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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ofosu-Asante (US 6,495,510) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-12, 14-23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 2016/0201016 A1) and Kikunaga (WO 2019/176652 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 2016/0201016 A1), Kikunaga (WO 2019/176652 A1), and Takahashi (US 2015/0159124 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 2016/0201016 A1), Kikunaga (WO 2019/176652 A1), and Kakizawa (EP 0812011 A2) is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) in view of Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A).
With regard to claim 1 and claim 26, Ivanov discloses a composition for cleaning contaminants from semiconductor wafers (Abstract). The compositions include organic amines [0044]. The cleaning composition contains water in an amount of from 30 wt% to about 99 wt% [0083]. Ivanov further discloses the pH of the composition as from about 10 to about 14 (see [0006]).
However, Ivanov fails to disclose provided that the general formula (Y1) satisfies at least one of a requirement A and a requirement B, the requirement A being that at least one of RW1 to RW4 represents a group other than a hydrogen atom, the requirement B being that at least two of RX1 to RX6 each represent a group other than a hydrogen atom.
Hidetaka discloses a cleaning solution for cleaning a semiconductor (see [0007]). Hidetaka further discloses one or more alkaline agents, including N-methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine (see [0009]). Both of these are organic amine compounds.
Both Ivanov and Hidetaka disclose compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates. Ivanov discloses organic amines. Hidetaka discloses N-methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine, which are both organic amines. Equivalent compounds may be substituted. Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2144.06(II).
With regard to claim 3, Ivanov discloses a combination of an aggressive organic amine and a less aggressive organic amine can be used [0045]. Ivanov also discloses the composition optionally comprises one or more dialkylhydroxylamines [0077]. Ivanov further discloses 0.01-12wt% of dialkylhydroxylamine (see [0078]).
With regard to claim 4 and claim 25, Ivanov discloses lower amounts of an aggressive organic amine are preferred for a balance of good cleaning ability and lower post-CMP roughness [0049].
However, Ivanov does not disclose a mass ratio of a content of the amine compound Z to a content of the amine compound Y0 is 2 to 100. As the good cleaning ability and lower post-CMP roughness are variables that can be modified by adjusting said mass ratio of a content of the amine compound Z to a content of the amine compound Y0, the precise mass ratio of a content of the amine compound Z to a content of the amine compound Y0 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, mass ratio of a content of the amine compound Z to a content of the amine compound Y0, and the motivation to do so would have been to obtain desired balance of good cleaning ability and lower post-CMP roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to claim 5 and claim 7, Hidetaka discloses a cleaning solution for cleaning a semiconductor (see [0007]). Hidetaka further discloses one or more alkaline agents, including N-methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine (see [0009]). Both of these are organic amine compounds.
With regard to claim 6, Ivanov discloses the aggressive organic amine can be present in a concentrated form of from about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
With regard to claim 8, Ivanov discloses a metal inhibitor which protects the metal surface from corrosion [0062].
With regard to claim 9, Ivanov discloses one or more dialkylhydroxylamines which are reducing agents [0077].
With regard to claim 10, Ivanov discloses gallic acid which is a hydroxycarboxylic acid [0068].
With regard to claim 11, Ivanov discloses the organic amine which is a strong chelating ligand cannot be so large that there is not enough space to displace BTA and/or to create a soluble mixed ligand complex [0052]. The amount of the aggressive organic amine is from 0.002 wt% -0.1 wt% [0055]. The amount of the metal inhibitor is from 0.001 wt% - 0.05 t% [0072]. It would have been obvious to optimize the mass ratio of a content of the amine compound Y0 to total content of hydroxycarboxylic acid (since the reducing sulfur compound is optional), to take into consideration the displacement of BTA and/or creation of soluble mixed ligand complex [0052].
With regard to claim 12 and claim 23, Ivanov discloses azole, such as 3-amino-5-methylpyrazole [0063, 0065].
With regard to claim 14, Ivanov discloses cobalt as a thin film [0001].
With regard to claim 15, Ivanov discloses applying the cleaning liquid to the semiconductor substrate having undergone a chemical mechanical polishing process [0007].
With regard to claim 22, Ivanov discloses the cleaning composition contains water in an amount of from 30 wt% to about 99 wt%. Ivanov further discloses 0.01-12wt% of dialkylhydroxylamine (see [0078]). A weight percentage of 74% of water and a weight percentage of 12% of dialkylhydroxylamine would result in a weight percent of 46.2% of compound Z, excluding the water solvent.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) in view of Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 20150159124 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Ivanov discloses the cleaning liquid as shown above in claim 12. Ivanov discloses an azole compound [0063]. Ivanov further discloses an organic amine as a chelating agent (see [0052]).
However, Ivanov fails to disclose a biguanide compound.
Takahashi discloses a cleaning composition for cleaning a semiconductor substrate (Abstract). Takahashi teaches a biguanide compound as a chelating agent [0054-0076, 0103]. Biguanides are organic amine compounds.
Both Ivanov and Takahashi disclose compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates. Ivanovdiscloses organic amines, specifically organic amines as chelating agents. Takahashi teaches a biguanide compound as a chelating agent. Biguanides are organic amine compounds. Equivalent compounds may be substituted. Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2144.06(II).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) in view of Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kakizawa (EP 0812011 A2).
With regard to claim 24, Ivanov discloses the cleaning liquid as shown above in claim 1.
However, Ivanov fails to disclose adipic acid.
Kakizawa discloses a cleaning agent for semiconductor substrate (Abstract). Kakizawa teaches an organic acid such as adipic acid (see page 3 line 39-44). Kakizawa further discloses the organic acid dissolves metal oxides and metal hydroxides, such as Fe and Al (see page 3 line 31). Kakizawa further discloses this allows the metallic ions to form metal complexes with the complexing agent (see page 3 line 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the adipic acid of Kakizawa in the composition of Ivanov for the purpose of dissolving the metal oxides and metal hydroxides, such as Fe and Al, to allow the metallic ions to form metal complexes with the complexing agent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-15, and 22-26 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 with the amendment removing 1,4-butanediamine and N,N-diethyl-1,3- diaminopropane, Kikunaga no longer reads on the claims.
As stated above, Hidetaka discloses a cleaning solution for cleaning a semiconductor (see [0007]). Hidetaka further discloses one or more alkaline agents, including N-methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine (see [0009]). Both of these are organic amine compounds.
As Kikunaga is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Kikunaga are moot.
Conclusion
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