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 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and Applicant’s arguments filed June 24, 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Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 3/24/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-13 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2 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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
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 1-3 and 5-13 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, which may be used in amounts of 0.01% to 20% by weight. See pages 9-11 and 14. 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 1-3 and 5-13 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., which may be used in amounts from about 0.01% to about 25% by weight. See paras. 34 and 48-52. Corrosion inhibitors may also be used such as catechol, pyrogallol, hydroquinone, etc., in amounts from 0.01% to about 10% by weight. Additionally, the composition may contain reducing agents such as ascorbic acid, etc. See paras. 53-56. The cleaning composition has a pH in a range from about 10 to about 14. See claim 17.
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 ‘760 teaches a very broad range for the corrosion inhibitor materials of between 0.01-20%, and ‘760 also teaches a very long list of corrosion inhibitors and does not mention any compounds as reducing agents. Additionally, Applicant states that the Examiner has relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in rendering the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
In response, In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘760 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). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[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). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘760 clearly teaches the use of corrosion inhibitors such as dicyandiamide, diethylhydroxylamine, etc., and mixtures thereof, that may be used in amounts from 0.01-20% (See pages 9-11 and 14 of ‘760) which would clearly suggest compositions containing, for example, 1% by weight of dicyanamide and 1% by weight of diethylhydroxylamine and would fall within the scope of the instant claims. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘760 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 White et al in view of in view of WO2020/096760 or WO2020/018804, Applicant states that here is no motivation to modify the White et al reference with a corrosion inhibitor and reducing agent that falls outside of the long list of useful agents, and there is no suggestion or motivation, and no expectation of success in using a reducing agent, which is diethyl hydroxylamine in the composition of White et al. In response note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘760 or ‘804 are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and White et al 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 White et al. 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.
Further, Applicant states that data has been provided in the instant specification which is sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Specifically, Applicant states that of the instant specification provides data showing that the claimed invention provides unexpected and superior defect and low etch rate properties for both Cu and Co in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in the instant specification is not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. The data provided in the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. For example, the instant claims are open to a broad given group of cleaning additive in any amount, a broad group of chelating agents in any amount, diethyl hydroxylamine in a given amount, a specific group of corrosion inhibitors in a given amount, and any pH adjuster in any amount, while the instant specification provides data with respect to only several specific embodiments which is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Note that, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); See MPEP 716.02(d)(I). Applicant has not provided on this record a sufficient basis for concluding that the generic scope of protection sought by claim 1 is reasonably commensurate with the showing of alleged unexpected results. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (obviousness rejection affirmed because evidence establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively, Harris needed to narrow the claims). Note that, the evidence in the Specification is not commensurate in scope with the appealed claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having an “alkali metal”. Appellants have not established that the results using the single embodiment in (Example 3) is representative of the results which would be obtained over the broad scope of compositions covered by the claims).
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point out that that while Example 1, for example, appears to provide superior defect and reduced Co and Cu defects in comparison to the Comparative Example, Example 1 contains far more active ingredients than the Comparative Example; therefore, it is unclear if the results rise to the level of unexpected or merely show what one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect based on the increased active concentration, and the Examiner asserts that no objective determination can be made as to the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in the instant specification is not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims.
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 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/August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights