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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and Applicant’s arguments filed February 4, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 9, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 12/4/25 have been withdrawn:
None.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, line 7, it is suggested that Applicant delete “ethanolamine” as it is the same compound as “monoethanolamine”. Note that, instant claims 2-13 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the nucleophile" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the nucleophile” as “the cleaning additive”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2020/096760.
‘760 teaches a cleaning composition to remove contaminants from a substrate comprising (i) at least one etchant material chosen from amines and complexing agents, (ii) at least one cleaning additive chosen from ethylene oxide/propylene oxide block copolymers, dodecyl trimethyl ammonium hydroxide, cocamidopropyl Betaine, polyglycol ethers, and fatty amine quaternary ammonium salts, and combinations thereof, (iii) at least one organic additive, (iv) at least one corrosion inhibitor, (v) at least one pH adjuster, and optionally (vi) at least one water soluble polymer, wherein said composition has a pH of greater than about 8. See pages 2 and 3. Suitable complexing agents include monoethanolamine, HEDP, cysteine, etc., and mixtures thereof. See pages 6 and 7. Suitable organic additives include solvents such dimethylsulfoxide, etc. See page 8. Suitable corrosion inhibitors include dicyandiamide, diethylhydroxylamine, etc., and mixtures thereof. See pages 9-11. Suitable pH adjusters include alkali metal hydroxides, tetraethylammonium hydroxide, etc., and mixtures thereof. See page 13. Water is used in the composition. See page 15, lines 5-20.
‘760 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘760 suggest a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US2020/0199500) in view of WO2020/096760 or WO2020/018804.
White et al a cleaning composition is disclosed for cleaning residue and/or contaminants from microelectronic devices having same thereon. The composition comprises at least one complexing agent, at least one cleaning additive, at least one pH adjusting agent, water, and at least one oxylamine compound. Advantageously, the compositions show effective cleaning of cobalt-containing substrates and improved cobalt compatibility. See Abstract. Suitable complexing agents include monoethanolamine, cysteine, HEDP, etc., and mixtures thereof. See paras. 33-37. Suitable cleaning additives include various solvents, water-soluble polymers, and surfactants. Suitable solvents include dimethyl sulfoxide, etc. See paras. 38-40. Suitable pH adjusting agents include tetraethylammonium hydroxide, alkali metal hydroxide, etc., and mixtures thereof. See paras. 44-46. Suitable oxylamine compounds include diethylhydroxylamine, etc. See paras. 48-52. Corrosion inhibitors may also be used such as catechol, pyrogallol, hydroquinone, etc. Additionally, the composition may contain reducing agents such as ascorbic acid, etc. See paras. 53-56.
White et al do not teach the use of a corrosion inhibitor such as dicyandiamide or a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘760 is relied upon as set forth above.
‘804 teaches liquid compositions for cleaning a surface of a microelectronic device substrate, such as for cleaning residue from a surface of a microelectronic device substrate, wherein the liquid compositions contain a corrosion inhibitor. See Abstract. According to preferred cleaning compositions and methods, certain cleaning
compositions that contain corrosion inhibitor selected from dicyandiamide, 2-methyl-3-butyn-2-ol, 3-methyl-2-pyrazolin-5-one, 8-hydroxyquinoline or a combination of two or more of these, can exhibit useful or advantageous cleaning performance as described herein in combination with improved performance in terms of reduced corrosion of metal (e.g., copper, cobalt, or both). See page 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use dicyandiamide as a corrosion inhibitor in the composition taught by White et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘760 or ‘804 teach the use of dicyandiamide as a corrosion inhibitor in a similar composition and further, White et al teach the use of a wide variety of corrosion inhibitors in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor such as dicyandiamide, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of White et al in view of ‘760 or ‘804 suggest a composition containing water, a cleaning additive, a chelating agent, a reducing agent, a corrosion inhibitor such as dicyandiamide, a pH adjuster, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2020/096760, Applicant states that instant claim 1 has been amended to limit the reducing agent to diethyl hydroxylamine and ‘760 fails to teach diethyl hydroxylamine. In response, note that, ‘760 clearly teaches that suitable corrosion inhibitors include dicyandiamide, diethylhydroxylamine, etc., and mixtures thereof (See pages 9-11of ‘760) such that ‘760 clearly teaches compositions containing diethylhydroxylamine as recited by the instant claims. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of WO2020/096760 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using WO2020/096760 White et al (US2020/0199500) in view of WO2020/096760 or WO2020/018804, Applicant states that ‘500 does not list the cleaning additives of the pending claims and the broad teachings of the cited art do not mention or suggest the cleaning additives as required by the pending claims.
In response, note that, the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘760; or ‘500 in view of ‘760 or ‘804, clearly suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II).
For example, ‘500 clearly teaches that suitable complexing agents include monoethanolamine, cysteine, HEDP, etc., and mixtures thereof (See paras. 33-37 of’500) and that suitable cleaning additives include various solvents, water-soluble polymers, and surfactants. Suitable solvents include dimethyl sulfoxide, etc. (See paras. 38-40 of ‘500). Suitable pH adjusting agents include tetraethylammonium hydroxide, alkali metal hydroxide, etc., and mixtures thereof (See paras. 44-46 of ‘500). Also, ‘500 clearly teaches that suitable oxylamine compounds include diethylhydroxylamine, etc. (See paras. 48-52 of ‘500).
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘760 or ‘804 are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘500 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘760 or ‘804 to cure the deficiencies of ‘500. The Examiner asserts that ‘760 or ‘804 are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of dicyandiamide. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use dicyandiamide as a corrosion inhibitor in the composition taught by White et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘760 or ‘804 teach the use of dicyandiamide as a corrosion inhibitor in a similar composition and further, White et al teach the use of a wide variety of corrosion inhibitors in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of WO2020/096760; or White et al (US2020/0199500) in view of WO2020/096760 or WO2020/018804, are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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
/G.R.D/March 19, 2026