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 1-11 and 13-20 are pending. Claim 12 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed September 23, 2025, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 6/23/25 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 2-4, 7, and 14-18 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.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inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292).
With respect to independent, instant clam 1, Wu et al teach a semiconductor processing composition for removing residues and/or contaminants from substrate containing Cu, barrier metal and low-k dielectric. The processing composition includes at least one quaternary base, at least one organic amine, at least one surface modifier, at least one antioxidant, at least one complexing agent and balance water. The processing composition provides a sufficient corrosion protection to Cu and metal barrier during process queue time without deteriorating reliability of electronic devices. See Abstract. Suitable quaternary bases include tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methyl ammonium hydroxide, etc., which may be used in amounts from about 0.001% to 25% by weight. See paras. 14-16. Suitable organic amines include monoethanolamine, aminoethylethanolamine, N-N-dimethylethanolamine, triethanolamine, etc., and mixtures thereof, which may be use in amounts from about 0.001% to 20% by weight. See para. 17. Suitable complexing agents include citric acid, oxalic acid, etc., and combinations thereof, which may be used in amounts from 0.0001% to 8% by weight. See para. 20. The composition has a pH in the range of 8-14. See claim 2.
Wu et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a compound of Formula(I), a compound of Formula (II), a primary amino alcohol, a tertiary amine, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, 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 a compound of Formula(I), a compound of Formula (II), a primary amino alcohol, a tertiary amine, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, 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 Wu et al suggest a composition containing a compound of Formula(I), a compound of Formula (II), a primary amino alcohol, a tertiary amine, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, 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 Wu et al, Applicant states that Wu et al disclose an amino alcohol and a tertiary amine as amines, but is silent regarding the mass ratio as between them.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that Wu et al clearly teach that suitable organic amines include monoethanolamine, aminoethylethanolamine, N-N-dimethylethanolamine, triethanolamine, etc., and mixtures thereof, which may be use in amounts from about 0.001% to 20% by weight (See para. 17 of Wu et al), which would clearly suggest, for example, a composition containing 2% by weight of N-N-dimethylethanolamine and 2% by weight of monoethanolamine having a 1:1 mass ratio of tertiary amine to primary amino alcohol and fall with the scope of the instant claims. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Wu et al 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 “from a comparison between Examples 1 and 13 to 14, and Examples 12 and 15, it was confirmed that in a case where the mass ratio ((B)/(D)) of the content of the tertiary amine to the content of the primary amino alcohol is 0.30 to 4.00, the effect is more excellent." 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 group of compounds of Formula (1) in any amount, a broad group of compounds of Formula (2) in any amount, a broad group of primary amino alcohol compounds in broad amounts, any tertiary amine compound in broad amounts, and any solvent 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, for example, that Examples 2-4 which also fall within the scope of the instant claims (B/D ratio of 1), have a cleaning performance with a rating of D or C which is equivalent to, or less effective, than Examples 12 and 15 which have a ratio of B/D falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Also, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in Tables 1-6 is blurry and hard to read, which makes it difficult to analyze the data presented therein. 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/April 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights