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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on August 11th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 are pending in the application. Claims 6-15 and claims 18-20 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Itano (US 20060138399 A1) and Loeffler (WO 2019086374 A1) is withdrawn.
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 Visintin (WO 2006113621 A2), and in further view of Kitazawa (JP H11181494 A).
With regard to claims 1-5 and claims 16-17, Visintin discloses a composition for removing bulk and ion-implanted photoresist and/or post-etch residue material from densely patterned microelectronic devices (see Abstract). Visintin further discloses the composition includes a co-solvent, a chelating agent, optionally an ion pairing reagent, and optionally a surfactant (see Abstract). Visintin further discloses 0.01-99.5wt% of co-solvent and 0.01-20.0wt% of chelating agent (see [0035]). Visintin further teaches methanol, ethanol, and isopropanol as suitable co-solvents (see [0040]). Visintin further teaches methanol is particularly preferred (see [0040]). Visintin further teaches ammonia as a suitable chelating agent (see [0042]). Visintin further discloses a method of removing bulk and ion- implanted photoresist and/or post-etch residue material from a microelectronic device having said material thereon, said method comprising contacting the microelectronic device with a removal composition for sufficient time to at least partially remove said material from the microelectronic device (see [0014]). Visintin further teaches the disclosed compositions are highly efficacious for the removal of bulk and ion-implanted photoresist and/or post-etch residue from the surface of densely patterned microelectronic devices, while maintaining the integrity of the underlying silicon-containing layer(s) (see [0024]). Visintin further discloses “densely patterned” to be defined as corresponding to one having sub 100 nm features, preferably less than 50 nm features, e.g., 32 nm (see [0026]).
However, while Visintin discloses a chelating agent and ammonia as a chelating agent, Visintin fails to disclose ammonia as a preferred component.
Kitazawa discloses a detergent composition having excellent cleanability of a semiconductor substrate or a semiconductor element stuck with solid fine particles and oily stain, an analogous art (see Kitazawa Abstract). Kitazawa further discloses ammonia as a suitable component for the purpose of maintaining an alkaline pH as such a composition is more effective at removing fine particles (see [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ammonia of Kitazawa in the composition of Visintin for the purpose of maintaining an alkaline pH as such a composition is more effective at removing fine particles, as disclosed by Kitazawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 and claims 16-17 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.
Applicant argues that the Office has both asserted that (1) water is an optional component in Itano, and (2) the compositions of Itano and Loeffler both include water. These statements are conflicting and undermine the rejections. And moreover, it has not been established that the combination of Itano and Loeffler would work upon removal of water, at least because the Office has relied upon the presence of water for the combination of the cited references. Applicant further argues that Itano expressly teaches that "water is required...without water, silicon nitride (SiN) cannot be selectively removed." In other words, Itano teaches away from removing water. Thus, when considered as a whole, Itano fails to teach or suggest water present in a maximum amount as claimed, despite its broad range provided for water. Itano is further deficient at least for this reason.
As Itano is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Itano are moot.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 has been amended to include “optionally water”. As stated above, Visintin discloses methanol, water, and DMSO as particularly preferred co-solvents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the methanol of Visintin as Visintin discloses methanol, water, and DMSO as particularly preferred co-solvents. Therefore, the composition of Visintin may include water, but it is not necessary for the function of the composition. Water is optional.
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 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
Prosecution Insights