DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0227049 (hereinafter referred to as Yamanaka).
Yamanaka, in the abstract, [0013]-[0017], discloses an organic processing liquid that can be an organic developer and a rinsing liquid wherein the organic processing liquid includes an organic solvent and the organic processing liquid has a metal concentration of Fe, Cr, and Ni of less than 5ppm (includes the claimed content), and an organic impurity content (organic compound having a carbon number of less than about 22) of 1ppm (claims 1-2, 5-6).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2015/190174 and using U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0059995 (hereinafter referred to as Furutani) as its English Translation Equivalent.
Furutani, in [0761]-[0762], and [0765]-[0768], discloses that the organic solvent-containing developer or rinsing liquid that includes impurities such as metal and various other materials (including organic content) to be in an amount less than 1ppm, and Furutani, in [0761], discloses that the organic solvent developer or organic solvent rinsing liquid to include an metal element in a concentration of less than 10ppt (includes the claimed metal elements) (claims 1-2, 4-6, 8).
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.
Claim(s) 3, and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0227049 (hereinafter referred to as Yamanaka) or WO2015/190174 and using U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0059995 (hereinafter referred to as Furutani) as its English Translation Equivalent in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0245127 (hereinafter referred to as Suzuki).
Yamanaka is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Furutani is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and either Yamanaka or Furutani is that Yamanaka and Furutani do not disclose the claimed organic impurity recited in claims 3 and 7, as the impurity in the developer or rinsing processing liquid.
Suzuki in the abstract, and [0002], discloses the use of a cleaning liquid (cleaning agent) to clean electronic materials such as semiconductor substrate, and Suzuki, in [0076]-[0079], discloses that the substrate is immersed in the cleaning agent (cleaning liquid) and the organic matter to be cleaned from the substrate that is immersed in the cleaning liquid includes plasticizers such as dioctyl phthalate i.e., the organic impurity in the immersed cleaning liquid includes dioctyl phthalate.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yamanaka or Furutani by including in the organic solvent-containing developer or rinsing liquid the claimed phthalate because both Yamanaka and Furutani discloses that less than 1ppm or organic content is included in the developer or rinsing liquid and does not prohibit the claimed impurity from being included in the organic solvent.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 22, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,942,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1, 22, and 23, discloses the use of a chemical liquid that can be used to wash or remove patterned resist i.e., a developer or rinsing liquid, wherein the chemical liquid includes an organic solvent and the impurities in the chemical liquid include less than 100 mass ppt of Fe, Cr, Ni and Pb and less than 5000 mass ppm of organic impurity of dioctyl phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, dioctyl adipate, dibutyl phthalate, ethylene rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, and an addition polymer of 5-ethylidene-2-norbornene, and thereby fully encompasses claims 1-8 of the instant application.
Claims 1-8, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,489 discloses a solution that comprises an organic solvent and metal components such as Fe, Cr, Ni, and Pb in an amount of less than 10 mass ppt and an organic impurity such as diisononyl phthalate, dioctyl adipate, dibutyl phthalate, ethylene propylene rubber, dimethyl phthalate, p-toluic acid, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, addition polymer of 5-ethylidene-2-norbornene in an amount of 100 mass ppm, wherein the solution can be used as a developer or solvent for actinic ray-sensitive composition in semiconductor device manufacturing process and inherently includes the solvent being used as a rinsing liquid, and thereby fully encompasses claims 1-8 of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 June 13, 2026.
Prosecution Insights