DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 27 is new. Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-22 are canceled. Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19, and 23-27 are pending. Claims 10, 14-19, and 23-26 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 5-9, and 27 are subject to examination on the merits.
Response to Amendments
The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, based on the understanding that: by performing the physical action of contacting the recited composition with the recited adhesive layer, the intended outcome or effect of “swelling, peeling and dissolving” would be produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 12/29/2025 arguments (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
Applicant contends that the prior art of record does not teach certain limitations (e.g., ratio/content of the components) of the claims as amended (see Remarks at 17-25). Because those limitations are newly introduced through amendment, they are addressed in the updated 35 USC 103 rejections below.
Applicant contends that NAKAZAKI fails to teach a composition that can “swell” the adhesive layer (see Remarks at 18) because NAKAZAKI does not teach component [III] having a content of “30 mass% or more” of the aprotic solvent (see Remarks at 20). This is not persuasive because NAKAZAKI teaches component [III] (e.g., an dialkyl ether) can be 0-30 mass% (¶ 0077), 0-40 mass% (¶ 0072), and 0-50 mass% (¶ 0070), i.e., all three ranges overlap with the claimed range of “30 mass% or more.” Given that the prior-art ranges overlap with the claimed range, the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Applicant contends that NAKAZAKI’s disclosed ranges for component [III] are “only general value,” and a person of ordinary skill in the art would prepare NAKAZAKI’s composition using “the content ratios listed in the examples” (see Remarks at 19). This is not persuasive because it’s urging for an overly narrow reading of the prior art, contrary to the Supreme Court’s instructions. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418. Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not limit NAKAZAKI’s teachings to solely its examples and would still consider using the higher values of the disclosed ranges.
Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would keep the content ratio of the dialkyl ether “as small as possible” (see Remarks at 21). This is not persuasive for at least two reasons. First, Applicant is urging for an overly narrow reading of NAKAZAKI. If NAKAZAKI discloses the dialkyl ether having ranges of 0-30%, 0-40%, and 0-50%, then those upper values are still within “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Second, Applicant’s argument is contradicted by NAKAZAKI’s Examples 24 and 27, which show an dialkyl ether at 29.1% and 29.2% (see also Remarks at 20).
Applicant contends that NAKAZAKI fails to teach “30 mass% or more” because its examples only show a maximum of 29.2% (see Remarks at 20). This is not persuasive because: Applicant is urging for an overly narrow reading of NAKAZAKI, whose teachings are not limited to its examples; NAKAZAKI has disclosed ranges of 0-30%, 0-40%, and 0-50%. Moreover, the disclosed 29.2% is close enough to 30% such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2144.05.I. (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close).
In sum, the claimed range of “30 mass% or more” for component [III] is still taught or suggested by NAKAZAKI. And because NAKAZAKI teaches or suggests the claimed composition—whose properties are inseparable from the composition, see MPEP §§ 2112.01.II. —NAKAZAKI teaches or suggests a composition that would interact with an adhesive layer to produce the intended effect/outcome of “swelling, peeling, and dissolving” the adhesive layer.
Claim Objections
In Claim 27 last line, to the extent that “aprotic solvent” is the same aprotic solvent as recited in Claim 1, it should be changed to “the aprotic solvent.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim 27—dependent on Claim 1—recites the following limitations:
the content of the amide-based solvent of the component [II] in the peeling and dissolving composition is 20 to 50 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvent (as recited in Claim 1);
the content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) of the component [III] in the peeling and dissolving composition is 30 mass% or more with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent (as recited in Claim 1);
the total content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) as the component [III] and the solvent represented by Formula (T) or Formula (G) as the component [IV] in the peeling and dissolving composition is 40 to 90 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvent (as recited in Claim 27).
The recited range of “40 to 90 mass%” in Claim 27 is not sufficiently supported, given the mass% already recited for components [II] and [III]. For example, if components [II] and [III] are kept at their minimum values of 20 mass% and 30 mass%, respectively, then the maximum value possible for component [IV] would be 50 mass%, thereby limiting the total content of components [III] and [IV] to a maximum of 80 mass%. In other words, the recited ceiling of “90 mass%” is not sufficiently supported, given the two limitations from Claim 1.
Component [II]
20
50
20
50
20
50
20
20
20
Component [III]
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
70
80
Component [IV]
50
20
40
10
30
0
20
10
0
Total of [III] & [IV]
80
50
80
50
80
50
80
80
80
The table above shows just a few examples of the possible permutations for the mass% of components [II] through [IV]. In order to satisfy the ranges already recited for components [II] (i.e., 20-50%) and for component [III] (i.e., 30% or more), the possible range remaining for the total content of components [III] and [IV] is 50-80%, not the recited 40-90%. Therefore, Claim 27 contains new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “aprotic solvent” at the last 5 lines. The metes and bounds of this “aprotic solvent” are unclear. In particular, it’s unclear which components constitute the “aprotic solvent.” The only relevant disclosure comes from paragraph 0102 of the specification, which states: “In the present invention, the aprotic solvent refers to, for example, N,N-dimethylpropionamide, dibutyl ether, dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether, or butyl acetate . . . .”
For examination purpose, “aprotic solvent” is interpreted to mean that it consists of component [II], component [III], and component [IV].
Claim 1 recites “the content” at the fifth line from bottom. There’s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the content” at the third line from bottom. There’s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 27 recites “the total content” at line 2. There’s insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 5-9 are rejected because they depend on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5-9, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAZAKI et al. (WIPO Publication WO2020/080060A1, as translated by US PGPUB 2021/0317390).
Regarding Claim 1, NAKAZAKI teaches a method for cleaning a semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0001, 0042, 0082-84, 0088-89, 0090-94, 0100-05, 0114-15, 0120-21). NAKAZAKI teaches that the substrate has an adhesive layer formed thereon (a siloxane-based adhesive, see id.).
As a preliminary matter, the clause “swelling, peeling and dissolving” is interpreted as the intended outcome or effect produced as a result of performing the physical action of contacting the recited composition with the recited adhesive layer. Once the recited composition comes into contact with the recited adhesive layer (see specification at ¶¶ 0128-29, contact by immersion), no further action is required to produce the “swelling, peeling and dissolving” outcome or effect (see also specification at ¶ 0077, calling peeling an “effect”).
NAKAZAKI teaches the method comprises immersing the substrate in a cleaning composition to remove the adhesive layer (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0001, 0042, 0082-84, 0088-89, 0090-94, 0100-05, 0114-15, 0120-21). In other words, NAKAZAKI teaches contacting the cleaning composition with the adhesive layer.
NAKAZAKI teaches the composition containing:
a component [I]: a quaternary ammonium salt (tetrabutylammonium fluoride or “TBAF,” see Examples 1-56, Tables 1-2, 4-6, ¶¶ 0097-99, 0109, 0111);
a component [II]: an amide-based solvent (an N-substituted amide, see id.);
a component [III]: a solvent represented by the formula L1-L3-L2, wherein L3 represents O (dibutyl ether or “DBE,” see, e.g., ¶ 0097, Examples 1-11, 15-33 in Table 1; ¶ 0099, Examples 40-42 in Table 2; ¶ 0109, Examples 45-49 in Table 4; ¶ 0111, Examples 52-53 in Table 5 & Example 56 in Table 6), and wherein L1 and L2 each independently represent an alkyl group having 4 carbon atoms (see id.);
a component [IV]: a dialkyl ether of glycol that satisfies the claimed Formula (T) (see ¶¶ 0031-33, 0065, 0097, 0105).
NAKAZAKI teaches that component [IV] may be diethylene glycol dimethyl ether or “DMDG” (see ¶ 0097, Examples 1-11 in Table 1), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DMDG satisfies Formula T such that: each of X1 and X3 is a 1-carbon alkyl group; X2 is an alkylene group, n is 2 (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0117).
NAKAZAKI also teaches that component [IV] may be dipropylene glycol dimethyl ether or “DPGDME” (see ¶ 0097, Examples 15-33 in Table 1; ¶ 0099, Examples 40-42 in Table 2; ¶ 0109, Examples 45-48 in Table 4; ¶ 0111, Examples 52-53 in Table 5 & Example 56 in Table 6), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image2.png
80
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DPGDME satisfies Formula T such that: each of X1 and X3 is a 1-carbon alkyl group; X2 is an alkylene group, n is 2 (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0117).
NAKAZAKI also teaches other examples of the dialkyl ether of glycol (see ¶ 0065).
NAKAZAKI teaches the quaternary ammonium salt (tetrabutylammonium fluoride or “TBAF”) has a fluoride, i.e., it’s a halogen-containing quaternary ammonium salt.
NAKAZAKI teaches that the amide-based solvent (i.e., component [II]) may be an acid amide derivative that satisfies Formula (Z) or a compound that satisfies Formula (Y).
For example, the amide-based solvent may be N-N-dimethyl propionamide or “DMPA” (see ¶ 0099, Examples 40-42 in Table 2), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image3.png
161
279
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DMPA satisfies Formula (Z) such that: R0 is an ethyl group; and each of RA and RB is an 1-carbon alkyl group (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0091).
For example, the amide-based solvent may be N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone or “NMP” (see ¶¶ 0097-98, Examples 1-11, 15-33 in Table 1; ¶ 0109, Examples 45-49 in Table 4), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image4.png
128
157
media_image4.png
Greyscale
NMP satisfies Formula (Y) such that: R101 is an 1-carbon alkyl group and R102 is a 3-carbon alkylene group (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0100).
For example, the amide-based solvent may be N-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone or “NEP” (see ¶ 0110, Examples 52-53 in Table 5), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image5.png
139
224
media_image5.png
Greyscale
NEP satisfies Formula (Y) such that: R101 is a 2-carbon alkyl group and R102 is a 3-carbon alkylene group (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0100).
For example, the amide-based solvent may be 1,3-dimethyl-2-imidazolidinone or “DMI” (see ¶ 0111, Example 56 in Table 6), whose structure is provided below:
PNG
media_image6.png
279
550
media_image6.png
Greyscale
DMI satisfies Formula (Y) such that: R101 is an 1-carbon alkyl group; R102 has the formula *1–NR103–R104–*2, wherein R103 is a 1-carbon alkyl group and R104 is a 2-carbon alkylene group, wherein *1 represents a bond to a carbon atom and *2 represents a bond to a nitrogen atom (see also specification of the present application at ¶ 0100).
NAKAZAKI teaches that the content of the amide-based solvent of the component [II] in the composition may be 20 to 90 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077). Because the prior-art range (20-90%) overlaps with the claimed range of “20 to 50 mass%,” the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
NAKAZAKI teaches that the content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) of the component [III] in the composition may be 0 to 30 mass% (see ¶ 0077), 0 to 40 mass% (see ¶ 0072), or 0 to 50 mass% (see ¶ 0070) with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent. Because the prior-art ranges (e.g., 0-30%, 0-40%, 0-50%) overlap with the claimed range of “30 mass% or more,” the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Although NAKAZAKI does not explicitly teach that the cleaning composition interacts with the adhesive layer to achieve a “swelling, peeling and dissolving” outcome or effect, such outcome/effect is inherently present or at least reasonably expected because:
(1) NAKAZAKI teaches the same or substantially similar adhesive—e.g., a siloxane-based adhesive such as a polyorganosiloxane adhesive cured by hydrosilylation (see ¶¶ 0085-86)—as disclosed by the present application (see specification at, e.g., ¶¶ 0009-10, 0021, 0030, 0145, 0149).
(2) NAKAZAKI teaches the same components I to IV as disclosed by the present application (see specification at, e.g., ¶¶ 0010, 0013-17, 0078-83, 0087, 0103, 0113).
(3) NAKAZAKI teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed ratios of components. For example, NAKAZAKI teaches that component II may be 20-90 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077), component III may be 0-50 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶¶ 0070, 0072, 0077), component IV may be 10-80 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077), wherein the total content of components III and IV may be 10-80 mass% of the aprotic solvent (as calculated by subtracting the mass% of component II from 100%).
(4) NAKAZAKI teaches the same physical action—e.g., immersing the substrate in the cleaning composition—as disclosed by the present application (see specification at ¶¶ 0129-31, 0139, 0181-82).
See MPEP § 2112.01.I. (“where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”); § 2112.01.II. (“a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable”).
Lastly, because NAKAZAKI’s composition achieves peeling and dissolving (as explained above), it may be considered a “peeling and dissolving composition.”
Regarding Claim 5, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 1. NAKAZAKI teaches that the component [III] is dibutyl ether or “DBE” (as explained above), which means L1 and L2 are both butyl groups.
Regarding Claim 6, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 1. NAKAZAKI teaches wherein the adhesive layer is a film obtained using an adhesive composition containing an adhesive component containing a siloxane-based adhesive (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0040, 0085-87, 0100, 0112, 0118).
Regarding Claim 7, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 6. NAKAZAKI teaches wherein the adhesive component contains the siloxane-based adhesive (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0040, 0085-87, 0100, 0112, 0118).
Regarding Claim 8, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 7. NAKAZAKI teaches wherein the siloxane-based adhesive contains a polyorganosiloxane component (see, e.g., ¶¶ 0040, 0085-86, 0100, 0112, 0118) which is cured by a hydrosilylation reaction (see ¶ 0086).
Regarding Claim 9, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 1. As explained above, NAKAZAKI teaches or reasonably suggests the “swelling, peeling, and dissolving” outcome/effect produced by contacting the recited composition with the recited adhesive layer. NAKAZAKI also teaches eliminating the peeled adhesive layer (see ¶¶ 0003, 0084, the adhesive is removed).
Regarding Claim 27, NAKAZAKI teaches the method according to Claim 1.
As explained above, NAKAZAKI teaches that the content of the amide-based solvent of the component [II] in the composition may be 20 to 90 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077), and the content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) of the component [III] in the composition may be 0 to 30 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077).
NAKAZAKI teaches that the aprotic solvent comprises component [II], component [III], and component [IV] (see abstract, ¶¶ 0056, 0067, 0077, aprotic solvent comprises, e.g., N-substituted amide, dialkyl ether, and dialkyl ether of glycol). In other words, by knowing the content of component [II] as a mass% of the aprotic solvent, the total content of components [III] and [IV] as a mass% of the aprotic solvent can be readily determined by subtracting the mass% of component [II] from 100%.
For example, NAKAZAKI teaches that the content of the amide-based solvent of the component [II] in the composition may be 20 to 90 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent (see ¶ 0077). This means the total content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) as the component [III] and the solvent represented by Formula (T) as the component [IV] in the composition may be 10 to 80 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvent. Because the prior-art range (10-80 mass%) overlaps with the claimed range of “40 to 90 mass%,” the claimed range is considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 6-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 & 5-13 of copending Application No. 19/157,607 (reference application). This is a provisional rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The table below illustrates the same or substantially similar claim elements shared between the two applications.
The Present Application
Copending Application 19/157,607
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
A method for cleaning a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising peeling and dissolving an adhesive layer formed on a semiconductor substrate using a peeling and dissolving composition,
wherein the peeling and dissolving composition contains:
a component [I]: a quaternary ammonium salt;
a component [II]: an amide-based solvent; and
a component [III]: a solvent represented by the following Formula (L):
PNG
media_image7.png
31
212
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. . . L3 represents O or S.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
A method for producing a semiconductor substrate, comprising releasing and dissolving an adhesive layer on a semiconductor substrate using a releasing and dissolving composition . . .
wherein the releasing and dissolving composition contains:
a component [I]: a quaternary ammonium salt and an amide-based solvent; . . .
a component [II]: . . . one or more solvents selected from an ether compound, a thioether compound . . .
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
a solvent represented by the following Formula (L):
PNG
media_image7.png
31
212
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. . . L1 and L2 each independently represent an alkyl group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms, and L3 represents O or S.
Claim 2 recites, inter alia:
the solvent of the ether compound or the thioether compound as the component [II] is a solvent represented by Formula (L-1) below:
PNG
media_image8.png
35
231
media_image8.png
Greyscale
L1 and L2 each independently represent an alkyl group having 2 to 5 carbon atoms, and L3 represents O or S.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the peeling and dissolving composition contains . . . a solvent represented by the following Formula (T):
PNG
media_image9.png
41
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 recites, inter alia:
The releasing and dissolving composition contains . . . a solvent of glycol ethers.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the peeling and dissolving composition contains . . . a solvent represented by the following Formula (T):
PNG
media_image9.png
41
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. . . X1 and X3 each independently represent an alkyl group or an acyl group (X4—C(═O)—), X2 represents an alkylene group, n represents 2 or 3, and X4 represents an alkyl group
Claim 7 recites, inter alia:
The solvent of the glycol ethers as the component [III] is a solvent represented by formula (T) below:
PNG
media_image9.png
41
376
media_image9.png
Greyscale
X1 and X3 each independently represent an alkyl group or an acyl group (X4—C(═O)—), X2 represents an alkylene group, n represents 2 or 3, and X4 represents an alkyl group
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the peeling and dissolving composition contains . . . a solvent represented by the following Formula (G):
PNG
media_image10.png
79
252
media_image10.png
Greyscale
L11 and L12 each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and a total number of carbon atoms in the alkyl group of L11 and carbon atoms in the alkyl group of L12 is 7 or less
Claim 5 recites, inter alia:
The solvent of the ester compound as the component [II] is a solvent represented by formula (L-4) below:
PNG
media_image11.png
78
266
media_image11.png
Greyscale
L11 and L12 each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and a total number of carbon atoms in the alkyl group of L11 and carbon atoms in the alkyl group of L12 is 7 or less
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the quaternary ammonium salt is a halogen-containing quaternary ammonium salt
Claim 8 recites, inter alia:
the quaternary ammonium salt is a halogen-containing quaternary ammonium salt
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
wherein the amide-based solvent is an acid amide derivative represented by the following Formula (Z) or a compound represented by the following Formula (Y):
PNG
media_image12.png
125
315
media_image12.png
Greyscale
R0 represents an ethyl group, a propyl group, or an isopropyl group, and RA and RB each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms,
PNG
media_image13.png
101
169
media_image13.png
Greyscale
R101 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R102 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms or a group represented by the following Formula (Y1):
PNG
media_image14.png
47
332
media_image14.png
Greyscale
R103 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R104 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, *1 represents a bond bonded to a carbon atom in Formula (Y), and *2 represents a bond bonded to a nitrogen atom in Formula (Y).
Claim 9 recites, inter alia:
wherein the amide-based solvent is an acid amide derivative represented by Formula (Z) below or a compound represented by Formula (Y) below:
PNG
media_image12.png
125
315
media_image12.png
Greyscale
R0 represents an ethyl group, a propyl group, or an isopropyl group, and RA and RB each independently represent an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms,
PNG
media_image13.png
101
169
media_image13.png
Greyscale
R101 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and R102 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms or a group represented by Formula (Y1) below:
PNG
media_image14.png
47
332
media_image14.png
Greyscale
R103 represents a hydrogen atom or an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R104 represents an alkylene group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, *1 represents a bond bonded to a carbon atom in Formula (Y), and *2 represents a bond bonded to a nitrogen atom in Formula (Y).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the content of the amide-based solvent of the component [III in the peeling and dissolving composition is 20 to 50 mass% with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvent
Paragraph 0098 discloses that: “the content of the amide-based solvent is… more preferably 20 to 50 mass%... with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent.”
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
the content of the solvent represented by Formula (L) of the component [III] in the peeling and dissolving composition is 30 mass% or more with respect to 100 mass% of the aprotic solvent
Paragraph 0109 discloses that:
“The content of the solvent represented by formula (L-1) in the releasing and dissolving composition can be set to 30 mass% or more with respect to 100 mass% of aprotic solvents in the releasing and dissolving composition.”
Claim 6 recites, inter alia:
wherein the adhesive layer is a film obtained using an adhesive composition containing an adhesive component (S) containing at least one selected from a siloxane-based adhesive, an acrylic resin-based adhesive, an epoxy resin-based adhesive, a polyamide-based adhesive, a polystyrene-based adhesive, a polyimide adhesive, and a phenolic resin-based adhesive.
Claim 10 recites, inter alia:
wherein the adhesive layer is a film obtained using an adhesive composition containing an adhesive component (S) containing at least one selected from a siloxane-based adhesive, an acrylic resin-based adhesive, an epoxy resin-based adhesive, a polyamide-based adhesive, a polystyrene-based adhesive, a polyimide adhesive, and a phenol resin-based adhesive.
Claim 7 recites, inter alia:
wherein the adhesive component (S) contains a siloxane-based adhesive.
Claim 11 recites, inter alia:
wherein the adhesive component (S) contains a siloxane-based adhesive.
Claim 8 recites, inter alia:
wherein the siloxane-based adhesive contains a polyorganosiloxane component (A') that is cured by a hydrosilylation reaction.
Claim 12 recites, inter alia:
wherein the siloxane-based adhesive contains a polyorganosiloxane component (A') that is cured by a hydrosilylation reaction.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia:
wherein the peeling and dissolving an adhesive layer includes eliminating the peeled adhesive layer.
Claim 13 recites, inter alia:
wherein the releasing and dissolution includes removing the released adhesive layer.
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 RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/R.Z.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714