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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 23, 2025, has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (treatment liquid), Species A (ammonium) and Species a (heteroaromatic compound) in the reply filed on November 7, 2024, is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 8-9, 12, 15, 17-18 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al (JP 2010-129871 A).
Yamada discloses a treatment liquid for a semiconductor substrate (abstract), comprising:
a component A having two or more onium structures in a molecule (general formula 2, [0008]-[0009], page 6, line 26-page 7, line 1 of English translation; [0030]-[0033], page 12, line 21-page 13, line 2);
water ([0013], page 8, lines 30-31); and
a heteroaromatic compound ([0049], page 17, lines 18-22),
wherein the treatment liquid has a pH of 14 or less ([0067], page 21, lines 40-41), which encompasses the cited range of 8.0 to 13.5, and
the component A is a compound represented by General Formula (I),
PNG
media_image1.png
251
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(general formula 2),
where in General Formula (I), R1 to R6 each independently represents a monovalent organic group (page 3, lines 11-12), two of R1 to R6 may be bonded to each other (page 3, lines 15-16), L1 represents a divalent linking group which is an aromatic hydrocarbon group (M as an arylene group, page 3, line 13), or a group formed by a combination of an aliphatic hydrocarbon group and an aromatic hydrocarbon group (“alkylene group, …, arylene group, or a group combining two or more of these groups”, page 3, lines 12-14), n represents 1 or 2 and X(2/n)- represents a (2/n)- valent counterion (“X- represents a monovalent anion, and Y2- represents a divalent anion” page 3, lines 14-15).
As to claims 8 and 21, Yamada discloses, in one example, component A is present at 2.0 g/L (Example 1, composition 1, page 26, line 37), which for a 1000 mL treatment liquid (page 26, line 38) is about 0.2% by mass, which is within the cited ranges. A specific example in the prior art that is within a claimed range anticipates the range. MPEP 2131.03.
As to claim 9, Yamada discloses to include an organic acid ([0062], page 20, lines 35-39).
As to claim 12, Yamada discloses that the heteroaromatic compound is a tetrazole compound (page 20, line 3), a triazole (page 20, lines 6-10), imidazole (page 19, line 38), or a pyrazole compound (page 17, line 38).
As to claim 15, Yamada discloses to include a surfactant ([0017], page 9, lines 27-34).
As to claims 17-18, Yamada discloses to include colloidal silica having an average primary particle diameter of 5-200 nm (page 9, lines 6-7), which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 22, Yamada discloses that the heteroaromatic compound is, in one example, present at 2.0 g/L (page 26, line 33), which for a 1000 mL treatment liquid (page 26, line 38) is about 0.2% by mass, which is within the cited range. A specific example in the prior art that is within a claimed range anticipates the range. MPEP 2131.03.
As to claim 23, Yamada discloses that the treatment liquid may further comprise an amino alcohol (e.g. diethanolamine, page 22, lines 5-6).
As to claim 24, Yamada discloses to add the amino alcohol at 0.0001 to 2.0 mol (page 22, line 12), which for a 1000 mL solution (page 26, line 38), is 0.0001 mol/L at its lower limit, for diethanolamine, is about 0.01% by mass, which is within the cited range.
As to claim 25, Yamada discloses a dilution ratio of 1 to 20 times by volume (page 8, line 31), which is within the cited range. A specific example in the prior art that is within a claimed range anticipates the range. MPEP 2131.03.
As to claims 26-27, Yamada discloses a phenylene group ([0039], page 14, line 24, A23 on page 15) and a biphenyl group (A32 on page 16, [0043]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2010-129871 A) in view of Mizutani et al (JP 2010-251680 A).
As to claim 6, Yamada fails to disclose the composition of the counterion. Mizutani teaches treatment liquids similar to the composition of Yamada with a component A (formula II, page 6, line 1; page 13, line 23-page 14 line 7) with hydroxide ion as the counterion (page 15, line 29). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include hydroxide ion as cited in the treatment liquid of Yamada because Mizutani teaches that it is a useful counterion in similar components and is expected to give the predictable result of a treatment liquid suitable for treating semiconductor substrates.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al (JP 2010-129871 A) in view of Kikkawa et al (US 2022/0073820 A1).
As to claim 14, Yamada fails to disclose to include an organic solvent. Kikkawa teaches a treatment liquid for a semiconductor substrate (see abstract, e.g., CMP [0244]) similar to Yamada comprising a component A [0248]. Kikkawa teaches that the treatment liquid may include an organic solvent [0261], [0266]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an organic solvent in the treatment liquid of Yamada because Kikkawa teaches that it is useful and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treatment liquid suitable for treating semiconductor substrates.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on March 13, 2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on 18/046,701 or 18/463,754 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed June 23, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections over Kikkawa et al in view of Mizutani, or over Kikkawa in view of Mizutani and White have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
The claims are rejected over newly cited Yamada et al JP 2010-129871 A, which teaches a compound with an aromatic hydrocarbon group between two nitrogen atoms, as in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713