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 1-6, 8-12, and 16-23 are pending. Claims 7 and 13-15 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed June 26, 2026, have been entered.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 16, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 15, 2026, has been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 3/26/26 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008182221, has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008182221as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 13-19, 21, and 22 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US2019/0048292) or Wu et al (US2016/0300730), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2019/0048292) in view of JP2008182221, has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 8-12, 16-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US2016/0300730) in view of JP2008182221.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘730 teaches post chemical mechanical planarization cleaning composition of semiconductor substrate for advanced electronics fabrication and packaging. It provides novel corrosion inhibition and quality upmost Cu-low K surfaces to the demanding reliability of nano device and Cu interconnection. See Abstract. Specifically, ‘730 teaches an alkaline aqueous solution in nature with a pH value in the range of 8.5-13.5. An organic base and balance water are used for pH adjustment. The organic bases include, but not limited to, quaternary amine, including tetrahexylammonium hydroxide (THAH), tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetrapropylammonium hydroxide (TPAH), tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide (TEAH), trimethylphenylammonium hydroxide (TMPAH), tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide, etc., which may be used in amounts from 1 wt% to about 10 wt%. See para. 34. A chelate agent, which helps prevent re-deposition of removed metal onto the wafer or interposer surface through metal complexation, includes, but not limited to, N,N,N'-trimethyl-N'-(2-hydroxyethyl) ethylenediamine, N,N-dimethylethylenediamine, N,N'-dimethylethanolamine, isobutanolamine, isopropanolamine, 2-(diethylamino) ethanol, aminoethylethanolamine, N-methylaminoethanol. aminoethoxyethanol, dimethylaminoethoxyethanol, diethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, EDTA, CDTA, HIDA, and N-AEP, 1-methoxy-2-aminoethane, tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), gluconic acid, tartaric acid, dimethyl glyoxime, formic acid, fumaric acid, glutamic acid, glutamine, glutaric acid, glyceric acid, glycerol, glycolic acid, etc., and combinations thereof. The chelating agents may be used in amounts from 1% to 10% by weight. See para. 35.
A corrosion inhibitor, which protects metal surface from attacking through oxidation and/or galvanic corrosion without compromising interference to atop dielectric deposition from CVD or PECVD, includes, but not limited to, purine compound, such as purine, guanine, hypoxanthine, xanthine, caffeine, uric acid, etc. Corrosion inhibitors are used in amounts up to 5% by weight. See para. 36.
‘730 do not teach the use of a quaternary ammonium compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B), or a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
‘221 teaches a cleaning agent for semiconductor substrates. See para. 1. ‘221 teaches a cleaning agent for semiconductor substrates containing 0.1 to 20% by weight of nonionic surfactants, 0.1 to 10% by weight of an anionic surfactant, and 70 to 99.5% by weight of water. See para. 7. In addition, the composition contains an alkaline compound, a chelating agent, other surfactants, dispersants, and other additives. See para. 42. Additionally, the composition may contain an alkaline component D such as quaternary ammonium salts, ammonia, alkanolamines, etc. See para. 43. Suitable quaternary ammonium salts include those represented by Formula (3) which are the same as recited by Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims. See paras. 43-48. Examples of alkanolamines include monoethanolamine, triethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, etc. See paras. 51 and 52. Note that, the Examiner asserts that ‘221 (i.e., the prior art) teaches the equivalence of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) of the instant claims as alkaline components, and one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use mixtures of quaternary ammonium salts of Formula (A) and Formula (B) since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
The alkaline component is used in amounts from 0.1 to 10% by weight and the pH of the detergent is preferably from 9 to 14. By including compound D, the cleaning ability against particles or wax stains is further improved. See para. 43. Suitable chelating agents include EDTA, citric acid, glutamic acid, gluconic acid, etc., which may be used in amounts from 0.01 to 10% by weight. See paras. 50-58. Corrosion inhibitors including nitrogen-containing organic rust inhibitors such as benzotriazole, tolytriazole, etc., may be used in amounts from 0.001% to 10% by weight. See para. 81.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in the composition taught by ‘730, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘221 teaches teach the use of a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in a similar composition, their equivalence to other quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide, and that they help to reduce particle contaminants and further, ‘730 teaches the use of quaternary ammonium compounds in general.
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 a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings ‘730 in view of ‘221 suggest a composition containing a compound represented by Formula (A), Formula (B), and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts s recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Wu et al (US2016/0300730) in view of JP2008182221, Applicant states that claim 1 of Wu et al recites as an essential component "N,N-dimethylethylenediamine," which falls within the scope of "a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine”, while the cleaning liquid of the present invention as amended is limited to not include a primary amine, a secondary amine, or a tertiary amine. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of Wu et al suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, Wu et al clearly teach that suitable chelating agents, instead of N,N-dimethylethylenediamine, may include citric acid, formic acid, lactic acid, etc., wherein compositions containing these types of chelating agents would clearly fall within the scope of the instant claims. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘221 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Wu et al and that one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly look to the teachings of ‘221 to cure the deficiencies of Wu et al. ‘221 is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of a quaternary ammonium compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B). The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated toto use a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in the composition taught by ‘730, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘221 teaches teach the use of a compound of Formula (A) and Formula (B) in a similar composition, their equivalence to other quaternary ammonium hydroxides such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide, and that they help to reduce particle contaminants and further, ‘730 teaches the use of quaternary ammonium compounds in general. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Wu et al in view of ‘221 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
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/October 5, 2026
