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 Invention I in the reply filed on January 23rd, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 23rd, 2025.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (WO 2022024636 A1).
With regard to claims 1-5, Mizutani discloses a chemical solution which has an excellent ability to dissolve ruthenium and reduces the amount of remaining ruthenium as well as the amount of remaining sodium (see Abstract). Mizutani further discloses 5wt% or less of a buffering agent (see page 5 paragraph 6) and HEPES as a suitable buffering agent (see page 5 paragraph 4). Mizutani further teaches aminopolycarboxylic acid as a suitable chelating agent (see page 5 paragraph 6), for example CyDTA (see page 7 paragraph 2) at 0.01-10.0wt% (see page 9 paragraph 5). Mizutani further discloses water at 50.0wt% or more (see page 4 paragraph 7) and a pH of 7.0-14.0 (see page 4 paragraph 5). Mizutani further discloses the substrate to be cleaned may be a silicon wafer (see page 12 paragraph 2). The instant specifications disclose silicon as a Low-k material.
Claims 6-8, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (WO 2022024636 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (CN 112080279 A).
With regard to claims 6-8, Mizutani discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Mizutani further discloses the solution may comprise arbitrary components, including amine compounds (see page 4 paragraph 6).
However, Mizutani fails to disclose a third agent.
Wu discloses an etching composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Wu further discloses 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide as a basic compound (see page 2 paragraph 5) at 1-25wt% (see page 2 paragraph 3). 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide is an amine compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide of Wu in the composition of Mizutani as Mizutani discloses amine compounds as arbitrary components and 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide is an amine compound. Further, both Mizutani and Wu disclose a semiconductor cleaning composition and are therefore analogous.
With regard to claims 12-14, Mizutani discloses 31wt% of hydrogen peroxide (see page 14 paragraph 4). While Mizutani fails to disclose 5-30wt% of hydrogen peroxide, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
With regard to claim 15, Mizutani discloses 5wt% or less of a buffering agent (see page 5 paragraph 6) and HEPES as a suitable buffering agent (see page 5 paragraph 4). Mizutani further discloses CyDTA (see page 7 paragraph 2) at 0.01-10wt% (see page 9 paragraph 5).
However, Mizutani fails to disclose a third agent.
Wu discloses an etching composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Wu further discloses 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide as a basic compound (see page 2 paragraph 5) at 1-25wt% (see page 2 paragraph 3). 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide is an amine compound.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide of Wu in the composition of Mizutani as Mizutani discloses amine compounds as arbitrary components and 4-Methylmorpholine N-oxide is an amine compound. Further, both Mizutani and Wu disclose a semiconductor cleaning composition and are therefore analogous.
With regard to claim 17, Mizutani discloses 31wt% of hydrogen peroxide (see page 14 paragraph 4). While Mizutani fails to disclose 5-30wt% of hydrogen peroxide, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, see Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (WO 2022024636 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakajima (JP 2009212383 A).
With regard to claims 9-11, Mizutani discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mizutani fails to disclose ethanolamine or methyl monoethanolamine.
Nakajima discloses a cleaner composition for semiconductors (see Abstract). Nakajima further discloses component A as ethanolamine (see page 3 paragraph 2 and page 3 paragraph 5). Nakajima further discloses component A at 0.1-50wt% for the purpose of corrosion prevention (see page 5 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethanolamine of Nakajima in the semiconductor composition of Mizutani for the purpose of corrosion prevention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (WO 2022024636 A1), in view of Wu (CN 112080279 A), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nakajima (JP 2009212383 A).
With regard to claim 16, Mizutani and Wu disclose all of the limitations of claim 15.
However, Mizutani and Wu fail to disclose ethanolamine or methyl monoethanolamine.
Nakajima discloses a cleaner composition for semiconductors (see Abstract). Nakajima further discloses component A as ethanolamine (see page 3 paragraph 2 and page 3 paragraph 5). Nakajima further discloses component A at 0.1-50wt% for the purpose of corrosion prevention (see page 5 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the ethanolamine of Nakajima in the semiconductor composition of Mizutani for the purpose of corrosion prevention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761