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 1-23 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed June 17, 2026, have been entered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 3/19/26 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-15 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), both in view of Agarwal et al (US2016/0179011) or Lee (US2012/0129345), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), both in view of Agarwal et al (US2016/0179011) or Lee (US2012/0129345) as applied to claims 1-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Heo et al (US2016/0376532), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), both in view of Agarwal et al (US2016/0179011) or Lee (US2012/0129345) as applied to claims 1-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Ivanov et al (US 2016/0201016), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), both in view of Agarwal et al (US2016/0179011) or Lee (US2012/0129345) as applied to claims 1-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of EP3,537,474, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730) as applied to claims 1-15 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Tamboli (US11,560,533), has been withdrawn.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 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over WO2021/100353. Note that, Hayashi et al (US 2022/0275519) is a 371 application of WO2021/100353 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/100353. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that since Applicant has not perfected priority and submitted an English language translation of the foreign priority documents, WO2021/100353 qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1). Also, even if Applicant submits English language translation(s) of the priority document, WO2021/100353 will still qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2) (which could be potentially be overcome with a statement of common ownership).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Hayashi et al teach a cleaning liquid for semiconductor substrates having undergone a chemical mechanical polishing process, the cleaning liquid being excellent in corrosion prevention properties and defect suppression performance with respect to a metal film. Another object of the invention is to provide a method of cleaning semiconductor substrates having undergone a chemical mechanical polishing process. A cleaning liquid of the invention is used for semiconductor substrates having undergone a chemical mechanical polishing process and includes: an amine oxide compound that is a compound having an amine oxide group, or its salt; and at least one hydroxylamine compound selected from the group consisting of a hydroxylamine, a hydroxylamine derivative, and their salts, and the amine oxide compound content is 0.00001 to 0.15 mass % based on the total mass of the cleaning liquid. See Abstract. The cleaning liquid may contain an amine compound that is at least one selected from the group consisting of a primary amine having a primary amino group (—NH.sub.2) in the molecule, a secondary amine having a secondary amino group in the molecule, a tertiary amine having a tertiary amino group in the molecule, a quaternary ammonium compound having a quaternary ammonium cation, and their salts. Examples of the primary to tertiary amines include an amino alcohol, an amine having a cyclic structure, and a monoamine other than those. Examples of the amino alcohol include monoethanolamine (MEA), 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), diethylene glycol amine (DEGA), tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris), 2-(methylamino)-2-methyl-1-propanol (N-MAMP), dimethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium hydroxide (AH212), and 2-(2-aminoethylamino)ethanol. Examples of the amine having a cyclic structure include a cyclic amidine compound, etc. The primary to tertiary amines may be used singly or in combination of two or more. The cleaning liquid preferably contains two or more primary to tertiary amines because this leads to even more excellent defect suppression performance (particularly with respect to a Co-containing metal film). When the cleaning liquid contains the primary to tertiary amines, the content thereof is preferably 0.0001 to 0.15 mass % and more preferably 0.0003 to 0.1 mass % based on the total mass of the cleaning liquid. See paras. 168-220.
The pH of the cleaning liquid is more preferably not less than 7.5, even more preferably not less than 8.0, and in terms of providing more excellent corrosion prevention performance with respect to a Cu-containing metal film, particularly preferably more than 9.0, and most preferably not less than 9.5 at 25° C. The upper limit of the pH of the cleaning liquid is not particularly limited and is preferably not more than 13.0. See para. 276. he cleaning liquid may optionally contain other additives than the foregoing components. Examples of such additives include a pH adjuster, an anticorrosive, a polymer, a fluorine compound, and an organic solvent. See para. 249. The pH adjuster may be an acidic compound such as formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, etc., which may be used in amounts from 0.01 to 5 mass % and more preferably 0.02 to 2 mass % based on the total mass of components, excluding a solvent, in the cleaning liquid. See paras. 255-267. Suitable anticorrosives include a purine compound and its derivatives, etc., and combinations thereof. See para. 268. Chelating agents may be used and include hydroxy carboxylic acid-based chelating agent such as malic acid, citric acid, glycolic acid, gluconic acid, heptonic acid, tartaric acid, and lactic acid, with citric acid or tartaric acid being preferred. See para. 96. The chelating agent content of the cleaning liquid is not particularly limited and is, based on the total mass of the cleaning liquid, preferably not more than 0.25 mass % and more preferably not more than 0.1 mass %, with less than 0.02 mass % being even more preferred because this leads to more excellent corrosion prevention performance with respect to a Cu-containing metal film and more excellent removal performance on Co-containing metal residues, and not more than 0.008 mass % being particularly preferred because this leads to more excellent corrosion prevention performance with respect to a Co-containing metal film. See para. 131.
Hayashi et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a purine compound, a compound represented by Formula (A), a cyclic amidine, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant 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 purine compound, a compound represented by Formula (A), a cyclic amidine, 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 Hayashi et al suggest a composition containing a purine compound, a compound represented by Formula (A), a cyclic amidine, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/100353 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, 19, and 23 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US2016/0300730). Note that, Hayashi et al (US 2022/0275519) is a 371 application of WO2021/100353 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/100353.
Hayashi et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Hayashi et al do not teach a specific purine compound and/or N-methyldiethanolamine in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘730 teaches post chemical mechanical planarization cleaning composition of semiconductor substrate for advanced electronics fabrication and packaging. It provides novel corrosion inhibition and quality upmost Cu-low K surfaces to the demanding reliability of nano device and Cu interconnection. See Abstract. Specifically, ‘730 teaches an alkaline aqueous solution in nature with a pH value in the range of 8.5-13.5. An organic base and balance water are used for pH adjustment. The organic bases include, but not limited to, quaternary amine, including tetrahexylammonium hydroxide (THAH), tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAH), tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH), trimethylphenylammonium hydroxide (TMPAH), tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide, etc., which may be used in amounts from 1 wt% to about 10 wt%. See para. 34. A chelate agent, which helps prevent re-deposition of removed metal onto the wafer or interposer surface through metal complexation, includes, but not limited to, N,N,N'-trimethyl-N'-(2-hydroxyethyl) ethylenediamine, N,N-dimethylethylenediamine, N,N'-dimethylethanolamine, isobutanolamine, isopropanolamine, 2-(diethylamino) ethanol, aminoethylethanolamine, N-methylaminoethanol. aminoethoxyethanol, dimethylaminoethoxyethanol, diethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, EDTA, CDTA, HIDA, and N-AEP, 1-methoxy-2-aminoethane, tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), gluconic acid, tartaric acid, dimethyl glyoxime, formic acid, fumaric acid, glutamic acid, glutamine, glutaric acid, glyceric acid, glycerol, glycolic acid, etc., and combinations thereof. The chelating agents may be used in amounts from 1% to 10% by weight. See para. 35.
A corrosion inhibitor, which protects metal surface from attacking through oxidation and/or galvanic corrosion without compromising interference to atop dielectric deposition from CVD or PECVD, includes, but not limited to, purine compound, such as purine, guanine, hypoxanthine, xanthine, caffeine, uric acid, etc. Corrosion inhibitors are used in amounts up to 5% by weight. See para. 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a purine compound such as xanthine or hypoxanthine in the composition taught by Hayashi et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because ‘730 teaches the use of xanthine or hypoxanthine as a corrosion inhibitor in a similar composition and further, Hayashi et al teach the use of purine and its derivatives as suitable corrosion inhibitors in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use N-methyldiethanolamine in the composition taught by Hayashi et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘730 teach the equivalence of triethanolamine to N-methyldiethanolamine as an amine in a similar composition and further, ‘292 or ‘730 teach the use of triethanolamine.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/100353 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, 19, and 23 above, and further in view of Heo et al (US2016/0376532). Note that, Hayashi et al (US 2022/0275519) is a 371 application of WO2021/100353 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/100353.
Hayashi et al are relied upon as set forth above. Hayashi et al do not teach the use of pentamethyldiethylenetriamine in addition to the other requisite components of the composition of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Heo et al teach a cleaner composition that can be used to remove metal oxides and metal abrasive particles arising during metal polishing, such as chemical mechanical planarization (CMP). See Abstract. The cleaner composition of the present invention may further include a compound that is understood as a complexing agent, a chelating agent and/or a sequestering agent by those skilled in the art. These additional components can chemically bind to or be physically fixed to target metal atoms and metal ions. See para. 49. According to one embodiment, the cleaner composition may further include an organic amine. The organic amine acts on metal oxides to uniformly clean the oxidized metal surface. The organic amine may be selected from the group consisting of primary organic amines, second organic amines, and tertiary organic amines. See para. 54. Suitable organic amines include monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, diethylenetriamine, triethylenetetramine, tetraethylenepentamine, pentamethyldiethylenetriamine, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use pentamethyldiethylenetriamine in the composition taught by Hayashi et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Heo et al teach the equivalence of triethanolamine to pentamethyldiethylenetriamine as an amine in a similar composition and further, Hayashi et al teach the use of triethanolamine.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/100353 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, 19, and 23, and further in view of EP3,537,474. Note that, Hayashi et al (US 2022/0275519) is a 371 application of WO2021/100353 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2021/100353.
Hayashi et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Hayashi et al do not teach the use of an amine such as N-ethyldiethanolamine in addition to the other requisite components of the composition of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
‘474 teaches an improved stripper solutions for removing photoresists from substrates are provided that typically have flash points above about 95 °C and high loading capacities. The stripper solutions comprise diethylene glycol butyl ether, quaternary ammonium hydroxide, and an alkanolamine having at least two carbon atoms, etc. See Abstract. Suitable alkanolamines have at least two carbon atoms and have the amino and hydroxyl substituents on different carbon atoms. Suitable alkanolamines include, but are not limited to, ethanolamine, N-methylethanolamine, N-ethylethanolamine, N-propylethanolamine, N-butylethanolamine, dimethylethanolamine, diethylethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, N-ethyldiethanolamine, etc. See para. 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use N-ethyldiethanolamine in the composition taught by Hayashi et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, ‘474 teaches the equivalence of N-ethyldiethanolamine to triethanolamine as an amine in a similar composition and further, Hayashi et al teach the use of triethanolamine.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/100353 as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-15, 19, and 23, and further in view of Ivanov et al (US 2016/0201016).
Hayashi et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Hayashi et al do not teachthe use of adenosine or theobromine in addition to the other requisite components of the composition of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Ivanov et al teach composition for cleaning contaminants from semiconductor wafers following chemical-mechanical polishing. The cleaning composition contains one or more quaternary ammonium hydroxides, one or more organic amines, one or more metal inhibitors, and water. See Abstract. Any suitable metal inhibitor can be used in the composition. The metal inhibitor serves to protect metals typically found on a semiconductor wafer by interacting with the metal surface. The metal inhibitor of some embodiments is a purine selected from guanine, xanthine, hypoxanthine, theophylline, paraxanthine, theobromine, caffeine, uric acid, adenosine, guanosine, or any combination thereof. See para. 64.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use adenosine or theobromine in the composition taught by Hayashi et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ivanov et al teach the equivalence of adenosine or theobromine as corrosion inhibitors in a similar composition and further, Hayashi et al teach the use of purine derivatives in general as corrosion inhibitors.
Response to Arguments
Note that, Applicant’s arguments are moot since all prior art rejection(s) set forth in the Office action mailed March 19, 2026, have been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection has been made, as set forth above, which was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
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/July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights