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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/08/2026.
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 6 is canceled, claim 8 is new, and claims 1 and 4 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, have fully been considered. The rejection of claims 1-5, and 7 under 35. U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Takahashi (WO2022044893A1) are maintained.
The Applicant argues the newly amended pH range of claim 1 is not obvious over general teachings of Takahashi. The examiner disagrees however. Takahashi’s cleaning liquid for a semiconductor device comprising hydrofluoric acid and sulfonic acid can have a pH of between 0-14, and is not limited to a pH of 6-12 (see [0336]). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect Takahashi’s cleaning composition to retain a satisfactory corrosion prevention effect of the cobalt-containing layer in the pH range of 5.2-5.8, even if at a pH of 6 the effect is further improved (see [0336]).
The Applicant argues that the claimed invention in the pH range of 5.2-5.8 can provide unexpected results sufficient to establish nonobviousness with respect to 35 U.S.C 103. In Table 1, Examples 4-9 show 100% cleaning performance at a pH of 5.7 whereas Examples 5 and 10 show 98-100% cleaning performance at a pH of 6 (see page 24). While the cleaning performance at a pH of 5.7 is better than the cleaning composition at a pH of 6, the 2% or less difference in cleaning performance is not sufficient to demonstrate superior performance and nonobviousness. The cleaning composition is still able to achieve comparable cleaning performance at a pH of 6. Therefore, the advantageous effect of the claimed invention in the 5.2-5.8 pH range is not unexpected from Takahashi’s invention or general teachings which teach a pH range of 0-14 (see [0336]).
Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are also are made below.
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.
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, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamboli et. al (WO2022047053A1) hereinafter Tamboli.
With regards to claim 1, Tamboli teaches a cleaning composition comprising water, two different types of surfactants, optionally a fluoride compound, and pH adjusting ingredients (see Abstract). Specifically teaches the use of aliphatic sulfonic acid (acrylamido-propane sulfonic acid) and hydrofluoric acid as a fluoride source (see [0018]). Tamboli teaches the cleaning composition to be used to clean semiconductor wafer with cobalt films and the pH of the composition ranges from preferably 3-6 (see [0021]; see also [0009]).
Although the sulfonic acid, and hydrofluoric acid are not taught in a single embodiment to the point of anticipation, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing to combine them into a single cleaning composition in view of the general teachings of Tamboli. This combination would have the added benefit of improving residue removal desired in semiconductor manufacturing processing (see [0002]).
With regards to claim 2, the use of an oxidizing agent is not taught by Tamboli and hence, is not required in the cleaning composition.
With regards to claims 3-4, acrylamido-propane sulfonic acid structurally comprises of a C2 alkyl. Tamboli teaches the use of 0.1-5 wt% copolymers in the composition (see [0019]).
With regards to 5, Tamboli teaches the use of 1-1.5 wt% (10000-15000 ppm) of the fluoride compound, such as hydrofluoric acid, in the composition and then diluting 2-500 times (20ppm-7500ppm) (see [0055]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 8, Tamboli teaches the pH of the composition ranges from preferably 3-6 (see [0006]).
Claims 1-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et. al (WO2022044893A1) hereinafter Takahashi (English translation and citations below provided through US2023/0287304).
Takahashi teaches the composition of a processing liquid for a semiconductor device (see Abstract). With regards to claim 1, 3 and 7-8, Takahashi teaches a treatment containing water, a removing agent, and a resin where the removing agent can be hydrofluoric acid and further comprise sulfonic acid (see [0015]; see also [0024]). Methanesulfonic acid is cited as a preferable example of sulfonic acid (see [0218]). Two or more kinds of removing agents can be used in combination to improve removal performance of dry etching residues, according to Takahashi (see [0227]-[0228]). The treatment liquid is further taught to treat a substrate with a metal containing substance such as preferably cobalt, where the metal containing substance may be disposed on the surface of the substrate (see [0039]; see also [0416]-[0417])). Takahashi teaches the pH of the treatment liquid to be between 0-14, preferably 6-12 further stating “in a case where the pH of the treatment liquid is 6 or more, the corrosion prevention effect of the cobalt-containing layer is further improved” (see [0336]). However, the pH range of the invention is not limited and covers the instant claimed ranged of 5.2-5.8.
Although Takahashi does not explicitly teach a treatment liquid comprising both hydrofluoric acid, and methanesulfonic acid, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date formulate a treatment liquid comprising of hydrofluoric acid and methanesulfonic acid, two kinds of removing agents in combination, for the expected benefit of improving the removal performance of dry etching residues (see [0027]-[0028]).
With regards to claim 2, Takahashi teaches the optional use of an oxidizing agent (see [0232]). As the use is optional, the composition need not have an oxidizing agent.
With regards to claim 4, Takahashi teaches the treatment composition to comprise of preferably 0.01-10 mass % inorganic acid, including sulfuric acid (see [0188]).
With regards to claim 5, Takahashi teaches the fluorine containing compound, preferably hydrofluoric acid, to comprise preferably 0.1-5 mass% (1000-50000 ppm) of the treatment liquid (see [0139]-[0141]). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (1000-3000ppm hydrofluoric acid) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights