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 April 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 7-8 and claims 11-15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 and claims 9-10 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 maintained.
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 maintained.
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 maintained.
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 maintained.
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.
Claims 7-8 and claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), listed in the IDS dated 24 January 2025, in view of Chen (US 9484218 B2).
With regard to claims 7, 8 and claim 12, Zhu teaches a photoresist remover (See Abstract) comprising 25-50wt% alcohol ether, specifically ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (see [0016] and [0031]), 30-70wt% propylene carbonate (see [0016]-[0017]), and 1-20wt% triethanolamine (see [0016] and [0019]) and N-ethylethanolamine (see [0018]), which are organic base compounds. Zhu further discloses the solution may be non-aqueous and contain no water (see [0047]). The secondary and/or tertiary amine disclosed by Zhu (see Abstract) may be an organic base compound. Further, only a single polar solvent of formula 2 or formula 3 is necessary. Propylene carbonate is listed as a suitable polar solvent (see [0017]).
Zhu fails to disclose benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide.
Chen discloses a substantially water-free photoresist stripping composition (see Abstract). Chen further discloses the composition comprising an amine, which may be benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide (see Col 2 line 34-36). Chen further teaches the amine in the composition of the present invention can break down the polymeric frameworks of the cured photoresist and lift off fragments of the cured photoresist (see Col 3 line 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide of Chen in the photoresist remover of Zhu for the purpose of breaking down the polymeric frameworks of the cured photoresist and lifting off fragments of the cured photoresist.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), listed in the IDS dated 24 January 2025, and Chen (US 9484218 B2), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of Park (CN 102667628 A), listed in the IDS dated 25 July 2022.
With regard to claim 11, Zhu and Chen disclose all of the limitations of claim 7.
However, Zhu and Chen fail to disclose an organic base compound comprising methylamine, ethylene diamine, triethylamine, or combinations thereof.
Park discloses a non-aqueous photoresist stripping agent composition (see Abstract). Park further discloses the composition does not include water because of the water activated alkaline compound, which would cause the aluminum or copper layer to be corroded in the presence of water (see [0026]). Park further discloses triethanolamine as a suitable alkaline compound (see [0034]). Park further teaches 5wt% to 30wt% of the alkaline compound (see [0033]), which may also be methylamine or mixtures of one or more suitable compounds (see [0034]). Park further discloses the alkaline compound can strongly penetrate a resist matrix that has been denatured or crosslinked due to various process conditions such as etching, ashing or ion implantation, thereby breaking the intramolecular bonds or intermolecular bonds of the matrix (see [0032]). Park further teaches the basic compound acts in this manner, hollow spaces are formed in structurally weak portions of the photoresist remaining on the substrate, and the photoresist is converted into an amorphous polymer gel mass (see [0032]). Therefore, the photoresist attached to the upper surface of the substrate can be easily removed (see [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the methylamine of Park in the composition of Zhu as methylamine is an alkaline compound and the alkaline compound can strongly penetrate a resist matrix that has been denatured or crosslinked due to various process conditions such as etching, ashing or ion implantation, thereby breaking the intramolecular bonds or intermolecular bonds of the matrix, as disclosed by Park.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), listed in the IDS dated 24 January 2025, and Chen (US 9484218 B2), as applied to claims 1-12 above, in further view of Yamasaki (WO 2010061701 A1).
Zhu and Chen disclose all of the limitations of claims 1-12 above.
However, Zhu and Chen are silent as to a method for removing a photoresist film from a substrate.
With regard to claim 13, 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).
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 compositions as disclosed by Zhu and Chen, as the method disclosed by Yamasaki utilizes a nonaqueous photoresist remover and Zhu and Chen disclose a nonaqueous photoresist remover.
Claim 14 and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 112130428 A), listed in the IDS dated 24 January 2025, and Chen (US 9484218 B2), and Yamasaki (WO 2010061701 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Minsek (US 20160152926 A1).
With regard to claim 14 and claim 15, Yamasaki discloses a method for removing photoresist as disclosed in claim 13.
However, Yamasaki fails to disclose the cleaning step carried out under alkaline conditions, particularly at a pH of 10-12.
Minsek discloses a composition and method of removing photoresist, an analogous art (see Abstract). Minsek further discloses the composition comprising a polar solvent (see Abstract). Minsek further teaches the composition having a pH of greater than about 11.5, as a higher base assists in the removal of the photoresist (see [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the pH range, as disclosed by Minsek, with the method, as disclosed by Yamasaki, for the purpose of improving the removal of the photoresist, as disclosed by Minsek.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zhu teaches away from the use ofstrong bases and specifically limits the base to milder tertiary alkanolamines (e.g., triethanolamine). Zhu teaches at least one secondary or tertiary alcohol amine (see Abstract). Zhu does not solely teach tertiary alkanolamines. The entirety of the reference must be considered.
Applicant further argues that the use of non-tertiary amines results in severe metal corrosion. Applicant further argues that, therefore, the use of benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide would cause the same result. Monoethanolamine is a secondary alcohol amine. Benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide is not. Applicant argues that Zhu limits the base to milder tertiary alkanolamines, which is not disclosed. Applicant further argues that secondary amines, such as monoethanolamine, cause significant substrate corrosion. However, Applicant offers no evidence that benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide would produce the same effect. Further, as stated above, Chen teaches benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide can break down the polymeric frameworks of the cured photoresist and lift off fragments of the cured photoresist, thus providing motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the benzyltrimethylammonium hydroxide of Chen in the composition of Zhu.
Applicant further argues that Chen teaches the stripping performance and substrate protection of BTMAH relies heavily on solvents with high dipole moments and chemical stability, such as DMSO or sulfolane, to achieve penetration of the resist layer. DMSO and sulfonate are merely two options among a list of other solvents. Applicant further argues that the solvent of Chen must have a high dipole moment. Chen discloses, along with DMSO and sulfolane, alkanes (see Col 3 line 60- Col 4 line 9). Therefore, a high dipole moment is not necessary for the stripping performance and substrate protection of BTMAH. While DMSO and sulfolane may be preferred, neither is required.
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 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights