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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received November 3, 2025. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-22 are currently pending.
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.
All rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 15, 16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto, US 2020/0241424.
Eto teaches a composition for removing resists from semiconductors, wherein the composition contains a basic compound having a nitrogen atom which may be either a quaternary ammonium hydroxide or hydroxylamine derivatives wherein the alkyl groups of the hydroxylamine may have 1 to 3 hydroxyl groups precisely as claimed and include bis(2,2-dihydroxyethyl)hydroxylamine, (¶25-31). These basic compounds may be used alone or in combination and in amounts as high as 20% (¶32-33). The composition may also contain an organic solvent which is a cyclic amide, also a basic compound (¶36). First, as the reference contemplates combinations of quaternary ammonium hydroxide and derivatized hydroxylamine, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use these components in roughly equal proportions and so satisfy the ratio claimed. Furthermore, as each of the cyclic amide, quaternary ammonium hydroxide, and derivatized hydroxylamine are basic compounds, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these compositions to be extremely alkaline and so have a pH within the range claimed.
With respect to claim 18, the resist may be removed by an immersion or spray method (¶88).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 15, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto, US 2020/0241424 in view of Kajikawa et al, US 2016/0272924.
Eto is relied upon as set forth above. Though Eto teaches semiconductor cleaners, the reference does not teach a CMP polish.
Kajikawa et al teach a post-CMP polish (¶39) comprising 0.021% diethylhydroxylamine derivative and water wherein the composition has a pH of 11 (¶154, examples 1-12). Additional alkali compounds of the invention include TMAH (¶116) in preferred amounts as high as 4%, and the hydroxylamine derivatives may be present in preferred amount as high as 5% (¶127). As the reference contemplates mixtures of hydroxylamine derivatives and TMAH, very similar to the composition contemplated by Eto, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the composition of Eto would also have efficacy as a CMP polish as a mixture of hydroxylamine derivative and TMAH is taught by Kajikawa as suitable for CMP polishes.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto, US 2020/0241424 in view of Kajikawa et al, US 2016/0272924 and further in view of Sakanishi et al, US 2009/0104778.
Kajikawa et al and Eto are relied upon as set forth above. Neither reference teaches a polyglycerol derivative for CMP polishing.
Sakanishi et al do, however, and teach a polyglycerol with a MW of 200 to 3000 precisely as claimed. It is not inventive to add well-known CMP polishing ingredients to a CMP polish and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a polyglycerol derivative to the references above with confidence of forming an effective CMP polish.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eto, US 2020/0241424 in view of Kajikawa et al, US 2016/0272924 and further in view of Kato, US 2007/0069176.
Kajikawa et al and Eto are relied upon as set forth above. Neither reference teach a histidine chelant for CMP polishing.
Kato does, however, and teach a histidine chelant precisely as claimed. It is not inventive to add well-known CMP polishing ingredients to a CMP polish and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add histidine to the references above with confidence of forming an effective CMP polish.
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761