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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed 06/29/2026 are considered and being entered. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 13, 15, and 16 are canceled. Claims 17-19 are added. No new matter appears to have been added with these amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and arguments based thereon have substantially changed the scope of the claims that have not been canceled. All rejections made in the prior office action are withdrawn because of the cancellation of claims or the amendments made to the scope thereof.
After further search and consideration, the examiner raises a new grounds of rejection over 35 USC 103 as set forth in the body of the office action below.
After further consideration, the examiner raises a new grounds of rejection over 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the body of the office action below.
Concerning applicant’s arguments over Klipp and the alleged scope of the claims as they pertain to the solvent N-methylimidazole or 1-methylimidazole – the Examiner does not find the new claim scope excludes this compound. Claims 1 and 17 recite that the solvent component (c-1) may consist of at least one selected from a group consisting of an imidazole, a pyrazole, and a derivative thereof. N-methyl imidazole is a derivative of imidazole, and therefore meets the limitations of the claim for where it is a species inside the genus of “derivative [of an imidazole]”.
The recitation of “derivative” in the claims also raises a question of the metes and bounds of the claims – the amended claim 1 and new claim 17 recite that (c-1) is a closed group using “consisting” language, and a list of particular imidazole compounds is given in the claims – but the specification does not distinguish what a derivative is if all of the recited compounds fit under the genus “imidazole” as seems to be recited where “the imidazole is selected from the group of imidazole, 2-methylimidazole… and 1-benzyl-2-methlimidazole”. The same applies to pyrazole compounds and “derivatives” thereof as further recited in claims 1 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-11, 14, and 17-19 are 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.
Regarding Claim 1 and its dependent claims, claim 1 recites that the solvent (c) consists of a component (C-1) which is at least one selected from the group consisting of an imidazole, pyrazole, and a derivative thereof. The specification does not further define what “derivative” may mean, leaving the metes and bounds of this ostensibly closed group uncertain as derivatives of two genera (an imidazole and a pyrazole, respectively) may comprise any number of compounds having any number of modifications to them in addition to the specific species of imidazoles and pyrazoles laid out in the body of the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain.
Claim 17 recites a similar limitation as above with regards to claim 1 – wherein the organic solvent (c) consists of a component (c-1) which is at least one of imidazoles, pyrazoles, and derivatives thereof, and a component (c-2) which is at least one type of fatty acid amide. As with claim 1, the specification does not further define what “derivative” may mean, leaving the metes and bounds of this ostensibly closed group uncertain as derivatives of two genera (imidazole and pyrazole, respectively) may comprise any number of compounds having any number of modifications to them in addition to the specific species of imidazoles and pyrazoles laid out in the body of the claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are uncertain. Claims 18 and 19 are dependent from claim 17 and as such the above also applies to them by nature of dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, 4, 5, 7, and 14, Klipp discusses a liquid composition for resist stripping and methods for manufacturing electrical devices.
Klipp, however, does not disclose an experimental embodiment that distinctly discloses all of the limitations required by the claims.
Rather – these limitations are met by the general disclosure of the reference.
The composition(s) of Klipp comprises (A) polar organic solvent, present in 40-99% by weight, that is capable of dissolving 0.06 to 4% by weight of dissolved tetramethylammonium hydroxide, among other properties; (B) tetramethylammonium hydroxide or another quaternary ammonium hydroxide in 0.05 to less than 0.5% by weight; (C) water in less than 5%. See [0052]
The solvent (A) is described from [0111]-[0114], such as N-methyl imidazole (1-methylimidazole). N-methyl imidazole is a derivative of imidazole and as such meets the limitations of claim 1 for where (c-1) is “at least one selected from the group consisting of an imidazole, a pyrazole, and a derivative thereof”. The solvent (A), or a mixture of solvent including (A), may be present in 40 to 99% by weight of the composition.
The quaternary ammonium compound is described from [0103]-[0105], such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide (claim 4).
An additional polar organic solvent (D) different than the solvent (A) may be included as per ([0118]-[0124]. The additional solvent (D) may include an alkanolamine such as ethanolamine (monoethanolamine) (claim 7), and/or a glycol compound such as diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (claim 5). The additional polar solvent is preferably one having a boiling point greater than 150 degrees Celsius ([0123].
Additional components further include corrosion inhibitors (E), Fluoride salts (F), and surfactants (G).
The second solvent(s) may be included, when present, in a broad range of concentrations, though more preferably in a ratio of A:D being 2:1 to 1:2 or 0.5 to 2 ([0126]). The solvent (A) is present in a range of 40 to 99%.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating a mixture of DMF, ethanolamine, and ethylene glycol into the composition of Klipp in order to improve the copper corrosion suppressing ability of the composition.
Claim(s) 8- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egbe et al (US 20140100151 A1).
Regarding Claim 8 and 9, Klipp discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Klipp does not provide for an alkylhydroxylamine or triazole compound as a component of the compositions contemplated therein.
This limitation is met by Egbe.
Egbe discloses stripping and cleaning compositions for the removal of thick film resists, wherein the compositions comprise at least one alkanolamine or morpholine or a mixture thereof, water, and at least one organic solvent (Abstract).
The alkanolamine of Egbe may be monoethanolamine ([0013]), and the composition may also include quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide and triazoles such as dihydroxypropylbenzotriazole ([0013]-[0049]) (claim 9, where this is a triazole compound). Further components included include hydroxylamines ([0022]) such as diethylhydroxylamine ([0050]). Diethylhydroxylamine is a preferred corrosion inhibitor embodiment.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by incorporating the diethylhydroxylamine of Egbe into the composition of Klipp to improve corrosion inhibition during composition use.
Regarding Claim 10, Klipp discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Klipp and does not disclose a dry film, but Klipp does disclose negative resist processes at [0214]-[0217].
These limitations are met by Egbe.
Egbe discloses stripping and cleaning compositions for the removal of thick film resists, wherein the compositions comprise at least one alkanolamine or morpholine or a mixture thereof, water, and at least one organic solvent (Abstract).
The alkanolamine of Egbe may be monoethanolamine ([0013]), and the composition may also include quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide and triazoles such as dihydroxypropylbenzotriazole ([0013]-[0049]). Further components included include hydroxylamines ([0022]) such as diethylhydroxylamine ([0050]). Diethylhydroxylamine is a preferred corrosion inhibitor embodiment. These are ingredients common to the disclosures of Zi and Egbe.
The compositions of Egbe are suitable for the removal of negative film photoresists ([0064]), including those that are used on substrates that have metallic components such as copper layer or other layers. When describing a stripping method embodiment in [0065], a dry film resist is stripped using the reference’s composition(s) by contacting or dipping into a bath containing the composition. Both Egbe and Klipp are directed to removing negative photoresists.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention by incorporating the composition of Klipp into the processing considerations of Egbe and using Klipp’s composition to strip a dry photoresist post-development, recognizing that the similar component additives of Egbe and Klipp would impart similar performance in removing a dry negative resist.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eto et al (US 2011/0129998 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Klipp discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Klipp however does not teach propylene glycol as a component of the disclosed stripper compositions.
This limitation is met by Eto.
Eto discloses a cleaning liquid for lithography comprising a solvent or mixed solvent, a corrosion inhibitor, and a quaternary ammonium hydroxide compound, wherein the composition is asserted to suppress copper and tungsten corrosion. The solvents of Eto are alkanolamine or another water-soluble organic solvent (polar organic solvent) such as N,N-dimethylformamide (([0027]-[0035]), as well as propylene glycol and ethanolamine (monoethanolamine). The amount of solvent in the composition is 1-82% by mass, wherein the alkanolamine solvent (such as monoethanolamine) is present in 1-50% mass of the composition when a mixed solvent is used.
N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) has a boiling point of 153 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. Ethanolamine has a boiling point of 172 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. Proplyene glycol has a boiling point of 188 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. All of these solvents meet the Boiling Point parameter of Klipp.
The reference ascribes improved corrosion suppression of copper, low dielectric materials, and tungsten to the composition when the solvents mentioned above and in the cited paragraphs are present in an amount ranging from 1-82% by mass of the composition ([0032]).
Further, it is prima facie obvious to combine compositions and elements thereof that are useful for a known purpose to form a new composition to also be used for that same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 – In re Kerkhoven).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating propylene glycol into the composition of Klipp from Eto in order to improve the corrosion suppression effect of the stripper.
Claim(s) 17and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1) and Eto et al (US 2011/0129998 A1).
Regarding Claim 17 and 19, Klipp discloses a liquid composition for resist stripping and methods for manufacturing electrical devices.
The composition(s) of Klipp comprises (A) polar organic solvent, present in 40-99% by weight, that is capable of dissolving 0.06 to 4% by weight of dissolved tetramethylammonium hydroxide, among other properties; (B) tetramethylammonium hydroxide or another quaternary ammonium hydroxide in 0.05 to less than 0.5% by weight; (C) water in less than 5%. See [0052]
The solvent (A) is described from [0111]-[0114], such as N-methyl imidazole (1-methylimidazole. N-methyl imidazole is a derivative of imidazole and as such meets the limitations of claim 17 for where (c-1) is “at least one selected from the group consisting of an imidazole, a pyrazole, and a derivative thereof”. The solvent (A), or a mixture of solvent including (A), may be present in 40 to 99% by weight of the composition (claim 14)
The quaternary ammonium compound is described from [0103]-[0105], such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide.
An additional polar organic solvent (D) different than the solvent (A) may be included as per ([0118]-[0124]. Additional components further include corrosion inhibitors (E), Fluoride salts (F), and surfactants (G). The additional polar solvent is preferably one having a boiling point greater than 150 degrees Celsius ([0123]. The second solvent may be included, when present, in a broad range of concentrations, though more preferably in a ratio of A:D being 2:1 to 1:2 or 0.5 to 2 ([0126]).
Klipp does not disclose a fatty acid amide solvent. This limitation is met by Eto et al (US 20110129998 A1).
Eto discloses a cleaning liquid for lithography comprising a solvent or mixed solvent, a corrosion inhibitor, and a quaternary ammonium hydroxide compound, wherein the composition is asserted to suppress copper and tungsten corrosion. The solvents of Eto are alkanolamine or another water-soluble organic solvent (polar organic solvent) such as N,N-dimethylformamide (([0027]-[0035]), as well as ethylene glycol and ethanolamine (monoethanolamine). The amount of solvent in the composition is 1-82% by mass, wherein the alkanolamine solvent (such as monoethanolamine) is present in 1-50% mass of the composition when a mixed solvent is used.
The reference ascribes improved corrosion suppression of copper, low dielectric materials, and tungsten to the composition when the solvents mentioned above and in the cited paragraphs are present in an amount ranging from 1-82% by mass of the composition.
Further corrosion inhibition is ascribed to the composition when an imidazole compound (1) and a benzotriazole compound (3) is present.
N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) has a boiling point of 153 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. Ethanolamine has a boiling point of 172 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. Proplyene glycol has a boiling point of 188 degrees Celsius and is a polar organic solvent. All of these solvents meet the Boiling Point parameter of Klipp. The composition of Eto covers embodiments wherein, in a mixed solvent, the balance of 1-82% by mass of the composition may be DMF, ethanolamine, and propylene glycol (claim 5)– for example, DMF in a range of 45%, ethanolamine in 1%, and ethylene glycol in 1%. The art suggests any number of permutations of solvent concentrations so long as the balance is between 1 and 82%. The solvent content of Klipp ranges from 45-99%, where a second solvent (such as a DMF) may be incorporated in a ratio of A:D ranging from 1:2 to 2:1 (this ratio is in the range of 0.5 to 2, overlapping the claimed range of 1.1 to 3.6 as set forth in claim 19).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by incorporating a mixture of DMF, ethanolamine, and ethylene glycol into the composition of Klipp in order to improve the copper corrosion suppressing ability of the composition.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egbe et al (US 20140100151 A1) and Irie et al (US 20180259850 A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Klipp discloses the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Klipp does not disclose a dry film, but Klipp does disclose negative resist processes.
These limitations are met by Egbe.
Egbe discloses stripping and cleaning compositions for the removal of thick film resists, wherein the compositions comprise at least one alkanolamine or morpholine or a mixture thereof, water, and at least one organic solvent (Abstract).
The alkanolamine of Egbe may be monoethanolamine ([0013]), and the composition may also include quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide and triazoles such as dihydroxypropylbenzotriazole ([0013]-[0049]). Further components included include hydroxylamines ([0022]) such as diethylhydroxylamine ([0050]). Diethylhydroxylamine is a preferred corrosion inhibitor embodiment. There are ingredients common to the disclosures of Klipp and Egbe.
The compositions of Egbe are suitable for the removal of negative film photoresists ([0064]), including those that are used on substrates that have metallic components such as copper layer or other layers. When describing a stripping method embodiment in [0065], a dry film resist is stripped using the reference’s composition(s) by contacting or dipping into a bath containing the composition. Both Egbe and Klipp are directed to removing negative photoresists.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date, in view of the common components of Zi and Egbe and the establishment that both compositions are directed to the removal of negative photoresist, consider that the composition of Klipp may be used to strip a dry film.
Egbe and Klipp do not specifically disclose a copper post formation process by electrolytically plating the substrate of a developed photoresist.
This limitation is met by Irie.
Irie discloses a photoresist composition for use in a negative resist process in a thick-film pattern (Abstract).
The resist film composition of Irie is disclosed more specifically from [0026]-[0130], wherein the film composition comprises a photoinitiator, monomers, a base resin having an ethylenically unsaturated group, polymers, and other components such as polymerization inhibitors.
Methods for preparing the composition, such as lamination and dry-film resist formation methods, are described from [00125]-[0130], wherein the resist is coated onto a substrate such as a substrate having a metal surface including a copper wiring pattern is preferable ([0127]). As described from [0135]-[0144], after forming the photosensitive layer on the substrate, the layer is exposed to light, and then developed using conventional negative resist development, including rinse steps. After forming the resist pattern is formed the resist pattern is used as a mold to form a plated shaped article such as connecting terminals including a copper post(s) using copper plating. Conventional plating methods are described as suitable - the reference makes mention of electrolytic plating in the Background section as a conventional plating method. After formation of desired features, the mold (the residual resist of the pattern) is stripped. Irie ascribes satisfactory rectangular shape to the plated article resultant from the patterning and plating process.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the composition of Klipp, in view of Egbe, to the dry film and copper plating process of Irie to arrive at a plated article having a copper post thereupon having satisfactory form.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klipp (US 20120058644 A1) and Eto et al (US 2011/0129998 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hara et al (US 2002/0128164 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Klipp and Eto disclose the limitations of the claim as discussed above regarding claim 17.
Neither Klipp nor Eto disclose an N,N-diethyl formamide solvent. Eto discloses N,N-dimethyl formamide and N, N-diethyl acetamide.
This limitation is met by Hara.
Hara discloses a resist stripper composition, wherein the stripper comprises a peroxide and a quaternary ammonium salt, and an organic solvent such as a sulfoxide solvent, N,N-dimethylformamide, N,N-diethyl acetamide, and N,N-diethyl formamide ([0023]-[0024]). Hara considers these solvents to be alternatives to one another by presentation together. Further, it is prima facie obvious to combine compositions and elements thereof that are useful for a known purpose to form a new composition to also be used for that same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 – In re Kerkhoven).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date by substituting the N,N-dimethylformamide of Klipp and Eto as described above regarding claim 17 for N,N-diethylformamide, recognizing that the chemical similarities between the two solvents and their status as art-recognized alternatives to one another would abet similar chemical properties and thus similar performance in a resist stripping composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW PRESTON TRAYWICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/A.P.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights