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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Loeffler (WO 2019086374 A1) and Ge (US 20190119610 A1) is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: a method of utilizing the composition for anti-pattern collapse treatment.
Based on page 3 line 22-24 of the instant specification, claim 1 is interpreted to mean “contacting the substrate with an APCC composition essentially consisting of
(i) 0.1 to 3 % by weight ammonia;
(ii) a C, to C4 alkanol;”
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itano (US 2006138399 A1), and in further view of Loeffler (WO 2019086374 A1).
With regard to claims 1-5 and claims 16-17, Itano discloses a method of removing a resist from a substrate comprising bringing the solution into contact with the object to be treated (see [0193]). Itano further discloses the solution as comprising 0.01-10wt% of hydrogen fluoride, 0.1-30wt% of ammonia, 49-99wt% of a monohydric alcohol, and 0-50wt% of water (see [0048]). Itano further discloses suitable monohydric alcohols as isopropanol, ethanol, methanol, and 1-propanol (see [0049]).
While Itano fails to disclose a single embodiment of the claimed invention, Itano discloses all of the components of the claimed composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to produce a composition similar to the claimed invention based on the teachings of Itano.
While Itano fails to disclose the substrate comprising patterned material layers having line-space dimensions with a line width of 50 nm or less, aspect ratios of greater than or equal to 4, or any combination thereof, Itano discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. It stands to reason that the disclosed solution would have use in cleaning substrates comprising patterned material layers having line-space dimensions with a line width of 50 nm or less, aspect ratios of greater than or equal to 4, or any combination thereof. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, Loeffler discloses a non-aqueous composition comprising an organic solvent and at least one siloxane-type additive (see Abstract). Loffler further discloses treating substrates having patterns having line spacing of 50nm or less and aspect ratios of 4 or more (see Abstract). Loeffler further teaches the composition as useful in avoiding pattern collapse (see page 4 line 37-39), specifically a method comprising providing a substrate having patterned material layers having line-space dimensions of 50nm and less, aspect ratios of greater or equal to 4, or a combination thereof, and contacting the substrate with at least one non-aqueous composition as defined in the present invention (see page 4 line 14-26). Loeffler further teaches the organic solvent as methanol, ethanol, 1-propanol, or 2-propanol (see page 6 lien 41-42). Loeffler further discloses an additive concentration of 0.0005-0.1wt% (see page 9 line 39-42) and water up to 1wt% (see page 6 line 7-8). According to the instant specifications, these concentrations are sufficiently low as to be considered essentially free of the components.
While Loeffler does not directly state a concentration of 98-99.9wt%, given the composition comprises two components and the concentration of the additive is 0.0005-0.1wt% and up to 1wt% water. One would then conclude that the amount of organic solvent would then be, at least, 98.9wt%.
While Loeffler discloses an additive concentration of 0.0005-0.1wt%, the compositions of Itano and Loeffler are highly similar. It would stand to reason that the composition and method of Itano, being so similar to those of Loeffler, would work on a substrate having patterned material layers having line-space dimensions of 50nm and less, aspect ratios of greater or equal to 4, or a combination thereof, as disclosed by Loeffler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, filed January 16th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Itano (US 2006138399 A1), and in further view of Loeffler (WO 2019086374 A1).
Applicant argues that the amendment of claim 1 to “consisting of” removes the siloxane-type additive of Loeffler. As Loeffler is no longer utilized as a primary reference, Applicant’s arguments regarding Loeffler are moot.
Applicant further argues that Loeffler discloses an additive concentration of 0.0005-0.1wt%, which would be excluded based on the “consisting of” language.
As stated above, Itano discloses a method of removing a resist from a substrate comprising bringing the solution into contact with the object to be treated (see [0193]). Itano further discloses the solution as comprising 0.01-10wt% of hydrogen fluoride, 0.1-30wt% of ammonia, 49-99wt% of a monohydric alcohol, and 0-50wt% of water (see [0048]). Itano further discloses suitable monohydric alcohols as isopropanol, ethanol, methanol, and 1-propanol (see [0049]).
While Itano fails to disclose a single embodiment of the claimed invention, Itano discloses all of the components of the claimed composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to produce a composition similar to the claimed invention based on the teachings of Itano.
Conclusion
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761