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 February 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (US 20160351388 A1) and Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (US 20160351388 A1), Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A), and Minsek (US 20120302483 A1) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu (US 20160351388 A1), Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A), and Visintin (US 20080125342 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160351388 A1) and Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A).
With regard to claim 1, Liu discloses a composition and process for cleaning post chemical-mechanical polishing residue and contaminants from a microelectronic device (see Abstract), including semiconductors and microelectrochemical systems (see [0013]). Liu further discloses the method comprising contacting the microelectronic device with the composition for sufficient time so as to at least partially clean the residue (see [0010]). Liu further discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable oxidizing agents (see [0036]). While Liu discloses a composition free from amines, Liu states that for the purpose of the invention amine-N-oxides are not considered to be amines (see [0025]). Liu further discloses the composition may be used in copper seed etching (see [0032]).
However, Liu fails to disclose triethanolamine N-oxide, N,N-dimethylethanolamine N-oxide, N,N-dimethylcyclohexylamine N-oxide, and mixtures thereof.
Hoogboom discloses a composition for selectively etching a layer on a semiconductor device, an analogous art (see Abstract). Hoogboom further discloses the composition comprises triethanolamine-N-oxide, a corrosion inhibitor which may be an azole, and water (see Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the triethanolamine-N-oxide of Hoogboom in the cleaning composition of Liu as Liu discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable oxidizing agents. One of ordinary skill in the art would achieve the predictable result of obtaining a cleaning composition for semi-conductor substrates as a specific amine-N-oxide, specifically triethanolamine-N-oxide, would predictably lead to the same results as the broad category of amine-N-oxides (see MPEP 2144.06 (II)). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With regard to claim 2, Liu discloses that the microelectronic device to be cleaned may be a semiconductor (see [0013]).
With regard to claim 3-4 and claim 9, Liu discloses cooper as well known in advanced microelectronic applications, specifically interconnects (see [0002]). Liu further discloses the use of tungsten as a barrier layer (see [0003]). Liu further discloses low dielectric material, including silicon dioxide (see [0017]).
With regard to claim 6, Liu discloses the composition may be utilized to remove post ash residue (see [0032]).
With regard to claim 7, Liu discloses the composition may have utility in post-etch residue removal (see [0032]).
With regard to claim 8, Liu discloses the composition may have utility in post-plating cleaning and copper seed cleaning (see [0032]).
With regard to claim 11, Liu discloses the composition comprising at least one oxidizing agent selected from a list including hydrogen peroxide (see Claim 9). However, this is one option of many and the composition need not contain hydrogen peroxide.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160351388 A1) and Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Minsek (US 20120302483 A1).
With regard to claim 5, Liu and Hoogboom disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Liu and Hoogboom fail to disclose the microelectronic substrate having a photoresist layer and contacting the substrate with the composition to remove the photoresist layer from the substrate.
Minsek discloses a composition and method for semiconductor processing, including a wet cleaning composition for the removal of a photoresist, an analogous art (see Abstract). Minsek further discloses the method comprising the steps of applying the wet-cleaning composition and removing the photoresist (see Abstract). Minsek further teaches the composition comprising of amine-N-oxides (see [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the triethanolamine-N-oxide of Liu and Hoogboom for the purpose of removing a photoresist, as disclosed by Minsek, as Minsek states amine-N-oxides are suitable and triethanolamine-N-oxide is an amine-N-oxide.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 20160351388 A1) and Hoogboom (CN 111465716 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Visintin (US 20080125342 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Liu and Hoogboom disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Liu and Hoogboom fail to disclose the microelectronic substrate comprising an inorganic oxide containing surface carrying an adhered processing residue and contacting the substrate to remove the adhered processing residue.
Visintin discloses a composition and process for removing silicone containing layers from a microelectronic device, an analogous art (see Abstract). Visintin further discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable for use. Visintin further teaches the composition may be employed to remove silicon containing insulation materials, including silicon oxides (see [0121]). Visintin further discloses a method for removing silicon-containing material from a microelectronic device comprising contacting the microelectronic device with the composition for sufficient time to at least partially remove the material from the microelectronic device (see [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, the utilize the triethanolamine-N-oxide as taught by Liu and Hoogboom in the method of silicon oxide removal, as taught by Visintin, as Visintin also discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable in a silicon-containing material removal composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hoogboom is specifically directed to selective etching of aluminum-containing layers, particularly etch-stop layers, in the presence of copper, cobalt, and low-k materials. Applicant further argues that this is not analogous art. Applicant further argues the technical problem addressed by Hoogboom is the highly selective removal of aluminum compounds, not general cleaning of microelectronic substrates and that Hoogboom teaches a composition including triethanolamine N-oxide is in the context of etch selectivity, not controlled cleaning oxidation.
Liu discloses the aqueous compositions effectuate substantial residue and contaminant removal from the surface of the device without damaging the exposed low-k dielectric material and interconnect and via materials, e.g., copper and/or aluminum containing materials (see [0007]). Therefore, the composition of Liu may be used on aluminum. Further, the reason for use need not be the same. Controlled cleaning oxidation need not be the reason of one having ordinary skill in the art for utilizing the triethanolamine N-oxide of Hoogboom.
Applicant further argues that Minsek states that amine-N-oxides are useful in their invention. However, Applicant argues, the only amine-N-oxide discussed or evaluated in Minsek is N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide. As stated above, Minsek further teaches the composition comprising of amine-N-oxides (see [0012]). While Minsek specifically discloses N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide, the entirety of the reference must be considered. Minsek states amine-N-oxides are suitable and triethanolamine-N-oxide is an amine-N-oxide.
Applicant further argues that Vistin provides a specific list of which amine-N-oxides are useful in their invention, including N-methylmorpholine-N-oxide (NMMO), trimethylamine-N-oxide, triethylamine-N-oxide, pyridine-N-oxide, N-ethylmorpholine-N-oxide, N-methylpyrrolidine-N-oxide, N-ethylpyrrolidine-N-oxide. Applicant further argues that Vistin fails to disclose the claimed amine oxides.
As stated above, Liu discloses a composition and process for cleaning post chemical-mechanical polishing residue and contaminants from a microelectronic device (see Abstract), including semiconductors and microelectrochemical systems (see [0013]). Liu further discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable oxidizing agents (see [0036]). While Liu discloses a composition free from amines, Liu states that for the purpose of the invention amine-N-oxides are not considered to be amines (see [0025]). Liu further discloses the composition may be used in copper seed etching (see [0032]).
Hoogboom discloses a composition for selectively etching a layer on a semiconductor device, an analogous art (see Abstract). Hoogboom further discloses the composition comprises triethanolamine-N-oxide, a corrosion inhibitor which may be an azole, and water (see Claim 1).
As Vistin discloses a composition and process for removing silicone containing layers from a microelectronic device, an analogous art (see Abstract). Visintin further discloses amine-N-oxides as suitable for use. Visintin further teaches the composition may be employed to remove silicon containing insulation materials, including silicon oxides (see [0121]). While Vistin fails to disclose the specific amines disclosed in the instant claims, Vistin discloses amine-N-oxides. The broad category is suitable. Therefore, the composition of Liu may be used in the method disclosed by Vistin.
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