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 April 30th, 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 maintained.
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 20060138399 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 filed April 30th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that hydrogen fluoride is an acid and not a solvent. This is a semantic issue. Hydrogen fluoride may be used as a solvent. Applicant further argues that hydrogen fluoride is a core component of the composition disclosed by Itano. However, hydrogen fluoride may be a solvent, as evidenced by Katz. Therefore, the hydrogen fluoride disclosed by Itano reads on the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that water is an essential component of Itano. As stated above, Itano discloses 0-50wt% of water (see [0048]). Further, even if one were to conclude that water is necessary, the 0.0005-0.1wt% (see page 9 line 39-42) and water up to 1wt% (see page 6 line 7-8) of Loeffler are, according to the instant specifications, sufficiently low as to be considered essentially free of these components. Further, Loeffler teaches a non-aqueous composition comprising similar components as Itano (see Abstract). Loeffler further discloses non-aqueous compositions show improved anti-pattern collapse performance (see page 3 line 4-5).
Applicant further argues that the removal of hydrogen fluoride and water from the composition of Itano would have altered the principle operation of the composition. As stated above, hydrogen fluoride may be a solvent and water may be used at 0-50wt%. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably modify the composition of Itano to arrive at the composition disclosed in the instant claims.
Applicant further argues the composition is non-aqueous. This is not in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a non-aqueous composition) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 states that the composition may optionally include solvents. Water is a solvent.
Applicant further argues that Loeffler's disclosure is directed to compositions that include a siloxane-type additive, which is likewise excluded by the "consisting of' language of the present claims. As stated above, %, the compositions of Itano and Loeffler are highly similar. Further, the composition of Loeffler is not modifying the composition of Itano. Loeffler is utilized only for the method. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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