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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/05/2026. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended by the applicant. Claims 11-17 remain withdrawn.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.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, 7-10, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US-20190112489-A1) in view of Hamilton et al. (US-20180297889-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
wherein a content of the compound A is more than 10 ppm (parts per million) by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid (Paragraph [0161] content of the surface treatment agent is 0.1-20% by mass).
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 (parts per trillion) 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 mass ratio of the content of the compound A to the total content of the specific metal atom is 10^4 to 10^9.
As outlined above, Shimizu teaches a content for the claimed “compound A” of 0.1 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 2x10^7 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of 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 2x10^7 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 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.
HHsdfaHamilton teaches methods related to treating a glass substrate with a surface treatment agents (Paragraph [0009]). Hamilton teaches the surface treatment agents taught increase the hydrophobicity of the surface treated (Paragraph [0027]). Hamilton teaches that octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be a surface treatment agent (Paragraph [0051] Octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride meets the limitation of claimed Formula 1, where X is a quaternary ammonium salt comprising trimethylammonium chloride, L is a single bond, and Y is an octadecyl group, which is an alkyl group.). Hamilton teaches that polymeric materials can be surface treatment agents (Paragraph [0052]), where the polymeric material can be a copolymer of hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks, such as hydrophilic block comprising hydroxyethylmethacrylate and a hydrophobic block comprising styrene (Paragraphs [0052-0053] A copolymer of styrene and can be considered to meet the limitation of claimed Formula 1, where X is a hydroxy group, L is a ester group bond, and Y is an alkyl group see Reference Image 1, in any case where x+y is greater than or equal to 4, the alkyl group can be considered to have 8 or more carbons).
Reference Image 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
559
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 at least one of the surface treatment agents that are outlined above and taught by Hamilton.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one surface treatment agent that can 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 further teaches wherein the compound A has a molecular weight of 600 or less (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be the surface treatment agent within the composition, and therefore equivalent to compound A, and octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride has a molecular weight of 348).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Shimizu further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 8 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be the surface treatment agent within the composition, and therefore equivalent to compound A, and octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride comprises an octadecyl group, which is an alkyl group with 18 carbon atoms).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Shimizu further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 12 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be the surface treatment agent within the composition, and therefore equivalent to compound A, and octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride comprises an octadecyl group, which is an alkyl group with 18 carbon atoms).
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]), where the surface treatment agent 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 0.1-20% 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 0.1 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 2x10^7 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.).
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 2x10^7 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. Modified Shimizu further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 8 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be the surface treatment agent within the composition, and therefore equivalent to compound A, and octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride comprises an octadecyl group, which is an alkyl group with 18 carbon atoms).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Shimizu teaches a composition that meets all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Modified Shimizu further teaches that the compound A has an alkyl group having 12 or more carbon atoms which may have a substituent (As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride can be the surface treatment agent within the composition, and therefore equivalent to compound A, and octadecyltrimethylammonium chloride comprises an octadecyl group, which is an alkyl group with 18 carbon atoms).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Hamilton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koh et al. (KR-20140027807-A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Shimizu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Shimizu fails to teach wherein the compound A is a high-molecular-weight compound (Note: the term “high-molecular-weight compound” is being interpreted as referring to a compound with a molecular weight of 1,000 or more, as outlined in the Claim Interpretation section of the Office Action filed on 10/30/2025).
Hamilton teaches that polymeric materials can be surface treatment agents (Paragraph [0052]), where the polymeric material can be a copolymer of hydrophobic and hydrophilic blocks, such as hydrophilic block comprising hydroxyethylmethacrylate and a hydrophobic block comprising styrene (Paragraphs [0052-0053]), but Hamilton does not teach a possible molecular weight for the polymeric materials.
Koh teaches block copolymers and how to form them (Paragraph [0001]). Koh teaches that the block copolymer can comprise styrene and hydroxyethylmethacrylate (Paragraph [0055]). Koh teaches that the block copolymer can have a molecular weight between 3,000 and 30,000 (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected as the molecular weight of the copolymer of styrene and hydroxyethylmethacrylate taught by Hamilton, a molecular weight within the range taught by Koh.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the polymeric materials taught by Hamilton would have to have some molecular weight and Koh provides a range of molecular weights that are possible with the same monomer components as taught by Hamilton. This modification would also have been obvious as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a possible molecular weight range that would be suitable for the copolymer of styrene and hydroxyethylmethacrylate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-4, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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
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
Prosecution Insights