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 Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 13 and claims 16-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1-12 and claims 14-15 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 7-9 and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu (CN 112130428 A) and Chen (US 9484218 B2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), Chen (US 9484218 B2), and Park (CN 102667628 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), Chen (US 9484218 B2), and Yamasaki (WO 2010061701 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 14 and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), Chen (US 9484218 B2), Yamasaki (WO 2010061701 A1), and Minsek (US 20160152926 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 13 and claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (WO 2010061701 A1), in view of Yasushi (JP 4572466 B2) and Oie (US 20170278701 A1).
With regard to claim 13 and claims 16-19, Yamasaki discloses an anticorrosive photoresist composition which is effective over a wide range of temperatures in the presence and absence of water (see page 2 line 69-60). Yamasaki further teaches a treatment method with the anticorrosive photoresist remover composition which is generally a spray method (page 6 line 260). Lastly, Yamasaki teaches the temperature range of the composition as 30-90oC (see page 5 line 238-240).
Yamasaki further fails to disclose the composition taught in the instant claims.
Yasushi discloses a composition for a resist release agent which contains perhydrate of a quaternary ammonium salt (see Abstract). Yasushi further discloses the perhydrate of a quaternary ammonium salt may be benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide (see [0010]) at 1-50wt% (see [0007]). Yasushi further discloses the composition may further comprise at least one selected from the group consisting of amines, water-soluble organic solvents, and water in addition to the quaternary ammonium salt (see [0012]). Yasushi further discloses triethylamine as a suitable amine (see [0013]) and propylene glycol monomethyl ether as a suitable water-soluble organic solvent (see [0014]). Yasushi further discloses 1-50wt% of amines and 1-50wt% of a water-soluble organic solvent (see [0016]). Yasushi further discloses that a resist stripper containing a hydrogenated product of a quaternary ammonium salt has excellent resist strippability and titanium oxide strippability (see [0006]). Further, Yasushi discloses a composition comprising tetramethylammonium hydroxide, water, an amine, and a water-soluble organic solvent (see [0022]). While this composition utilizes tetramethylammonium hydroxide, benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide is also disclosed as suitable. Substituting equivalents would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Yasushi further discloses common anticorrosives can also be added to the resist stripper composition (see [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Yamasaki with the photoresist remover composition of Yasushi, as the method disclosed by Yamasaki utilizes a nonaqueous photoresist remover and Yasushi discloses a nonaqueous photoresist remover.
However, Yasushi fails to disclose a carbonate compound and Yamasaki fails to disclose the cleaning step carried out under alkaline conditions, particularly at a pH of 10-10.5.
Oie discloses a cleaning solution which removes a photoresist (see Abstract). Oie further discloses the composition may comprise triethylamine (see [0038]). Oie further discloses the composition may comprise 0.1-30wt% of an inorganic alkali (see [0049]) and further discloses sodium carbonate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, potassium carbonate, potassium hydrogen carbonate, cesium carbonate, and cesium hydrogen carbonate as suitable inorganic alkali (see [0050]). Oie further teaches that corrosion of the tungsten-containing material can be effectively prevented when the inorganic alkali is within the above-described range (see [0049]). Oie further discloses the composition as having a pH value of 10-14 (see [0056]). Oie further discloses a pH value within the above-described range reduces damage to material and the photoresist on the surface of the product to be treated can be selectively removed (see [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the carbonate compounds of Oie in the composition of Yasushi for the purpose of preventing the corrosion of the material, as disclosed by Oie. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the pH range of Oie in the composition of Yasushi and the method of Yamasaki for the purpose of reducing the damage to material and selectively removing the photoresist on the surface of the product to be treated, as disclosed by Oie. Further, as stated above, Yasushi further discloses common anticorrosives can also be added to the resist stripper composition. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add the corrosion-preventing carbonates of Oie to the composition of Yasushi as Yasushi discloses anticorrosives can also be added to the resist stripper composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 and claims 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that claim 13 recites “5 parts by weight of an organic base compound”. Applicant further argues that neither Zhu nor Chen teaches this specific value.
As neither Zhu nor Chen are currently utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Zhu and Chen are moot.
Further, Yasushi discloses triethylamine as a suitable amine (see [0013]) and 1-50wt% of amines (see [0007]). While this is a large range, optimization or even simply varying of the relative amounts within the prior art’s general conditions amounts to routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F,2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05. Further, Table 4 discloses hydrogen peroxide at 5wt% (see Table 4, Cleaning solution 2I).
Applicant further argues that Minsek discloses a pH value greater than about 11.5. As Minsek is no longer utilized as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Minsek are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights