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, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 27, 37, 43, 46, 50, 51, 56, 63, 71, 78, 85, and 90-95 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-24, 26, 28-36, 38-42, 44, 45, 47-49, 52-55, 57-62, 64-70, 72-77, 79-84, and 86-89 have been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s response filed August 29, 2025, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 27, 37, 43, 46, 50-51, 56, 63, 71, 78, 85, and 90-94 in the reply filed on August 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim 95 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 29, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 27, 37, 43, 46, 50-51, 56, 63, 71, 78, 85, and 90-94 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 1, line 6, it is suggested that Applicant delete “including” and insert “comprising”.
With respect to instant claim 10, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant delete “in the disclosed and claimed compositions”.
With respect to instant claim 25, line 2, it is suggested that Applicant insert “the group consisting of” after “selected from”. Note that, instant claims 4, 8, 16, 19, 27, 37, 43, 46, 50-51, 56, 63, 71, 78, 85, and 90-94 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, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 37, 43, 50, 51, 56, 63, 71, 85, 90, and 92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbe et al (US 2005/0119143).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Egbe et al teach a composition and method using same for removing photoresist and/or processing residue from a substrate are described herein. In one aspect, there is provided a composition for removing residue consisting essentially of: an acidic buffer solution having an acid selected from a carboxylic acid or a polybasic acid and an ammonium salt of the acid in a molar ratio of acid to ammonium salt ranging from 10:1 to 1:10; an organic polar solvent that is miscible in all proportions in water; a fluoride, and water wherein the composition has a pH ranging from about 3 to about 7. See Abstract. In one embodiment, the acid buffer solution is an aqueous solution of ammonium acetate and acetic acid and in some embodiments, the amount of weak acid added may range from 0.5 to 10% by weight or from 0.5 to 3% by weight. See para. 12. Suitable organic polar solvents include dimethylacetamide (DMAC), N-methylformamide, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, etc., and mixtures thereof, which may be used in amounts from 30% by weight to 90% by weight. Water is used in amounts from 0.5% by weight to 40% by weight. See paras. 8, 14, and 15. The composition containing from 0.001% by weight to 20% by weight of a fluoride, and suitable fluorides include ammonium fluoride, hydrofluoric acid (HF), etc. See para. 16. Corrosion inhibitors may be used in an amount of up to 20% by weight, preferably, the inhibitor concentration is from about 0.5% by weight to 8% by weight, wherein suitable corrosion inhibitors include a triazole, a phenol, catechol, pyrogallol, etc. See para. 18.
Egbe et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a polyhydric alcohol such as propylene glycol, a glycol ether or amide solvent, a fluoride ion source, a buffer agent, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would 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 polyhydric alcohol such as propylene glycol, a glycol ether or amide solvent, a fluoride ion source, a buffer agent, water, 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 Egbe et al suggest a composition containing a polyhydric alcohol such as propylene glycol, a glycol ether or amide solvent, a fluoride ion source, a buffer agent, water, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 27, 46, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbe et al (US 2005/0119143) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 37, 43, 50, 51, 56, 63, 71, 85, 90, and 92 above, and further in view of Choi et al (US 2018/0239256).
Egbe et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Egbe et al do not teach or suggest the use of diethylformamide or N,N-dimethylpropionamide in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Choi et al teach a photoresist stripper composition for manufacturing an LCD, and relates to an integrated photoresist stripper composition capable of being used in all processes for manufacturing a TFT-LCD. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to an aqueous photoresist stripper composition capable of being used in all of transition metal, potential metal and oxide semiconductor wires. See para. 1. One embodiment of the present disclosure relates to a photoresist stripper composition for manufacturing an LCD including (a) a potential metal and metal oxide corrosion inhibitor of the following Chemical Formula 1 in 0.01% by weight to 3% by weight; (b) a transition metal corrosion inhibitor of the following Chemical Formula 2 in 0.01% by weight to 3% by weight; (c) a primary alkanolamine in 1% by weight to 20% by weight; (d) a cyclic alcohol in 1% by weight to 30% by weight; (e) water in 0.1% by weight to 40% by weight; (f) an aprotic polar organic solvent in 1% by weight to 40% by weight; and (g) a protic polar organic solvent in 20% by weight to 60% by weight. See para. 35. The aprotic polar organic solvent is any one or more selected from the group consisting of N-methyl pyrrolidone, diethylformamide, dimethylpropionamide, dimethylacetamide (DMAc), N-methylformamide (NMF), etc. See para. 45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use diethylformamide or N,N-dimethylpropionamide as a solvent in the composition taught by Egbe et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Choi et al teach the equivalence of diethylformamide or N,N-dimethylpropionamide to dimethylacetamide as an organic solvent in a similar composition and further, Egbe et al teach the use of dimethylacetamide.
Claims 78, 91, and 93 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egbe et al (US 2005/0119143) as applied to claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 16, 19, 25, 37, 43, 50, 51, 56, 63, 71, 85, 90, and 92 above, and further in view of Kamimura (US 2019/0194580).
Egbe et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Egbe et al do not teach the use of a corrosion inhibitor such as benzotriazole in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Kamimura teaches a treatment liquid is 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. The treatment liquid of the embodiment of the present invention preferably contains a corrosion inhibitor. The corrosion inhibitor is a compound other than the watersoluble aromatic compound. Further, in the present specification, even in a case where compounds suitable for the definition of the water-soluble aromatic compound are also mentioned below as a corrosion inhibitor, the compounds are intended to be categorized into the water-soluble aromatic compound. See para. 107. Suitable corrosion inhibitors include benzotriazole, etc. See para. 111. A content of the corrosion inhibitor in the treatment liquid is preferably 0.01% to 5% by mass, more preferably 0.05% to 5% by mass, and still more preferably 0.1% to 3% by mass, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid. See para. 125.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use benzotriazole as a corrosion inhibitor in the composition taught by Egbe et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamimura teaches the use of benzotriazole as a corrosion inhibitor in a similar composition and further, Egbe et al teach the use of triazole corrosion inhibitors in general.
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 25, 2025