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 1-9 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed August 26, 2026, have been entered.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 26, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 6/15/26 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claim 8 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012/154498, has been withdrawn.
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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2007/0161528).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Wu et al teach A residue cleaning composition includes: (a) water; (b) a fluoride; ( c) a pH buffer system including an organic acid and a base. The organic acid can be an aminoalkylsulfonic acid and/or an aminoalkylcarboxylic acid. The base can be an amine and/or a quaternary alkylammonium hydroxide. The composition is substantially free of an added organic solvent and has a pH ranging from about 5 to about 12. See Abstract. The composition optionally includes a corrosion inhibitor and other additives that are typically used in compositions for removing ashed photoresist and/or processing residue. See para. 22. Examples of suitable quaternary ammonium hydroxide compounds include tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide, trimethylethylammonium hydroxide, etc. See para. 30. Suitable fluoride compounds include hydrofluoric acid, etc., which is present in amounts from 0.01% to 10% by weight. See para. 32. Preferably, water is present in amounts of about 50% by weight or greater, or about 65% by weight or greater, or about 82.5% by weight or greater. In certain embodiments, water constitutes 65-99.7 wt. % of the composition, or 82.5-98.8 wt. % of the composition. See para. 33. Suitable aminoalkylcarboxylic acids include glycine, alanine, etc. See paras. 26 and 27. Corrosion inhibitors may be used in amounts up to 15% by weight, or about 0.2 to about 10% by weight and include citric acid, etc. See para. 34. Suitable additives include one or more of the following additives: surfactants, chelating agents, chemical modifiers, dyes, biocides, and other additives. See para. 35.
Wu et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition having a pH of from 3 to 7, the 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 having a pH of from 3 to 7, the 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 having a pH of from 3 to 7, the 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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2007/0161528) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2005/0081885).
Wu et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Wu et al do not teach the use of trifluoroacetylacetone in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Zhang et al teach process solutions for the removal of processing residue from semiconductor substrates following CMP processing. See para. 7. The compositions may contain a chelating agent in amounts from 10 ppm to 5% by weight, wherein suitable chelating agents include trifluoroacetylacetone, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use trifluoroacetylacetone in the composition taught by Wu et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Zhang et al teach the use of trifluoroacetylacetone as a chelating agent in a similar composition and further, Wu et al teach the use of chelating agents in general.
Response to Arguments
Note that, Applicant’s arguments are moot since all prior art rejection(s) set forth in the Office action mailed June 15, 2026, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
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/September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights