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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and Group II overlap in scope, for example, claims 1 and 11 both require “DIW,” (deionized water). This is not found persuasive because the groups are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the previous office action, and while the groups both require DIW, Groups I-II have materially different components, e.g., ammonium salt in Group I vs diamine in Group II, which are obvious variants, and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because the inventions have different CPC classifications, require a different field of search and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 8, line 6, “aminopiperidine,1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU),” should be rewritten as two separate components by adding a space between the two components, i.e., “aminopiperidine, 1,8-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene (DBU),”
b) in claim 9, line 5, “ammonium lactate” is a duplicate; please see the first occurrence of the same compound in line 4,
c) in claim 10, line 2, the units of the electrical conductivity, i.e., “µs/cm” (two occurrences) should be re-written as “µS/cm” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, line 4, the compounds “imidazoltan, 22-methylimidazole,” are not understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al. (US Patent No. 6,828,289), hereinafter “Peters.”
Regarding claims 1-2, Peters teaches a composition containing an organic polar solvent, a fluoride, an acidic buffer solution, and water, wherein the composition is useful in removing photoresist and etch residues during the processing of substrates used in the manufacture of semiconductor and microelectronic devices (col. 2, lines 43-55), , hence, the composition reads on the “stripper composition” of the instant claims. In Example 1, Peters teaches a composition which consists of 12.0 wt% acetic acid (glacial), 15.2 wt% ammonium acetate (both of which read on the acidic buffer solution or pH-adjusting agent), 57.5 wt% DMAC (dimethylacetamide, an organic polar solvent), 2.5 wt% ammonium fluoride (i.e., ammonium salt) and 12.4 wt% deionized water (see col. 5, lines 19-35).
Regarding claim 10, even though Peters does not explicitly disclose the electrical conductivity of the above composition, it would be inherent for the composition of Peters to exhibit the same property because the same composition consisting of the same ingredients have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Peters anticipates the instant claims 1-2 and 10.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egbe et al. (US 2006/0016785), hereinafter “Egbe.”
Regarding claim 1-3 and 6, Egbe teaches in Example A2, a stripper and cleaner composition which consists of 62.7 wt% PGME (propylene glycol methyl or monomethyl ether, a polar organic solvent), 25 wt% DI water (deionized water), 1 wt% TMAF (tetramethyl ammonium fluoride, an ammonium salt), 3 wt% lactic acid (which reads on pH-adjusting agent), and 8.3 wt% TEAH (tetraethylammonium hydroxide, also reads on the pH-adjusting agent) (see ¶ [0028], [0030], [0033] and Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, even though Egbe does not explicitly disclose the electrical conductivity of the above composition, it would be inherent for the composition of Egbe to exhibit the same property because the same composition consisting of the same ingredients have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Egbe anticipates the instant claims 1-3, 6 and 10.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egbe as applied to claims 1-3, 6 and 10 above, as evidenced by Takeshi et al. (JP 2009116243 A), hereinafter “Takeshi.”
Regarding claim 7, Egbe teaches the features as discussed above. Even though Egbe does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the PGME, i.e., propylene glycol methyl or monomethyl ether, which is a polar organic solvent, as evidenced by Takeshi, the dielectric constant of PGME is 12 (see No. 6, second from the last page of the English Translation), which meets the dielectric constant of 30 or less in instant claim 7.
Hence, Egbe as evidenced by Takeshi anticipates instant claim 7.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2017/0037344), hereinafter “Chang.”
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Chang teaches a photoresist cleaning composition for stripping a photoresist pattern, which comprises (a) 0.5-5 mass % of at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide or mixtures of two or more quaternary ammonium hydroxides; (b) 60-97.5 mass % of a mixture of water-soluble organic solvent comprising dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO), sulfolane or dimethylsulfone or mixtures thereof and at least one additional organic solvent or two or more additional organic solvents; (c) 0.5-15 mass % of at least one corrosion inhibitor; and (d) 0.5-25 mass % of water (see ¶ [0014]). The at least one corrosion inhibitors includes tert-butyl catechol or ammonium benzoate, among others (see ¶ [0016]). In Example No. 47C, Chang teaches a photoresist cleaning composition for stripping a photoresist pattern which consists of 91.50 mass % DMSO (dimethylsulfoxide, which is a polar organic solvent), 2.00 mass % PG (propylene glycol, which is a diol alcohol, also a polar organic solvent) (a total of 93.50 mass % polar organic solvent, which reads on instant claim 3), 4.12 mass % DIW (de-ionized water), 1.00 mass % TBC (tertiary butyl catechol, a corrosion inhibitor) and 1.38 mass % TEAH (tetraethylammonium hydroxide, a quaternary ammonium hydroxide, which reads on the pH-adjusting agent (see Table on page 10 and ¶ [0079]). Chang, however, fails to specifically disclose an ammonium salt, say in Example No. 47C above, as recited in claims 1-2, like ammonium benzoate as recited in claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tertiary butyl catechol corrosion inhibitor in Example No. 47C with ammonium benzoate corrosion inhibitor, which is an ammonium salt, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Chang in ¶ [0016] is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one corrosion inhibitor for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Chang, as discussed above, teaches 0.5-5 mass % of at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide (see ¶ [0014]), for example, TEAH (tetraethylammonium hydroxide (see Example No. 47C in Table on page 10). Chang, however, fails to disclose 0.1 mass % or 0.1 wt% of TEAH.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (0.1 wt% of instant claim 8 vs 0.5 mass % in Chang) 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.
Regarding claim 10, even though Chang does not explicitly disclose the electrical conductivity of the above composition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the composition of Chang to exhibit similar property because similar compositions having similar ingredients have been utilized, hence would behave similarly.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 112080279 A), hereinafter “Wu.” Please note that the English translation of Wu will be used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 4-6, Chang teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Chang teaches that the at least one additional organic solvent includes propylene glycol, dipropyleneglycol methyl ether or other glycol ethers (see ¶ [0016]). Chang, however, fails to disclose the polar organic solvent being a linear alcohol like ethanol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol or heptanol as recited in claim 4; or a branched alcohol like 4-methyl-2-pentanol as recited in claim 5; or a glycol ether like propylene glycol methyl ether as recited in claim 6.
Wu, an analogous art, teaches an etching composition which comprises solvents like ethanol, butanol, pentanol, hexanol or heptanol (which are linear alcohols), 4-methyl-2-pentanol (which is a branched alcohol) or propylene glycol methyl ether (which is a glycol ether), among others (see claim 11).
Regarding claims 4-5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the propylene glycol of Chang with ethanol or 4-methyl-2-pentanol, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as shown by Wu is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one polar organic solvent for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized propylene glycol methyl ether as the specific glycol ether because Chang specifically desires other glycol ethers and Wu provides said glycol ether.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-10 above, as evidenced by Takeshi.
Regarding claim 7, Chang teaches the features as discussed above. Chang, however, fails to explicitly disclose the polar organic solvent like propylene glycol methyl ether (PGME) having a dielectric constant of 30 or less.
As evidenced by Takeshi, the dielectric constant of PGME is 12 (see No. 6, second from the last page of the English Translation).
Even though Chang does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of PGME, as evidenced by Takeshi, the dielectric constant of PGME is 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761