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 1-14 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed October 28, 2025, have been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 16 in the reply filed on October 28, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 28, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 16, it is suggested that throughout the claims, Applicant insert “from the group consisting of” after “selected from”. Note that, instant claims 5 and 7-11 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-12 and 16 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al (US2006/0180573) in view of Kamei et al (US2017/0330762).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Hansen et al teach a process chemistry supply system wherein the process chemistry supply system can be configured to introduce one or more of the following process compositions, but not limited to: cleaning compositions for removing contaminants, residues, hardened residues, photoresist, hardened photoresist, post-etch residue, post-ash residue, post chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP) residue, post-polishing residue, or post-implant residue, or any combination thereof. See para. 31. The process chemistry can comprise a cleaning composition, a film forming composition, a healing composition, or a sealing composition, or any combination thereof. See para. 59. The process chemistry supply system 130 can be configured to introduce N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), diglycol amine, hydroxyl amine, di-isopropyl amine, tri-isopropyl amine, tertiary amines, catechol, ammonium fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, methylacetoacetamide, etc. See para. 32. The process chemistry supply system 130 can be configured to introduce treating chemistry for curing, cleaning, healing or sealing, or any combination, low dielectric constant films (porous or non-porous). The chemistry can include hexamethyidisilazane (HMDS), chlorotrimethylsilane (TMCS), trichloromethylsilane (TCMS), dimethylsilyldiethylamine (DMSDEA), tetramethyldisilazane (TMDS), trimethylsilyldimethylamine (TMSDMA), dimethylsilyldimethylamine (DMSDMA), trimethylsilyldiethylamine (TMSDEA), bistrimethylsilyl urea (BTSU), bis(dimethylamino)methyl silane (B[DMA]MS), bis (dimethylamino)dimethyl silane (B[DMA]DS), HMCTS, dimethylaminopentamethyldisilane (DMAPMDS), dimethylaminodimethyldisilane (DMADMDS), etc. See para. 36. The process chemistry supply system is configured to introduce fluorosilicic acid with a solvent, a co-solvent, a surfactant,. an acid, a base, a peroxide, or an etchant. Alternatively, the fluorosilicic acid can be introduced in combination with any of the chemicals presented above. For example, fluorosilicic acid can be introduced with N,N-dimethylacetamide (DMAc), gamma-butyrolactone (BLO), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), ethylene carbonate (EC), butylene carbonate (BC), propylene carbonate (PC), etc. See para. 38. Note that, the Examiner asserts that each of the components disclosed by Hansen et al would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to vary within amounts as recited by instant claims 9 and 11. Additionally, no criticality has been demonstrated with respect to the amounts as recited by instant claims 9 and 11.
Hansen et al do not teach the use of a solvent such as methyl acetate or a composition containing a silane compound, a solvent such as methyl acetate, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Kamei et al teach a semiconductor treatment composition according to one embodiment of the invention that can reduce damage applied to a metal wire and the like included in the processing target, and can still effectively remove contaminants from the surface of the processing target. See para. 22. The semiconductor treatment composition may be used as a treatment agent such as a cleaning agent for removing particles, metal impurities, and the like present on the surface of the treatment target (polishing target) after completion of CMP, a resist stripper for removing a resist from a semiconductor substrate that has been processed using a resist, and an etchant for shallowly etching the surface of a metal wire or the like to remove a surface contaminant. See para. 25. The semiconductor treatment composition according to one embodiment of the invention is a liquid that includes a liquid medium as the main component. See para. 59. Examples of the organic solvent include a known organic solvent that can be used for a semiconductor treatment, such as a polar solvent, e.g., a ketone-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and an amide-based solvent, and a hydrocarbon-based solvent. See para. 60. Examples of the ketone-based solvent include propylene carbonate, etc., examples of the ester-based solvent include methyl acetate, etc., examples of the amide-based solvent include N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, etc., examples of the hydrocarbon based solvent include pentane, hexane, octane, etc. See paras. 61-65.
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 solvent such as methyl acetate in the composition taught by Hansen et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamei et al teach the equivalence of propylene carbonate to methyl acetate as a solvent in a similar composition and further, Hansen et al teach the use of propylene carbonate as a suitable solvent.
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 silane compound, a solvent such as methyl acetate, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts 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 Hansen et al in view of Kamei et al suggest a composition containing a silane compound, a solvent such as methyl acetate, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
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/November 15, 2025