DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/06/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, as to the point that applied prior art, Oie fails to disclose a composition having cobalt removal rate of at least 20nm, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIMURA et al (TW1708840B).
Regarding claims 1,4-5 and 10, KAMIMURA et al disclose a treatment solution (composition) comprises a fluorine-containing compound, such as hydrofluoric acid, ammonium fluoride, which reads on the claimed etchant (abstract, page 4 in the translation); a corrosion inhibitor including 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole (5- MBTA) (see page 26 in the machine translation), which resemble as the claimed “first corrosion inhibitor” of claims 1 and 4; and in addition, a hydrophilic polymer can be used as the corrosion inhibitor. Examples of hydrophilic polymers include polyethylene glycols and other polyethylene glycols, polyethylene glycol alkyl ethers, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, (see page 9 in the machine translation), which resemble as the claimed “second corrosion inhibitor”; and aforesaid reads on the claimed second corrosion inhibitor includes a N-hetero-atom-containing aromatic compound with regards to claims 1,5 and 10.
KAMIMURA et al also disclose that the corrosion inhibitor may be used alone or in combination of two or more. When two or more corrosion inhibitors are used in combination (see, last paragraph at page 12 in the machine translation).
KAMIMURA et al may not explicitly disclose using the first and the second corrosion inhibitor is combined in the composition but additionally, disclosed that the corrosion inhibitor may be used alone or in combination of two or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any combination of the corrosion inhibitor in the KAMIMURA et al’s teaching including the 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole and polyvinylpyrrolidone defined in the applicant’s claims 1 and 4-5 (the first and the second corrosion inhibitor) because it has been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose." In re Kerkhoven 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
KAMIMURA et al also disclose that the composition contains an oxidizing agent and examples of the oxidizing agent include hydrogen peroxide, peroxide, iodate, periodic acid, hypochlorite, etc. (page 16 at the machine translation).
In the above disclosure, KAMIMURA et al may not explicitly disclose that the composition has a cobalt removal rate of at least 20 nm per minute.
However, KAMIMURA et al disclose that object of the present invention is to provide a treatment solution that has excellent residue removal ability, excellent corrosion resistance to a metal layer containing cobalt (Co), and can suppress the occurrence of defects (abstract); and additionally, the specified cobalt removal rate would have been an intended use of the composition is not given a patentable weight; and KAMIMURA et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as clamed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the first and second corrosion inhibitors inhibits chemical reaction of the first material and the second material, respectively, would have been the intended use of such inhibitors because they are capable of performing such as the first and the second inhibitors of KAMIMURA et al, are similar in nature and expected to have the same effect.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMIMURA et al (TW1708840B) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Hong et al (US 2022/0049160; provided with the IDS of dated 3/7/2024).
KAMIMURA et al disclose above for claims 1 and 4 but fail to disclose the corrosion inhibitor comprises 4-(3-phenylpropyl)pyridine as the corrosion inhibitor with the context of claims 6 and 8.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hong et al disclose metal corrosion inhibitors are added to block the oxidative activity of the oxidizing agent(s). Metal corrosion inhibitors contemplated herein include, 4-(3-phenylpropyl)pyridine and 5-methyl-benzotriazole [0031],[0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Hong et al's teaching of using both the 4-(3-phenylpropyl)pyridine and 5-methyl-benzotriazole as corrosion inhibitor into the teaching of KAMIMURA et al because they are functional equivalent during corrosion inhibition.
Additionally, it would have been simple substitution of known materials for predictable result.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, KAMIMURA et al disclose that the composition comprises a corrosion inhibitor; and specific examples thereof include polyvinylpyrrolidone [see, page 9]; and aforesaid “polyvinylpyrrolidone” reads on the claimed second corrosion inhibitor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights