CTFR 17/849,027 CTFR 100216 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 30 th , 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-15, and 22-26 are pending in the application. Claim 2 and claims 16-21 have been cancelled. The rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, 22-23, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) and Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A) is withdrawn. The rejection of claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A), and Takahashi (US 20150159124 A1) is withdrawn. The rejection of claims 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1), Hidetaka (JP 2001308052 A), and Kakizawa (EP 0812011 A2) is withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 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 Alexei (JP 2018170485 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 R W1 to R W4 represents a group other than a hydrogen atom, the requirement B being that at least two of R X1 to R X6 each represent a group other than a hydrogen atom. Alexei discloses a chemical mechanical polishing composition (see Abstract) for semiconductor substrates (see [0001]). Alexei further discloses the composition may comprise 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine (see [0027]). This is an organic amine compound. Both Ivanov and Alexei disclose compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates. Ivanov discloses organic amines. Alexei discloses 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine, which is an organic amine. Equivalent compounds may be substituted. Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2144.06(II). As 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine is an organic amine and Ivanov discloses the composition may comprise organic amines, it stands to reason that 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine may be utilized in the composition of Ivanov. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine of Alexei in the compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates of Ivanov as Ivanov discloses a composition for cleaning semiconductor substrates comprising an organic amine and Alexei discloses a composition for cleaning semiconductor substrates comprising 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine, an organic amine. 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, Ivanov discloses the composition may comprise an aggressive amine and a less aggressive amine (see [0044]). Ivanov further discloses monoethanolamine (MEA) and ethylenediamine (En) (see [0044]). 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 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) in view of Alexei (JP 2018170485 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. Ivanov discloses 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). As biguanides are organic amines and Ivanov discloses the composition may comprise organic amines, it stands to reason that biguanides may be utilized in the composition of Ivanov. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the biguanides of Takahashi in the compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates of Ivanov as Ivanov discloses a composition for cleaning semiconductor substrates comprising an organic amine and Takahashi discloses a composition for cleaning semiconductor substrates comprising biguanides, a type of organic amine . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov (US 20160201016 A1) in view of Alexei (JP 2018170485 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 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 30 th , 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hidetaka discloses N-methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine, and reasons that when these compounds are applied to Ivanov, the combination corresponds to the present invention. Applicant further argues that N- methyl-1,3-diaminopropane and 3,3'-diaminodipropylamine have been deleted from the amended claims. As stated above, Alexei discloses a chemical mechanical polishing composition (see Abstract) for semiconductor substrates (see [0001]). Alexei further discloses the composition may comprise 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine (see [0027]). This is an organic amine compound. Both Ivanov and Alexei disclose compositions for cleaning semiconductor substrates. Ivanov discloses organic amines. Alexei discloses 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-propanediamine, which is an organic amine. Equivalent compounds may be substituted. Applicant is directed toward MPEP 2144.06(II). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 2 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 3 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 4 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 5 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 6 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 7 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 8 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 9 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 10 Art Unit: 1761 Application/Control Number: 17/849,027 Page 11 Art Unit: 1761
Prosecution Insights