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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 2, paragraph [0004], “WO2018/61582” should be replaced with “WO2018/061582.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (US 2019/0194580, already cited in IDS dated 02/16/2024).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9, Kamimura teaches a treatment liquid for a semiconductor device, which contains a fluorine-containing compound and a water-soluble aromatic compound not having a heterocyclic group but having a benzene ring, and has a pH of 5 or less (see abstract). In Example 1-14, Kamimura teaches a treatment liquid comprising 1.2% by mass of HF (hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid), 8.0% by mass phthalic acid (water-soluble aromatic compound not having a heterocyclic group but having a benzene ring), balance water and has a pH of 5 (see Table 1, pages 16 and 18). Kamimura, however, fails to specifically disclose a pH of more than 5 as recited in claim 1 or a pH in the range of more than 5 to 7 as recited in claim 9.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e., pH of more than 5 vs pH of 5 in Kamimura), 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 3, Kamimura teaches that the water-soluble aromatic compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of phenylphosphonic acid, benzenecarboxylic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, phenol, and derivatives thereof (see paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 4, Kamimura teaches that content of the water-soluble aromatic compound in the treatment liquid is preferably 0.05% to 10% by mass, more preferably 0.1% to 10% by mass, and still more preferably 0.5% to 8% by mass, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid (see paragraph [0102]). Kitamura, however, fails to specifically disclose 1% by mass or less of the water-soluble aromatic compound.
Considering that Kamimura teaches from 0.05% to 10% by mass of the water-soluble aromatic compound with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid, 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 (i.e., 0.05% to 1% by mass) 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).
Regarding claim 5, Kamimura further teaches that the water-soluble aromatic compound may be used in combination of two or more kinds thereof (see paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura teaches that a content of the fluorine-containing compound, (i.e., hydrogen fluoride or hydrofluoric acid), in the treatment liquid is preferably 0.01% by mass (or 100 ppm) or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass (or 1,000 ppm) or more, and still more preferably 1% by mass (or 10,000 ppm) or more, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid (see paragraph [0085]). Kitamura, however, fails to specifically disclose from 50 ppm to 3,000 ppm of the hydrofluoric acid, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid.
Considering that Kamimura teaches 0.01% by mass (or 100 ppm) or more, more preferably 0.1% by mass (or 1,000 ppm) or more, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid, 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 (i.e., 100 ppm to 3,000 ppm) 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).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2016/0130500), herein after “Chen.”
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9, Chen teaches a composition for selectively removing titanium nitride and/or photoresist etch residue material from the surface of a microelectronic device having same thereon, said composition comprising at least one oxidizing agent, at least one etchant, at least one metal corrosion inhibitor, at least one chelating agent, and at least one solvent (see claim 1), wherein the etchant comprises HF (hydrofluoric acid), as one of the selections (see claim 2), wherein the at least one metal corrosion inhibitor includes, among others, phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid (both of which are water-soluble aromatic compounds not having a heterocyclic group but having a benzene ring) (see claim 8), wherein the at least one solvent comprises water (see claim 7), and wherein the composition has a pH in a range from about 5 to about 12 (see claim 16). Chen, however, fails to specifically disclose an aqueous composition comprising HF, phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid as recited in claims 1-3, and 5-6; and the composition having a pH of more than 5 as recited in claim 1 or a pH in the range of more than 5 to 7 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 prepared an aqueous composition comprising HF, phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid because these are some of the selections of etchant and metal corrosion inhibitors, respectively, as taught by Chen.
With respect to the pH of the composition, considering that Chen teaches a pH of the composition in a range from about 5 to about 12, 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 (i.e., pH of more than 5 to 7) 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).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches that the composition comprises from about 0.01 to about 2 wt% of at least one metal corrosion inhibitor, which includes phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid, based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0036]). Chen, however, however, fails to specifically disclose 1% by mass or less of the water-soluble aromatic compound. i.e., phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid.
Considering that Chen teaches from about 0.01 to about 2 wt% of at least one metal corrosion inhibitor, which includes phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid, based on the total weight of the composition, 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 (i.e., about 0.01 to about 1 wt%) 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).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches that the composition comprises at least one metal corrosion inhibitor which includes phenylphosphonic acid and diphenylphosphinic acid (see claim 8). Chen, however, fails to disclose the mass ratio of the phenylphosphonic acid to the diphenylphosphinic acid.
With respect to the mass ratio of the phenylphosphonic acid to the diphenylphosphinic acid, while Chen is silent as to the specific proportions of each of the phenylphosphonic acid to the diphenylphosphinic acid in the mixture, 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 proportions of each of the phenylphosphonic acid to the diphenylphosphinic acid to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the phenylphosphonic acid and the diphenylphosphinic acid through routine experimentation for best results.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches that the composition comprises etchant, which includes HF, from about 0.01 wt% (100 ppm) to about 15 wt% (150,000 ppm), based on the total weight of the composition (see paragraph [0036]). Chen, however, fails to specifically disclose from 50 ppm to 3,000 ppm of the hydrofluoric acid, based on the total weight of the composition.
Considering that Chen teaches that the composition comprises etchant, which includes HF, from about 0.01 wt% (100 ppm) to about 15 wt% (150,000 ppm), based on the total weight of the composition, 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 (i.e., 100 ppm to 3,000 ppm) 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
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