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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, along with the species of component (A) of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and component (B) of hexamethylenetetramine, in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract is in multiple paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaefer et al (US 2022/0064577).
Regarding claims 1-2, Schaefer et al disclose a post-CMP cleaning composition [0005], wherein the composition comprising at least one pH adjusting agent; where the composition has a pH of from about 1 to about 14 [0007]; and selected form alkanolamines (e.g., monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, methylethanolamine [0018]; and aforesaid at least the “triethanolamine” corresponds to the claimed component (B) a compound having an amino group and a hydroxyl group.
Schaefer et al also disclose that the cleaning composition further comprises a polymer, such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [0040]; and which PVA corresponds to the claimed component (A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamboli (US 2019/0390139) in view of Wojtczak et al (WO 98/30667).
Regarding claim 1, Tamboli discloses a post-CMP cleaning formulation (composition) [0046] comprises a polymeric additive, water and optionally a surfactant, corrosion inhibitors, biological preservatives, defoaming agent; pH adjusting agents [0047]; the cleaning composition may comprise a water-soluble polymeric additive. Polymer may be a homopolymer or copolymer. The polymer may contain positively charged species (cationic polymer), negatively charged groups (anionic polymers), nonionic groups (nonionic polymers); and the polymer may comprise polyvinyl alcohol [0050]; and aforesaid polyvinyl alcohol reads on the claimed “component (A)”.
Tamboli discloses that the pH of the formulation is preferably between 1 and 7 [0058]; and the claimed limitation of the pH of more than 7 is obvious over the pH value of 7 taught by the Tamboli because they are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Unlike the instant invention, Tamboli fails to disclose that the cleaning composition further comprises a component (B) (elected species of hexamethylenetetramine).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wojtczak et al disclose a cleaning formulation (composition) comprises an organic amine (abstract, and see the summary of the invention at pages 1-2), wherein the amine comprises triethanolamine (TEA) and other amines are effectively used such as “hexamethylenetetramine” (page 2-3, specifically, page 3, line 5), wherein the triethanolamine reads on the claimed component (B), wherein a compound having an amino group and a hydroxyl group. It is noted that “hexamethylenetetramine” is the elected species of the component (B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Wojtczak et al's teaching of introducing the organic amines into the teaching of Tamboli for effective cleaning the post-CMP residue as suggested by Wojtczak et al.
Regarding claim 2, Tamboli discloses above for the claim 1 and disclose that the polymer may comprise polyvinyl alcohol [0050], which corresponds to the claimed component (A).
Regarding claim 3, Wojtczak et al disclose above for the claim 1 and disclose that the amine comprises triethanolamine (TEA) and other amines are effectively used such as “hexamethylenetetramine” (page 2-3, specifically, page 3, line 5), which corresponds to the claimed component (B).
Regarding claim 4, Tamboli discloses above that the composition comprises pH adjusting agents [0047]; but nowhere discloses the introduction of a buffer representing by the formula: A-COO-NH4+, the composition of Tamboli is free of such buffer.
Regarding claim 5, Tamboli discloses above or the claim 1 and also disclose that the composition the cleaning chemistry may contain biological growth inhibitors include but are not limited to tetramethylammonium chloride, tetraethylammonium chloride, tetrapropylammonium chloride, alkylbenzyldimethylammonium chloride, and alkylbenzyldimethylammonium hydroxide, wherein the alkyl chain ranges from 1 to about 20 carbon atoms, sodium chlorite, sodium hypochlorite, isothiazolinone compounds such as methylisothiazolinone, methylchloroisothiazolinone and benzisothiazolinone [0081]; aforesaid teaching reads on the claimed antiseptic agent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights