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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/27/2026.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are pending. Claim 6 is canceled and claims 1 and 7-8 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for being improperly dependent for failing to limit the subject matter pf the claim upon which it depends are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments.
The rejection of claims 1-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2022168687A1) as evidenced by PubChem, 2005 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kamimura (US20210005473A1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claim 20 under 25 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Takahashi (JP202055564A) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying on the references of record above are made below:
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
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.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 19 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Champion et. al (US20210179972A1) hereinafter Champion.
Yamada teaches a cleaning liquid for semiconductor substrates comprising a purine compound (see Abstract). Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Yamada teaches the cleaning liquid to comprise of a 0.01-50 mass % surfactant system, and 0.1-10 mass % of aliphatic amine compounds such as diethylenetriamine, and hexamethyltriethylenetetramine among others, and triazine (see [0327]; [0401]; [0410]-[0414]). The surfactant system can further comprise of an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant (see [0255]). Yamada, however, fails to explicitly disclose a triamine of formula I.
Champion teaches a quaternary ammonium hydroxide solution useful in various applications such as dielectric surfaces and the cleaning of semiconductor wafer substrates (see Abstract; [0007]). Champion teaches the solution to comprise reaction products of polyamines such as N,N,N-tris(3-dimethylaminopropyl)amine shown below (see claims 1 and 5). This compound overlaps with formula I in the instant claim. It is reasonable to expect residual polyamine to be present in the cleaning solution where it is a reagent. Champion also teaches the use of nonionic surfactants (such as EO/PO oxide block copolymers), anionic surfactants (such as dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, and dodecylphosphonic acid), and combinations thereof (see [0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the N,N,N-tris(3-dimethylaminopropyl)amine taught by Champion as the purine compound in Yamada’s semiconductor substrate cleaning composition. This modification would have the expected benefit of non-toxicity, high reactivity on dielectic surfaces, and organic photoresist development, etching or removal of unwanted organic or other residue (see [0030]). Because both inventive compositions are related to cleaning semiconductor substrates with triamines, a person of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination recited above.
With regards to claims 2-5, and 7-8, N,N,N-tris(3-dimethylaminopropyl)amine overlaps with formula I where a is 3, and R is a methyl.
With regards to claims 11-12, Yamada teaches the use of anionic surfactants such as a sulfonic acid-based surfactant having a sulfo group (see [0298]). The surfactant system of the composition may be comprised of one type of surfactant (see [0325]). Although Yamada does not specifically disclose the surfactant system to comprise of at least 40 mass % of the surfactant system of an anionic surfactant or at least 70 mass % of a sulphonated alkyl anionic surfactant, the use of only one sulfonated anionic surfactant in the cleaning composition would result in the surfactant composition to be 100 mass % by an anionic surfactant.
With regards to claim 13, Yamada teaches the sulfonic acid-based surfactant to preferably comprise of an alkyl chain length of 6-18 carbon atoms (see [0311]).
With regards to claim 14, the weight average degree of branching in the alkyl sulfonated anionic surfactant of at least about 10% is not specifically disclosed. However, Yamada lists hexanesulfonic acid, octanesulfonic acid, decanesulfonic acid, dodecanesulfonic acid, toluenesulfonic acid, cumenesulfonic acid, octylbenzenesulfonic acid, dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (DBSA), dinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (DNBSA), and lauryldodecylphenyl ether disulfonic acid (LDPEDSA) as preferable sulfonic acid-based surfactants (see [0313]). Yamada also generally teaches the use of alkylsulfonic acid, and alkylbenzenesulfonic acid with 2 to 24 carbon atom long alkyl chains (see [0312]-[0313]). It is known in the art these surfactants have at least a 10% degree of branching, and they overlap with the examples of suitable sulfonic acid surfactants noted in the instant specification (see Applicant Specification Page 8).
With regards to claim 15, the surfactant system is taught to comprise of an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, and an amphoteric surfactant (see [0255]). A combination of different types of surfactants may be used in the surfactant system (see [0325]).
With regards to claim 19, Yamada teaches the use of polyoxyethylene group (EO block copolymer) nonionic surfactants according to Formula E1 which are alkoxylated alcohol surfactants (see [0262]-[0270]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Champion (US20210179972A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-15, and 19 above, further in view of Kamimura et. al (US20210005473A1) hereinafter Kamimura.
The general teachings of Yamada and Champion are recited above. With regards to claim 16, Yamada generally teaches the combination of different types of surfactants can be used in the cleaning composition, including anionic, nonionic, and amphoteric surfactants (see [0255]; see also [0325]). Yamada also teaches the composition to preferably contain 0.7-40 mass%, more preferably 0.7-10 mass % of surfactant (see [0327]). Champion generally teaches the use of nonionic surfactants (EO/PO oxide block copolymers) and anionic surfactants (dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, and dodecylphosphonic acid), and combinations thereof (see [0046]). However, neither Yamada nor Champion explicitly disclose the weight ratio of about 1:1 to 8:1 of anionic surfactant to co-surfactant.
Kamimura teaches a semiconductor cleaning liquid comprising a hydroxylamine group (see Abstract). The cleaning liquid can comprise of amphoteric surfactants in combination with anionic and nonionic surfactants (see [0115]; see also [0123]). Kamimura further teaches the surfactant level to be present at 0.1-2 mass%, preferably 0.5 mass % (see [0121]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to formulate the modified composition of Yamada using the polyamine taught by Champion with 0.7-10 mass % anionic surfactant and 0.5 mass % amphoteric surfactant as taught by Kamimura. The person of ordinary skill would have optimized to the lower limit of the 0.7-10 mass% surfactant range of Yamada to improve the defect suppression property, the residue removal property, and the temporal stability of the final product as taught my Kamimura (see [0121]). As such, the ratio of the amphoteric surfactant to the anionic surfactant would be about 1.4:20 (0.7/0.5 to 10/0.5) which overlaps with the weight ratio range recited in the instant claim. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
With regards to claim 17, Yamada generally teaches the use of amphoteric surfactants but does not explicitly disclose the use of an amine oxide surfactant (see [0255]). Champion fails to disclose the presence of amino oxide surfactant as well.
Kamimura explicitly teaches the use of an amine oxide amphoteric surfactant in the cleaning liquid (see [0118]). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add an amine oxide surfactant to the modified composition of Yamada for the benefit of enhancing the final composition’s residue removal performance and anticorrosion performance (see [0075]).
With regards to claim 18, neither Yamada nor Champion explicitly disclose the use of a zwitterionic betaine surfactant.
Kamimura explicitly teaches the use of betaine-based surfactants such as cocamidopropyl betaine and lauramidopropyl betaine (see [0118]). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a betaine surfactant to the modified composition of Yamada in view of Champion for the benefit of enhancing the final composition’s residue removal performance and anticorrosion performance (see [0075]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Champion (US20210179972A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-15, and 19 above, further in view of Takahashi et. al (JP2023055564A) hereinafter Takahashi.
The general teachings of Yamada and Champion are recited above. With regards to claim 20, Yamada teaches the cleaning of a metal-containing semiconductor substrate with a solvent by an immersion method (see [0571]; see also [0561]). The cleaning liquid can be diluted with water to clean the substrate and the metal containing substance can contain copper among other metals (see [0502]; see also [0517]). Champion also teaches a method of cleaning a metal surface by contacting said surface with the quaternary ammonium hydroxide solution (see claim 14). The cleaning of copper substrates with the inventive composition of Champion is specifically taught (see [0059]). Therefore, the modified cleaning composition of Yamada in view of Champion is capable of cleaning a metal coated substrate. Yamada and Champion both fail to explicitly disclose a dish, however.
Takahashi teaches the use of a copper backing plate in a dish-like shape in a sputtering apparatus (see [0017]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reasonably expect the modified composition of Yamada in view of Champion o be able to clean the copper dish shaped backing plate of Takashi because Yamada and Champion specifically teaches the cleaning of copper containing substrates as recited above.
The examiner maintains the term “dishes” in the instant claim can be understood to mean petri dishes, dish antennas, silverware, dinning plates and bowls, baking trays, surgical plates, and any concave or flat vessel made of metal which need not be limited to cookware or tableware. A semiconductor substrate could also be a dish. "[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art."). See MPEP 2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is (571)272-1551. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SP/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/BRIAN P MRUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights