DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specifically, the original disclosure recites Formulas 2-4 wherein L may be H. As such, when “L is H”, each of the formulas are indefinite because the molecular structures would require that hydrogen, H, form more than one covalent bond. Since hydrogen cannot form more than a single covalent bond, the molecular structures as recited are not able to be formed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 recites Formulas 2-4 wherein L may be H. As such, when “L is H”, each of the formulas are indefinite because the molecular structures would require that hydrogen, H, form more than one covalent bond. Since hydrogen cannot form more than a single covalent bond, the molecular structures as recited are not able to be formed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5 are are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano et al. (WO 20060189940 A1) in view of Otani (US 2017/0104161 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5: Katano et al. teaches a cleaning solvent comprising: an aromatic solvent, preferably trialkylbenzene including trimethylbenzene (para. 19-20, Solvesso 100); a surfactant, preferably a nonionic fluorine-based surfactants (para. 24-25).
Katano et al. also teaches the surfactant can be of one kind and used alone at a concentration of 0.0001 – 1.0% (paras.25-26). Katano et al. also teaches that the cleaning solvent may be composed of only one kind of solvent (para. 29). As such, the concentration and use of a single preferred aromatic solvent, namely, trimethylbenzene in the amount of about 99% with a preferred nonionic fluorine-based surfactant is clearly envisaged.
Katano et al. does not teach a specific fluorine-based surfactant represented by instant formulas 1-8. However, Otani teaches a nonionic fluorine-based surfactant having a perfluoroalkenyl group-containing perfluorohydrocarbon structure and an alkylene oxide structure (paras. 13-17, 29-37). Specifcally, Otani teaches a Chemical Formula 1, 2, or 3 (ie. instant formula 1 or 4) wherein Ro (ie. instant L) is H (para. 37), and a preferred ethylene oxide repeating structure, n, of 2-50 (para. 33). This reads upon instant formula 1 and 4 when n = 1, A is ethylene oxide, and Y is 1-10. Furthermore, Otani states that the alkylene oxide structure is not particularly limited, therefore, the selection form a small group of n, it is submitted that instant formula 4 would be rendered obvious absent unexpected results. Katano et al. and Otani are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely organic cleaning solvents. At the time of invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have substituted the nonionic fluorine-based surfactant of Otani for the nonionic fluorine-based surfactant in the cleaning solvent of Katano et al., since Otani suggests that they are functionally equivalent surfactants for use in working with electronic devices.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katano et al. (WO 20060189940 A1) in view of Otani (US 2017/0104161 A1) as set forth above, and further in view of Morita et al. (JP 2015115550, see English translation).
Katano et al. and Otani teach the basic claimed cleaning solvent comprising trimethylbenzene and a nonionic fluorine-based surfactant as set forth above.
Katano et al. does not teach removing an edge bead comprising polysilazane from a semiconductor substrate. However, Morita et al. teaches removing a polysilazane edge bead using a treatment solvent comprising a single or mixed solvents including aromatic hydrocarbons (Background). Morita et al. teaches that solvent may comprise trimethylbenzene (see component C). Katano et al. and Morita et al. are analogous art because they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely organic cleaning solvents. At the time of invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used, or tried with a reasonable expectation of success, the nonionic fluorine-based surfactant, trimethylbenzene solvent of Katano et al. and Otani set forth above, since Morita et al. suggests that aromatic hydrocarbon solvents are effective at removing edge beads containing polysilazane. Such extra or added use, would allow an economic benefit of having a cleaning solvent with multiple uses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. It is noted that the arguments with respect to Otani were directed to a combination with a reference that is no longer used in the art rejection they are not persuasive.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EASHOO whose telephone number is (571)272-1197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am - 4pm.
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, Yvonne Eyler, can be reached at 571-272-1200. 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.
MARK EASHOO, Ph.D.
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights