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 .
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi et al. (US 2020/0017801 A1) in view of Moriya et al. (TW 2016/43910 A).
Regarding claim 1, Taniguchi teaches a cleaning liquid for removing a cerium compound (paragraph [0068]). Taniguchi further teaches that the cleaning liquid comprises component (A), wherein the component (A) is a six-membered ring compound having two or more hydroxy groups, as Taniguchi discloses reducing agents including five- or six-membered cyclic compounds having two or more hydroxyl groups (paragraph [0047]). Taniguchi also teaches that the cleaning liquid comprises an inorganic acid (paragraph [0042]) and further provides specific concentrations of inorganic acids and hydroxyl-containing compounds (table 5).
Taniguchi does not teach that the mass ratio of component (B) to component (A) is 0.05 to 0.6.
Moriya teaches compositions comprising similar chemical components and relative proportions for removing material form substrate surfaces wherein the compositions including pyrogallol and inorganic acids such as nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, and sulfuric acid (Table 2). In Example 25 of Moriya, the amounts of nitric acid (0.38 wt%), hydrochloric acid (0.01 wt%), and sulfuric acid (0.04 wt%) collectively correspond to the component (B), while pyrogallol is present at 1.67 wt% as the component (A), resulting in a mass ratio of the component (B) to the component (A) of approximately 0.26, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.6. Accordingly, Moriya teaches the claimed mass ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cleaning liquid of Taniguchi to include the inorganic acid compound and relative component amounts as taught by Moriya, since both references employ acid-based compositions with hydroxy-containing compounds to interact with and remove material from substrate surfaces, and such modification would have predictably resulted in improved removal of cerium compounds. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Taniguchi teaches that the component (A) contains at least one selected from catechol, resorcinol, hydroquinone, and pyrogallol (paragraph [0047]), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Taniguchi teaches that the component (B) contains at least one selected from sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrochloric acid (Table 5), thereby meeting the limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding Claim 6, Taniguchi teaches that the cleaning liquid further comprises a water-soluble organic polymer, as Taniguchi discloses an anionic surfactant comprising a condensate of naphthalensulfonic acid and formaldehyde (paragraph [0052]), which is a water-soluble organic polymer.
Regarding claim 8, Taniguchi teaches that the cleaning liquid has a pH of 2 (Table 2), which falls within the claimed range of 1 to 4. Accordingly, Taniguchi teaches the claimed pH limitation.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10 recite the intended use of the cleaning liquid. Such intended use does not further limit the claimed cleaning liquid, as the cleaning liquid is otherwise fully defined by its components. Therefore, these limitations are not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claims 11–13, Taniguchi teaches removing a cerium compound using the cleaning liquid after a chemical mechanical polishing step employing a cerium-containing abrasive (paragraph [0068]). Therefore, Taniguchi meets the limitations of claims 11–13 for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1, and further teaches performing chemical mechanical polishing using an abrasive containing a cerium compound prior to the removing step.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi in view of Moriya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of An et al., (US 2022/0298456A1).
Taniguchi as modified by Moriya teaches the cleaning liquid of claim 1 as set forth above.
Taniguchi does not teach that the water-soluble organic polymer comprises a polycarboxylic acid or a salt thereof.
An teaches that the cleaning liquid further comprises component (C), wherein component (C) contains at least one selected from a polycarboxylic acid and a salt thereof (paragraphs [0073]–[0074]).
It would have been obvious to include the component (C) as taught by An into the cleaning liquid of Taniguchi as modified by Moriya, since An teaches that such polymers improve dispersion of cerium compounds, and enhance removability, which is consistent with improving removal of cerium compounds as taught by Taniguchi. See MPEP § 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights