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura 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, Lee, and Nakamura, and Koshiyama 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; Masuda, paragraph 0053 of the English translation; Lee, paragraph 0050; Nakamura, paragraph 0018; and Koshiyama, paragraphs 0011 and 0035). 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, Masuda, Lee, and Nakamura 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).
Conclusion
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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
Prosecution Insights