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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed April 10, 2026, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 1/14/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-6 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno et al (US2014/0087313), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamimura (US2019/0194580), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (US2019/0194580), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizutani (US2019/0119571), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani (US2019/0119571), has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 8, line 4, it is suggested that Applicant delete “comprising” and insert “having”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012/154498.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘498 teaches removal compositions and processes for removing at least one metal impurity from a substrate (e.g., a silicon-containing substrate) having same thereon. Advantageously, the compositions remove metal impurities, e.g., iron, from silicon-containing substrates used as semiconductor devices and solar cell devices. See Abstract. The compositions contain about 0.01% to about 50% by weight of an etchant, about 25% to about 99.9% of water, 0.01 to about 25% of surfactant, etc. See paras. 51-55. Suitable chelating agents include HEDP (1-hydroxyetylidene-1,1’-diphosphonic acid), citric acid, iminodiacetic acid, etc. See para. 42. Suitable surfactants include nonionic, anionic, etc., and mixtures thereof. See para. 43. The composition have a pH value in the range of from about 1 to about 7, more preferably from about 2.5 to about 4.5. See para. 40. A buffer system can be added to achieve and maintain the desired pH, wherein suitable buffering agents include phosphate buffers such as sodium phosphate/disodium phosphate, etc. See paras. 39 and 48. Suitable etchants include hydrogen fluoride (HF), which would form hydrofluoric acid in water, etc. See para. 41. Suitable surfactants include acetylacetone, hexafluoroacetylacetone, etc. See para. 43.
‘498 does not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing hydrofluoric acid, a chelating agent, water, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing hydrofluoric acid, a chelating agent, water, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘498 suggest a composition containing hydrofluoric acid, a chelating agent, water, and the other requisite components of the composition as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Note that, Applicant’s arguments are moot since all prior art rejection(s) set forth in the Office action mailed August 22, 2024, have been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection has been made, as set forth above, which was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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
/G.R.D/June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights