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 January 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 7, and 22 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 17-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1) and Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1), Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), and Anjur (US 20090156006 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1), Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), and Zhang (WO 2008144501 A2) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1), Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), and Carter (US 20050090109 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1), Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), and Takahashi (JP 2017504190 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura (US 20100203735 A1), Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), and Takahashi (US 20170309492 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-10, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and further in view of Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1).
With regard to claims 1-4, 6, 9, and 20-21, Ivanov discloses a composition for cleaning contaminants from semiconductor wafers following chemical-mechanical polishing (see [Abstract]). Ivanov further teaches one or more organic amines (see [Abstract]) and triethanolamine, diethanolamine (DEA), or combinations thereof as suitable organic amines (see [0050]) for use in the composition. Both triethanolamine and DEA are disclosed in the instant specification as suitable second amine compounds. Ivanov further discloses less aggressive organic amines may be present from 6wt% to 20wt% in a concentrate and 0.12wt% to 0.4wt% in a diluted form (see [0058]). Ivanov further teaches organic amines are strong chelating agents which significantly improve cleaning ability, reduce post-CMP roughness, and lower metal loss from a semiconductor wafer (see [0019]). Ivanov further discloses the composition as having a pH of 10-14 (see [0006]).
However, Ivanov fails to disclose a first amine compound.
Yoshizaki discloses a surface treatment composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Yoshizaki further discloses 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol as a pH adjustor (see [0101]). Yoshizaki further teaches aliphatic amines as suitable pH adjustors (see [0101]). Yoshizaki further teaches pH adjustors may be used alone or as mixtures of two or more (see [0102]). Yoshizaki further discloses pH adjustors at greater than 0.01wt% and preferably less than 5wt% to maintain the pH of the surface treatment (see [0118]) at between 4 and 12 (see [0121]). Yoshizaki further discloses that maintaining the pH within this range prevents a decrease in foreign body removing effect (see [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol of Yoshizaki in the composition of Ivanov for the purpose of maintaining a desired pH, which prevents a decrease in foreign body removing effect, as disclosed by Yoshizaki.
Ivanov further fails to disclose the ratio of first amine to second amine as 1 to 100.
With respect to the ratio of 1 to 100, considering that Yoshizaki teaches 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol in the range of 0.01wt% to 5wt% as disclosed in [0175] and [0182] and Ivanov teaches triethanolamine in the range of 6wt% to 20wt% in a concentrate and 0.12wt% to 0.4wt% in a diluted form as disclosed in [0058], the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 5 wt% 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol: 0.5 wt% triethanolamine or 5:0.5 or 10:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, where 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.
With regard to claim 10, Ivanov discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov fails to disclose an anionic surfactant.
Yoshizaki discloses the solution may comprise 0.005wt% to 3wt% of an anionic surfactant (see [0068]-[0069]). Yoshizaki further discloses the anionic surfactant is adsorbed on the object to be polished after polishing and foreign bodies, the adsorption takes place in a larger area. As a result, particularly foreign bodies form micelles more easily, whereby the foreign body removing effect caused by the dissolution/dispersion of the micelles is improved (see [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the anionic surfactant of Yoshizaki in the composition for cleaning contaminants from semiconductor wafers of Ivanov as surfactants are adsorbed on the object to be polished after polishing and foreign bodies, the adsorption takes place in a larger area. As a result, particularly foreign bodies form micelles more easily, whereby the foreign body removing effect caused by the dissolution/dispersion of the micelles is improved, as disclosed by Yoshizaki.
With regard to claim 11, Ivanov discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov fails to disclose two or more organic acids.
Yoshizaki discloses organic acids, such as acetic acid and butyric acid, as pH adjustors (see [0100]). Yoshizaki further discloses that the pH adjustor may be used alone or as a mixture of two or more kinds (see [0102]). The 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol of claim 1 is disclosed as a basic pH adjustor (see [0101]). However, acetic acid and butyric acid are disclosed as acids usable as pH adjustors (see [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the acetic acid and butyric acid of Yoshizaki in the composition of Ivanov to decrease the pH as necessary, particularly as the pH adjustor may be a mixture of two or more kinds, as disclosed by Yoshizaki. With regard to claim 17, Ivanov discloses the semiconductor thin films may be composed of copper, tungsten, or cobalt (see [0001]).
With regard to claim 18, Ivanov discloses a cleaning method comprising (a) providing a semiconductor wafer having contaminants resulting from chemical-mechanical polishing of the semiconductor wafer and (b) contacting the surface of the semiconductor wafer with a cleaning composition in accordance with embodiments of the invention to remove at least some of the contaminants from the surface of the semiconductor wafer (see [0007]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Anjur (US 20090156006 A1).
With regard to claim 8, Ivanov and Yoshizaki disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov and Yoshizaki fail to disclose a second amine compound including 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol.
Ivanov discloses a composition for cleaning contaminants from semiconductor wafers following chemical-mechanical polishing (see [Abstract]). Ivanov further teaches one or more organic amines, which are disclosed as strong chelating agents which significantly improve cleaning ability, reduce post-CMP roughness, and lower metal loss from a semiconductor wafer (see [0019]). Ivanov further teaches amino alcohols as organic amines (see [0050]).
Anjur discloses a CMP compound used for polishing. Anjur further discloses an organic compound, including 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol (see [0021]).
MEA, DEA, and 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol, are amino alcohols. MEA and DEA are essentially functional equivalents of the 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol. Substituting equivalents, namely amino alcohols, motivated by the reasonable expectation that the respective species will behave in a comparable manner or even provide comparable results in related circumstances, see In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) is prima facie obvious. Moreover, the expressed suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render the substitution obvious, see In re Font 213 USPQ 532. See MPEP 2144.06
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to substitute MEA or DEA for 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol as both are amino alcohols and thus it would be reasonable to expect 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol would perform in the same manner as other amino alcohols in a similar composition.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhang (WO 2008144501 A2).
With regard to claim 12, Ivanov and Yoshizaki disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov and Yoshizaki fail to disclose two or more reducing agents.
Zhang discloses a cleaning composition for post chemical mechanical polishing residue and contaminants, an analogous art (see [Abstract]). Zhang further discloses a composition comprising one or more reducing agents (see [0045]).
Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Zhang disclose a cleaning composition for a semi-conductor. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Zhang disclose a cleaning composition for a semi-conductor. As stated above, Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Zhang g disclose a cleaning composition for a semi-conductor. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the at least one reducing agent, as disclosed by Zhang, with the post-CMP cleaning composition disclosed by Ivanov and Yoshizaki to produce a cleaning composition for a semi-conductor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Carter (US 20050090109 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Ivanov and Yoshizaki disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov and Yoshizaki fail to disclose two or more surfactants.
Carter discloses a fluid composition for chemical mechanical polishing of substrates, an analogous art (see Abstract). Carter discloses a combination of two or more surfactants, which may be anionic, for the purpose of reducing within-wafer-non-uniformity (see [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the two or more surfactants of Carter in the solution of Ivanov for the purpose of reducing within-wafer-non-uniformity.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takahashi (JP 2017504190 A).
With regard to claims 14-16, Ivanov and Yoshizaki disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov and Yoshizaki fail to disclose a composition comprising a nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic compound and a specific chelating agent in which a coordination group is a nitrogen-containing group.
Takahashi teaches a composition for cleaning a semiconductor substrate, an analogous art (see [Abstract]). Takahashi further teaches said composition comprising at least one first chelating agent, at least two nitrogen containing groups, and at least one second chelating agent (see [Abstract]). Takahashi further discloses 2-guanidinobenzimidazole (see [0042]). Imidazoles are disclosed in the instant specifications as suitable nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic compounds. Takahashi further discloses ethylene dibiguanide as a second chelating agent (see [0045]). Ethylene dibiguanide is stated in the instant specifications as a suitable specific chelating agent.
Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Takahashi disclose a cleaning composition for a semi-conductor. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Takahashi disclose a cleaning composition for semiconductor substrates. As stated above, Ivanov, Yoshizaki, and Takahashi disclose cleaning compositions for semiconductor substrates. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the nitrogen-containing heteroaromatic compound and specific chelating agent, as disclosed by Takahashi, with cleaning composition for semiconductor substrates disclosed by Ivanov and Yoshizaki to produce a cleaning composition for semiconductor substrates.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Yoshizaki (US 20190300821 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takahashi (US 20170309492 A1).
With regard to claim 19, Ivanov and Yoshizaki disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ivanov and Yoshizaki fail to disclose R1, R2, and R3 of Formula I each representing an alkyl group with no hydroxy group.
US 20170309492 A1, hereafter Takahashi-2, discloses a liquid for use in post CMP treatment (see [0232]). Takahashi-2 further discloses tertiary butylamine listed as a pH adjustor for the purpose of raising or lowering the pH of the composition to the desired value (see [0177], [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the tertiary butylamine of Takahashi-2, in the residue removing solution of Ivanov and Yoshizaki, for the purpose of maintaining the pH between 10 and 14 as disclosed by Ivanov.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 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 Nakamura teaches away from a pH of greater than 9. Nakamura is no longer utilized as a primary reference. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Nakamura are moot. Further, as stated above, Ivanov discloses the composition as having a pH of 10-14.
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 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