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 1-20 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s response filed February 10, 2026, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on February 10, 2016, is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 10, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “SUS” and insert “Steel Use Stainless” as this is what the abbreviation “SUS” stands for as common terminology. With respect to instant claim 11, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “included” and insert “present”.
Note that, instant claims 2-10 and 12-19 have also been objected to due to their dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the colorant" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required. Note that, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted “the colorant” as “a colorant”. Note that, instant claims 11-13 have also been rejected due to their dependency on instant claim 10.
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, 2, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mochida et al (US 2016/0032227).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Mochida et al teach a cleaning composition for a semiconductor substrate contains a solvent, and a polymer that includes a fluorine atom, a silicon atom or a combination thereof. The content of water in the solvent is preferably no greater than 20% by mass. See Abstract. The cleaning composition contains a solvent (A), and a polymer (B). Since the polymer (B) includes a fluorine atom and/or a silicon atom, it is presumed that the cleaning composition exhibits proper wet spreadability on substrate surfaces, and the formed film has an affinity to the removing liquid and a proper rate of dissolution, thereby allowing the particles on the substrate surface to be rapidly removed in a state in which the particles are covered by the film, leading to an achievement of a high efficiency of removal. See para. 17.
The solvent (A) is exemplified by: an organic solvent such as an alcohol solvent, an ether solvent, a ketone solvent, an amide solvent, an ester solvent and a hydrocarbon solvent; water; and the like. Examples of the ketone solvent include: chain ketone solvents such as acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, etc. Examples of the ester solvent include: ethyl lactate and ethyl 3-methoxypropionate; polyhydric alcohol partial ether carboxylate solvents such as monocarboxylates of an alkylene glycol monoalkyl ether, and monocarboxylates of a dialkylene glycol monoalkyl ether; cyclic ester solvents such as butyrolactone, etc. Preferably, the organic solvent is propylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethyl lactate, butyrolactone or propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate. The lower limit of the content of the solvent (A) is preferably 50% by mass, more preferably 80% by mass, and still more preferably 90% by mass. The upper limit of the content is preferably 99.9% by mass, more preferably 99.5% by mass, and still more preferably 99.0% by mass. When the content of the solvent (A) falls within the range of from the lower limit to the upper limit, the cleaning property of the cleaning composition on silicon nitride substrates can be further improved. See paras. 29-40. The cleaning composition may contain either one, or two or more types of the solvent (A). Mochida et al exemplifies compositions containing GBL which is gamma butyrolactone (i.e., butyrolactone). See paras.120-150. Note that, instant claim 1, containing 100% by weight of gamma butyrolactone as recited by instant claim 1, is simply drawn to a one component composition which simply requires the existence of gamma butyrolactone.
Mochida et al disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of Mochida et al anticipate the material limitations of instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida et al (US 2016/0032227).
Mochida et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Mochida et al
do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing gamma butyrolactone and at least one of propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, acetone, ethyl lactate, or methyl ethyl ketone in the specific amounts as recited by the instant 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 gamma butyrolactone and at least one of propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, acetone, ethyl lactate, or methyl ethyl ketone 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 of Mochida et al suggest a composition containing gamma butyrolactone and at least one of propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol methyl ether acetate, acetone, ethyl lactate, or methyl ethyl ketone in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochida et al (US 2016/0032227) as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-19 above, and further in view of Kamei et al (US 2017/0330762).
Mochida et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Mochida et al do not teach the use of 3-methoxybutyl acetate in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Kamei et al teach a semiconductor treatment composition that can reduce damage applied to a metal wire and the like that are included in the treatment target, and can still effectively remove contaminants from the surface of the treatment target, and a treatment method that utilizes the semiconductor treatment composition. See para. 7. 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. Note that the term “treatment agent” used herein includes a cleaning agent for cleaning a semiconductor surface, a resist stripper, an etchant, and the like. 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. The liquid medium may be appropriately selected taking account of the intended use (e.g., cleaning, etching, and resist removal) of the treatment target. See para. 59. The liquid medium may include an organic solvent as the main component, wherein the solvent may be a ketone-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, and an amide-based solvent, and a hydrocarbon-based solvent. Suitable ester-based solvents include propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, 3-methoxybutyl acetate, 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 3-methoxybutyl acetate in the composition taught by Mochida et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamei et al teach the equivalence of 3-methoxybutyl acetate to propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate as a suitable solvent in a similar composition and further, Mochida et al teach the use of propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate.
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/March 30, 2026