DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Adamczyk to remove the oxidizing agents from the compositions disclosed therein since
doing so would render the invention of Adamczyk et al. unsuitable for its intended purpose. However, the argument is not persuasive because it is well known in the etching art to add an oxidizing agent at point of use to maximize effectiveness. For example, Danielson et al. teaches (Paragraph 40) adding oxidizing agent to an etching composition at point of use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an etching composition absent the oxidizer in order to mix at a point of use in the well known manner with predictable results.
Applicant has argued that new claim 5 is patentable since the claim excludes the amounts recited in paragraph [0070] of Adamczyk which discloses 0.5 to 65% by weight of the organic solvent. The argument is persuasive with respect to Adamczyk, however, the argument is not persuasive to overcome the Prior Art because at least US Publication 2002/0037820 to Small et al. teaches a treatment liquid comprising up to 95% by weight solvent (Paragraph 61) in addition to the components fluoride, amine having the recited formula, and water.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2002/0037820 to Small et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Small et al. teaches a treatment liquid comprising: a
fluorine-containing compound (Paragraphs 54 and 55); an organic solvent (Paragraphs 57-61); a basic compound represented by General Formula (1) described below Paragraphs 64); and water (Paragraphs 66), wherein a content of the organic solvent is 65% by mass or more with respect to a total amount of the treatment liquid (Paragraph 61), and a pH is 6 to 9 (Paragraph 82) (1) NR¹R²R³, wherein R¹ to R³ are each independently a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group which may have a substituent.
Small et al does not expressly teach a pH is 6 to 9. However, the pH is a result of the components of the treatment liquid and the same pH would reasonably be expected from providing the same treatment liquid components and concentrations as broadly recited.
Small et al does not expressly teach a liquid consisting of the recited components. However, Small et al. teaches essential components including fluoride, solvent and basic amine compounds (Paragraph 52) and water (Paragraph 66) and teaches other compounds are optionally added (Paragraphs 67-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an etching composition absent the optional additives to formulate a remover composition with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Small et al. teaches organic solvents (Paragraph 64) wherein a dipole moment of the organic solvent is 4 debye or less (implicit).
Regarding Claim 3, Small et al. teaches (Paragraph 55) the fluorine-
containing compound contains hydrofluoric acid.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations do not materially define the treatment liquid,
but read broadly on an intended use in producing a reflective film.
Regarding Claim 5, Small et al. teaches solvent 75% or more (Paragraph 61).
Regarding Claim 6, Small et al. teaches the basic compound (Paragraph 64) MIPA and MEA.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/067836 to Adamczyk et al. in view of US 2003/0082913 to Danielson et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Adamczyk et al. teaches a treatment liquid comprising: a
fluorine-containing compound (Paragraph 64); an organic solvent (Paragraphs 68-70); a
basic compound represented by General Formula (1) described below (Paragraphs 71-
74); and water (Paragraphs 59-60), wherein a content of the organic solvent is 65% by
mass or more with respect to a total amount of the treatment liquid (Paragraph 70), and a pH is 6 to 9 (Paragraph 82) (1) NR¹R²R³, wherein R¹ to R³ are each independently a hydrogen atom or a hydrocarbon group which may have a substituent.
Adamczyk et al. does not expressly teach a liquid consisting of the recited components but additionally teaches an oxidizing agent. However, it is well known to add an oxidizing agent at point of use to maximize effectiveness. For example, Danielson et al. teaches (Paragraph 40) adding oxidizing agent to an etching composition at point of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an etching composition absent the oxidizer in order to mix at a point of use in the well known manner with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Adamczyk et al. teaches organic solvents (Paragraphs 68-
70) wherein a dipole moment of the organic solvent is 4 debye or less (implicit).
Regarding Claim 3, Adamczyk et al. teaches (Paragraph 64) the fluorine-
containing compound contains hydrofluoric acid.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations do not materially define the treatment liquid,
but read broadly on an intended use in producing a reflective film.
Regarding Claim 6, Adamczyk et al. teaches the basic compound (Paragraph 32)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights