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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 and 6-15, in the reply filed on August 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 4, 2025.
Claim Listing
It is noted that there is no claim 5 in Applicant’s claims listing. For purposes of examination, claim 5 will be read as “Cancelled.” Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate claim 5 as being cancelled in future claim listings.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0048295 to Du et al.
As to claim 1, Du discloses a composition comprising: at least one pH adjuster (see Du paragraph [0059] disclosing one or more pH adjusting agents, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide and tetraethylammonium hydroxide); at least one chelating agent (see Du paragraphs [0031]-[0035] disclosing agents, such as malic acid and citric acid); at least one anionic surfactant (see Du paragraph [0064]); at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle (see Du paragraphs [0061]-[0063] disclosing benzotriazole and imidazole); at least one alkylamine compound (see Du paragraph [0059] disclosing that the composition can include one or more pH adjusting agents including hexylamine and octylamine); and water (read as an aqueous solvent (see Du paragraph [0018]); wherein the composition has a pH of from about 6 to 10 (see Du paragraph [0053]) (see MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
As to claim 2, Du discloses that the pH adjusting agent can be tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide (see Du paragraph [0059]).
As to claim 3, Du discloses that the optional pH adjuster, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide, can be added together with alkanolamine in sufficient amount to adjust the cleaning formulation to the desired pH and that the concentration of the alkanolamine can be between about 0.1 and 15% (see Du paragraphs [0054] and [0060]; see MPEP 2144.05(II) where routine optimization is prima facie obvious and in this case, optimization of the pH adjuster would be obvious since the claimed pH ranges overlap).
As to claim 4, Du discloses that the chelating agent can be malic acid or citric acid (see Du paragraph [0031]).
As to claim 6, Du discloses that the chelating agent can be in an amount of from about 0.01 to about 15% (see Du paragraph [0035]).
As to claim 8, Du discloses that the anionic surfactant can be present up to about 0.5 wt% (see Du paragraph [0064]).
As to claims 9 and 10, Du discloses that the at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle can be benzotriazole or imidazole (see Du paragraph [0062]) in an amount of from about 0.001% to about 10% (see Du paragraph [0063]).
As to claims 11-13, Du discloses that optional pH adjuster can be the at least one alkylamine compound and can comprise an amino group and a 6-24 carbon alkyl group, such as hexylamine and octylamine (see Du paragraph [0059]). Du discloses that the optional pH adjuster, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide, can be added together with alkanolamine in sufficient amount to adjust the cleaning formulation to the desired pH and that the concentration of the alkanolamine can be between about 0.1 and 15% (see Du paragraphs [0054] and [0060]; see MPEP 2144.05(II) where routine optimization is prima facie obvious and in this case, optimization of the pH adjuster would be obvious since the claimed pH ranges overlap).
As to claims 14 and 15, Du discloses that the composition is substantially free of abrasive particles, which would be below the 0.2% of abrasive particles (see Du paragraph [0068]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0048295 to Du et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. 2016/0075971 to Liu et al.
Du is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, Du does not explicitly disclose that the at least one anionic surfactant comprises one or more phosphate groups and one or more of the following: a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain, zero to eighteen ethylene oxide groups, or a combination of a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain and multiple ethylene oxide groups. Liu discloses a similar composition where the surfactant can be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester (see Liu paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the surfactant to be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester as disclosed by Liu since Liu discloses the benefits of said surfactants in the cleaning (see Liu paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-101476A to Saito (see machine translation).
As to claim 1, Saito discloses a composition comprising: at least one pH adjuster (see Saito paragraph [0046] disclosing quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide and tetraethylammonium hydroxide can be added); at least one chelating agent (see Saito paragraphs [0015]-[0020] disclosing agents, such as citric acid, oxalic acid, gluconic acid, etc.); at least one anionic surfactant (see Saito paragraphs [0036]-[0045]); at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle (see Saito paragraph [0046] disclosing copper corrosion inhibitors, such as imidazole); at least one alkylamine compound (see Saito paragraphs [0021]-[0032] disclosing alkylamines such as hexylamine); and water (read as an aqueous solvent) (see Saito paragraph [0046]); wherein the composition has a pH of from about 5 to 12 (see Saito paragraph [0033]) (see MPEP 2144.05(I) where in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists).
As to claim 2, Saito discloses that the at least one pH adjuster can be tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide (see Saito paragraph [0046]).
As to claims 4 and 6, Saito discloses that the at least one chelating agent can be citric acid, oxalic acid or gluconic acid (see Saito paragraph [0019]) and can be in an amount of from about 0.1 to 2 wt.%. (see Saito paragraph [0020]).
As to claim 8, Saito discloses that the at least one anionic surfactant can be in an amount of from about 0.25 to 0.5 wt.% (see Saito paragraph [0045]).
As to claim 9, Saito discloses that the at least one nitrogen containing heterocycle can be imidazole (see Saito paragraph [0046]).
As to claims 11-13, Saito discloses that the at least one alkylamine compound can be hexylamine (see Saito paragraphs [0021]-[0032]) in an amount of about 0.05 to 0.5 wt.% (see Saito paragraph [0032]).
As to claims 14 and 15, Saito discloses that the composition is used as a cleaning liquid to remove residues, such as polishing debris and abrasive grains from the CMP process (see Saito paragraphs [0008] and [0032]) and it is reasonably expected that the composition is substantially free of abrasive particles.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-101476A to Saito (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2014-154625A to Harada et al. (see machine translation).
Saito is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, Saito does not explicitly disclose at the quaternary ammonium hydroxide, such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide or tetraethylammonium hydroxide, is in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight of the composition. Harada discloses a similar composition and discloses that the quaternary ammonium hydroxide is used as a pH adjuster in an appropriate amount to improve the cleaning (see Harada paragraphs [0035]-[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the amount of quaternary ammonium hydroxide through routine optimization to adjust the pH to the desired level (see, e.g., Harada paragraph [0096] disclosing 8 wt.% of TEAH).
As to claim 10, Saito does not explicitly disclose that the corrosion inhibitor, such as imidazole, is in an amount from about 0.0005% to about 0.5%. Harada discloses a similar composition and discloses that the corrosion inhibitor, such as imidazole, is in an amount from 0.000001 to 1 wt.% (see Harada paragraph [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the corrosion inhibitor be within the disclosed range in order to optimize the anticorrosion effect (see Harada paragraph [0074]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014-101476A to Saito (see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. 2016/0075971 to Liu et al.
Saito is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, while Saito discloses that the anionic surfactant can be phosphate ester type anionic surfactants (see Saito paragraph [0043]), Saito does not explicitly disclose that the at least one anionic surfactant comprises one or more phosphate groups and one or more of the following: a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain, zero to eighteen ethylene oxide groups, or a combination of a six to twenty four carbon alkyl chain and multiple ethylene oxide groups. Liu discloses a similar composition where the surfactant can be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester (see Liu paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the surfactant to be dodecyl phosphate or phosphate polyether ester as disclosed by Liu since Liu discloses the benefits of said surfactants in the cleaning (see Liu paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714