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 .
Priority
Receipt on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/16/2026. Claims 1-4,6-19 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended by the applicant. Claims 11-17 remain withdrawn. Claims 5 and 20 were cancelled,
Status of the Rejection
The specification and Claim objections have been overcome by the applicant's amendments.
The rejection of claims 5 and 20 are obviated by the Applicant’s cancellation.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US-20190112489-A1) in view of Seki et al. (US-20210017204-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimizu teaches a chemical liquid (Paragraph [0089] a liquid composition is taught) for manufacturing a semiconductor, comprising:
a compound A (Paragraph [0115] composition includes a surface treatment agent);
an organic solvent (Paragraph [0089] composition contains an organic solvent); and
at least one specific metal atom selected from the group consisting of Cu and Fe (Paragraph [0165] metal element, which can be Cu or Fe, is included in the composition),
a total content of the specific metal atom is 1,000 ppt by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid (Paragraph [0169] metal is included in the composition at 0.01 to 50 ppt by mass), and
a content of water contained in the chemical liquid is 1% by mass or less (Paragraph [0094-0095] content of water is 400ppm or less by mass).
Shimizu fails to explicitly teach that a content of the compound A is more than 10 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid, and that a mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom is 10^4 to 10^9.
However, Shimizu further teaches that the content of surface treatment agent is 0.1 - 20% by mass (Paragraph [0161]) and teaches an example where an acid content of 0.0001-4% by mass of acid in the composition (Paragraph [0162]). As either the surface treatment agent or the acid can be considered equivalent to the claimed “compound A”, Shimizu teaches that the content of “compound A” can be from 0.0001 to 20% by mass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of acid or surface treatment agent at a level within the disclosed range of 0.0001 to 20% by mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10 ppm or more by mass. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
As outlined above, Shimizu teaches a content for the claimed “compound A” of 0.0001 to 20% by mass and a content for the metal of 0.01 to 50 ppt by mass. Therefore, Shimizu teaches a mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom of 2x10^4 to 2x10^13 (when the "surface treatment agent" is considered as the claimed "compound A" a mass ratio is taught to be 20/0.000000000001 = 2x10^13 to 0.1/0.000000005 = 2x10^7. When an acid is considered as the claimed "compound A" a mass ratio is taught to be 4/0.000000000001=4x10^12 to 0.0001/0.000000005 =2x10^4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of acid or surface treatment agent, and an amount of specific metal atom, at levels within the disclosed ranges such that a mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom fell within the disclosed range of 2x10^4 to 2x10^13, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10^4 to 10^9. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Shimizu fails to teach that compound A is represented by Formula 1, where Formula 1 is X-L-Y, and in the formula, X represents a group selected from the group consisting of a primary amino group or the salt, a secondary amino group or the salt, a tertiary amino group or the salt, a quaternary ammonium group or the salt, a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic group or the salt, a phosphate group or the salt, a phosphonate group or the salt, a thiol group, and a hydroxy group; L represents a single bond or a divalent linking group selected from the group consisting of an ether group, a carbonyl group, an ester group, a thioether group, -S02-, an arylene group, and a group formed by combination of any of these groups and an alkylene group; Y represents an alkyl group which may have a substituent; and in a case where X represents a hydroxy group, Y represents an alkyl group having 8 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent.
Seki teaches methods related to surface treatment and selective area deposition (Paragraph [0001]). Seki teaches a surface treatment agent that can be represented by the formula R1-P(=O)(OR2)(OR3) (Paragraph [0022]), where R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms, for example an octyl group or a docosyl group, where some or all of the hydrogen atoms of the alkyl group have been substituted with fluorine atoms (Paragraphs [0025-0026]), and R2 and R3 can be the same as R1 (Paragraph [0030]). Teaches that the surface treatment agent can be applied to the substrate surface as a liquid treatment (Paragraph [0047] surface treatment agent can be dissolved and then a substrate can be treated with the liquid by dipping or spin coating methods).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Shimizu by replacing the surface treatment agent taught by Shimizu with the surface treatment agent taught by Seki. With this modification all the instant limitations would be met because within the formula for the surface treatment agent taught by Seki P(=O)(OR2)(OR3) can be considered a phosphonate group, and therefore equivalent to the claimed X, the claimed L can be considered the single bond between R1 and P, and R1 can be an alkyl group and equivalent to the claimed Y.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one surface treatment agent that can in included in a liquid composition for application to a substrate with another such surface treatment agent. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Shimizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the compound A has a molecular weight of 600 or less.
However, Seki teaches that the surface treatment agent, which can be considered equivalent to the claimed “compound A”, can be represented by the formula R1-P(=O)(OR2)(OR3) (Paragraph [0022]), where R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms, for example an octyl group or a docosyl group, with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms (Paragraphs [0025-0026]), and R2 and R3 can be the same as R1 (Paragraph [0030]). In an embodiment where R1, R2, and R3 are octyl groups where no hydrogen atoms have been substituted, the taught surface treatment agent could be represented by the formula C8H9-P(=O)(OC8H9)(OC8H9) which has the molecular weight 394.4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected as the surface treatment agent, a surface treatment agent that met all the requirements for the molecule taught by Seki, and had a molecular weight of 600 or less, such as the example provided above.
This selection would have been obvious because possible surface treatment agent molecules with a molecular weight of 600 or less would fall within the range of requirements for the surface treatment molecule taught by Seki. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Seki further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 8 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (Paragraphs [0025-0026] R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Seki further teaches wherein the compound A has an alkyl group having 12 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (Paragraphs [0025-0026] R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms, where examples of “a dodecyl group, a tridecyl group, an isotridecyl group, a tetradecyl group, a pentadecyl group, a hexadecyl group, an isohexadecyl group, a heptadecyl group, an octadecyl group, a nonadecyl group, an icosyl group, a henicosyl group, a docosyl group” are provided which all contain 12 or more carbon atoms, with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Shimizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the compound A is a high-molecular-weight compound (Note: this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined in the Claim Interpretation section).
However, Seki teaches that the surface treatment agent, which can be considered equivalent to the claimed “compound A”, can be represented by the formula R1-P(=O)(OR2)(OR3) (Paragraph [0022]), where R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms, for example an octyl group or a docosyl group, with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms (Paragraphs [0025-0026]), and R2 and R3 can be the same as R1 (Paragraph [0030]). In an embodiment where R1, R2, and R3 are docosyl groups where all hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine, the taught surface treatment agent could be represented by the formula C22F23-P(=O)(OC22F23)(OC22F23) which has the molecular weight 2182.6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected as the surface treatment agent, a surface treatment agent that met all the requirements for the molecule taught by Seki, and had a molecular weight of more than 1000, such as the example provided above.
This selection would have been obvious because possible surface treatment agent molecules with a molecular weight of more than 1000 would fall within the range of requirements for the surface treatment molecule taught by Seki. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Shimizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the content of the compound A is 0.01% to 10% by mass with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid.
However, Shimizu teaches a content of surface treatment agent to be 0.1 - 20% by mass (Paragraph [0161]) and in an example teaches an acid content of 0.0001-4% by mass of acid in the composition (Paragraph [0162]), where the surface treatment agent or the acid can be considered equivalent to the claimed compound a, as outlined above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the surface treatment agent or the acid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.0001-20% by mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.01-10% by mass. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Shimizu fails to explicitly teach wherein the mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom is 10^5 to 10^8.
As outlined above, Shimizu teaches a content for the claimed “compound A” of 0.0001 to 20% by mass and a content for the metal of 0.01 to 50 ppt by mass. Therefore, Shimizu teaches a mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom of 2x10^4 to 2x10^13 (when the "surface treatment agent" is considered as the claimed "compound A" a mass ratio is taught to be 20/0.000000000001 = 2x10^13 to 0.1/0.000000005 = 2x10^7. When an acid is considered as the claimed "compound A" a mass ratio is taught to be 4/0.000000000001=4x10^12 to 0.0001/0.000000005 =2x10^4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of acid or surface treatment agent, and an amount of specific metal atom, at levels within the disclosed ranges such that a mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom fell within the disclosed range of 2x10^4 to 2x10^13, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10^5 to 10^8. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the limitations recited by the claims are statements of intended use that do not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Additionally, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Alternatively, this claim could be interpreted as an attempt to further limit the material worked upon by the claimed “chemical liquid” rather than “chemical liquid” itself. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. Since the claims further limit how to composition is being used with regards to the substrates it could be used in treating, but fails to limit any further features of the composition of the chemical liquid, the limitations of the claim have no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Seki further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 8 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (Paragraphs [0025-0026] R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Seki further teaches wherein the compound A has an alkyl group having 12 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (Paragraphs [0025-0026] R1 can be an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms, where examples of “a dodecyl group, a tridecyl group, an isotridecyl group, a tetradecyl group, a pentadecyl group, a hexadecyl group, an isohexadecyl group, a heptadecyl group, an octadecyl group, a nonadecyl group, an icosyl group, a henicosyl group, a docosyl group” are provided which all contain 12 or more carbon atoms, with some or all of the hydrogen atoms have been substituted with fluorine atoms).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 2-6, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Arguments regarding the amendments are not addressed as the previous rejection has been withdrawn and new rejections addressing the amended claims are presented above. The argument still relevant has been address below.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention serves a different function than the composition claimed by Shimizu and that Shimizu fails to teach the specific purpose of ALD masking with the taught composition.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shimizu teaches a liquid composition for surface modification (Paragraph [0002]). Examiner takes the position that the surface modification taught by Shimizu and the formation of modified film argued by applicant as the use of the claimed invention, can be interpreted as the same function, as a surface modification could be considered the formation of a film onto a surface. Examiner further notes that this interpretation is further supported by the fact that the invention as claimed is identical to teachings in the prior art as outlined in the rejections above. Examiner further notes that this argument could be interpreted as regarding the intended use of the claimed invention, and directs applicant to review the rejections of claims 9 and 10 which address similar issues.
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 ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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 Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713