Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/122,016

COMPOSITION FOR SURFACE TREATMENT, SURFACE TREATMENT METHOD, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 15, 2023
Examiner
DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujimi Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
567 granted / 795 resolved
+6.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
825
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
75.3%
+35.3% vs TC avg
§102
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 795 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-12 are pending before the Office for review. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on September 24, 2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-8 in the reply filed on September 24, 2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0349483). With regards to claims 1 and 5, Li discloses a composition for surface treatment, comprising: a nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (Paragraph [0026] discloses polyvinyl alcohols), a nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer (Paragraph [0030] discloses one or more nonionic polymers different from the polyvinyl alcohol) , and an anionic polymer (Paragraphs [0021]-[0024], [0064] discloses ionic polymers including anionic polymer), wherein the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of less than 100,000 (Paragraph [0028] discloses polyvinyl alcohol has an average molecular weight of about 100,000 g/mol or less), and the composition for surface treatment has a pH of less than 7.0 (Paragraph [0031]). Li does not explicitly disclose, a ratio of a weight-average molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer to the weight- average molecular weight of the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer/nitrogen- free nonionic polymer) is 0.1 or more and 10 or less, 8 or less. However Li discloses wherein the polyvinyl alcohol can have an average molecular weight of about 250 g/mol to 100,000 g/mol (Paragraph [0028]) and wherein the nonionic polymer may have a molecular weight of about 8,000 (Paragraph [0064]) which renders obvious a ratio of a weight-average molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer to the weight- average molecular weight of the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer/nitrogen- free nonionic polymer) is 0.1 or more and 10 or less, 8 or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Li to include a molecular weight ratio as rendered obvious by the general teachings of Li because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the ratio of the weight average molecular weight as rendered obvious by Li. MPEP 2143D With regards to claims 2 and 4, the modified teachings of Li renders obvious wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer has an amide bond and wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone (Paragraph [0030]). With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Li renders obvious wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 80,000 or less (Paragraph [0030], [0064] discloses additional nonionic polymers including polyvinylpyrrolidone wherein the nonionic polymers can have a MW of 8000). With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Li renders obvious wherein the nitrogen free onion polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (Paragraphs [0026]-[0028]). Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHINO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0093056) in view of TAMBOLI (EP 3588535). With regards to claims 1 and 5, Yoshino discloses a composition for surface treatment (Paragraph [0027]), comprising: a nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (Paragraph [0061], [0072] discloses polyvinyl alcohols), a nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer (Paragraph [0061] discloses polyvinylpyrrolidone PVP, polyvinyl caprolactam), wherein the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of less than 100,000 (Paragraph [0074]-[0075] discloses polyvinyl alcohol has weight average molecular weight of about 100,000 g/mol or less), and the composition for surface treatment has a pH of less than 7.0 (Paragraph [0057] discloses a pH of 5 or lower). Yoshino does not explicitly disclose, and an anionic polymer, a ratio of a weight-average molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer to the weight- average molecular weight of the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer/nitrogen- free nonionic polymer) is 0.1 or more and 10 or less, 8 or less. Tamboli discloses a post chemical mechanical cleaning composition comprising water soluble polymeric additives including anionic polymers and nonionic polymers wherein the anionic polymer and nonionic polymer are present in amounts suitable for improving cleaning of the surface by having a strong affinity towards the residues (Paragraphs [0045]-[0051]). Yoshino further discloses wherein the polymer amount can be present in amounts wherein the weight average molecular weight is 1,000 or more (Paragraph [0081]) wherein the content of the nitrogen free nonionic polymer (sulfonic acid group containing PVA) and nitrogen containing nonionic polymer can be optimized enhance the dissolution and removal for foreign materials (Paragraph [0078]-[0079]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize a ratio of a weight-average molecular weight of the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer to the weight- average molecular weight of the nitrogen-free nonionic polymer (nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer/nitrogen- free nonionic polymer) to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of 0.1 or more and 10 or less, 8 or less in order to enhance the dissolution and removal for foreign materials as taught by the modified teachings of Yoshino in view of Tamboli (Yoshino Paragraph [0078]-[0079]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Yoshino to include a molecular weight ratio as rendered obvious by the general teachings of Yoshino because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the ratio of the weight average molecular weight as rendered obvious by Yoshino. MPEP 2143D It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Yoshino to include the anionic polymer as rendered obvious by Tamboli because the reference of Tamboli teaches that the anionic polymer helps prevent physical adsorption and redeposition of removed particles and other residues (Paragraphs [0050]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the anionic polymer as rendered obvious by Tamboli . MPEP 2143D With regards to claims 2 and 4, the modified teachings of Yoshino renders obvious wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer has an amide bond and wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer is one or more selected from the group consisting of polyvinylpyrrolidone and polyvinyl caprolactam (Yoshino Paragraph [0030]). With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Yoshino renders obvious wherein the nitrogen-containing nonionic polymer has a weight-average molecular weight of 80,000 or less (Yoshino Paragraph [0081 discloses a weight average molecular wight of 1,000 or more). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Yoshino renders obvious wherein the nitrogen free nonionic polymer is polyvinyl alcohol (Yoshino Paragraph [0072]). With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Yoshino renders obvious the composition further comprising a chelating agent having two or more phosphoric acid groups. (Tamboli Paragraph[0074]) With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Yoshino renders obvious the composition comprising substantially no abrasive grains (Yoshino Paragraph [0083]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F. 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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. /STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598935
COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A MATERIAL REMOVING OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598964
HARDMASK INTEGRATION FOR HIGH ASPECT RATIO APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581881
PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573593
PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565599
SLURRY, POLISHING METHOD, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (+6.7%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 795 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month