DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18430567 application filed February 1, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 30, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 11-20 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretations
Applicant has elected Group I, which is drawn to a chemical composition, in response to the Election/Restriction requirement. The claims are drawn to a chemical composition, and as such will be examined under such conditions. The process of forming the composition and using the composition, or the material that the composition acts upon are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight. (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Thomas et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200071642), hereinafter “Thomas”:--Claims 1, 8, 10: Thomas teaches a removal composition (abstract), comprising ([0010])(i) an oxidizing agent, such as nitric acid, presents at a concentration 0.001 wt.% - 5 wt.% ([0016]);(ii) a complexing agent, presents at a concentration 0.01 wt.% - 10 wt.% ([0018]);(iii) a cleaning agent comprising a water-miscible organic solvent and/or a polymer, such as acetic acid ([0019-0020]), wherein the concentration of the water-miscible organic solvent is 0.0001-5 wt.% (Claim 12) and of the polymer is 0.0001-20 wt.% ([0020]);(iv) a pH adjusting agent, such as phosphoric acid [0038]), to adjust the pH to a desirable value ([0043]);(v) optionally a fluoride containing compound and/or a surfactant, such as dodecylphosphonic acid (DDPA) and/or benzyldimethyldodecylammonium chloride ([0042]), at a weight ratio to component (i)-(iii) of about 0.001:1 to about 10:1 ([0043]);(vi) a buffer, such as ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, presents at a concentration 0.1-20 wt.% ([0033]); (vii) a metal corrosion inhibitor, such as 1-decyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([0028]) at a concentration of less than 2 wt.% ([0030-0031]); and (vii) water (Claim 1, [0010]). It is noted that ammonium dihydrogen phosphate is also known as ammonium phosphate monobasic. Since components (v)-(vii) have the same chemical formula as the additive recited in claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 (see Claims 2-5 below), they possess the property of reducing an oxidation rate of a MoOx layer, where x is 1 to 5, as taught by Applicant. Although Thomas does not disclose the exact combination of components recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a removal composition comprising the above components from the list of possible components taught by Thomas in the absence of an unexpected result. According to MPEP 2112.01, II, ““Products of identical chemical composition cannot 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.” It is noted that components (i)-(iii) constitute 0.0111-35 wt.% of the composition, component (v) may constitute 0.000001-200% of the composition and component (vi) may constitute 0.1-20 wt.% of the composition, the amount of component (vii) is 0-2 wt.%, the amount of component (iv) is as needed, and water is added to the balance. Thus, the amount of water may be 0-99.89 wt.% of the composition, which overlaps the claimed range of 1-10 wt.% recited in claim 1.--Claim 2: Thomas teaches that component (v) may comprise dodecylphosphonic acid and component (vi) may comprise ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, as shown above.--Claim 3: Thomas teaches that component (vii) may comprise 1-decyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride, as shown above.--Claim 4: Thomas teaches that component (v) may comprise dodecylphosphonic acid, as shown above.--Claim 5: Thomas teaches that component (vi) may comprise ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, also known as ammonium phosphate monobasic, as shown above.--Claim 6: Thomas further teaches that the pH adjusting agent is present at an amount to adjust the pH to a desirable value ([0043]). Therefore, the amount of phosphoric acid in the composition is a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of phosphoric acid in the composition, such as to 1-20 wt.%, because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). --Claim 7: Thomas further teaches that the water miscible organic solvent may be present at a concentration 0.0001-5 wt.% (Table 1). Thomas further teaches to dilute the composition with water and/or water miscible organic solvent at the point of use (Claim 15) from about 1:1 to 2500:1 ([0044]). This reads on the acetic acid, i.e. water miscible organic solvent, concentration recited in claim 7. For example, a composition comprising 5 wt.% of acetic acid, when diluted by 2:1 with acetic acid would comprise 52.5 wt.% of acetic acid.--Claim 9: Thomas does not teaches that the composition comprises any tungsten compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive. Thomas clearly discloses a range of water content that overlaps the claimed range, as explained above.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the composition that Thomas discloses would etch aluminum, copper and tungsten, thus is not suitable to be used as a cleaning solution, this argument is not persuasive. First, Applicant has elected Group I, which is drawn to a chemical composition, in response to the Election/Restriction requirement. The claims are drawn to a chemical composition, and as such will be examined under such conditions. The process of forming the composition and using the composition, or the material that the composition acts upon are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight. (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409).
Secondly, Applicant fails to provide any evidence that only compositions that do not etch a layer at any etch rate may be used to clean that layer, or a composition that etches a layer at any etch rate cannot be used to clean that layer. Third, as shown above, the composition may comprise up to 99.89 wt.% water, and would not etch a metal substantially.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize acetic acid as a potential additive but not as a dilutant, this argument is not persuasive. Any liquid component that is added to the composition would inherently dilute the composition. Applicant fails to provide any evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, Thomas clearly teaches that acetic acid may be used as a water-miscible solvent in paragraph [0020] and Claim 9, and that the composition may be diluted before use by adding solvent ([0044, 0049]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that acetic acid may be used as a diluent for the composition,
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights