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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Note that, the preliminary amendment filed September 10, 2024, has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-8, drawn to a cleaning agent for substrates.
Group II, claim(s) 9, drawn to a cleaning method.
Group III, claim(s) 10, drawn to a supplementary liquid.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a cleaning agent for substrates, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of at least US 2019/0136161 or US2016/0215241.
During a telephone conversation with Amy Schmid on May 13, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-8 and 11-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claim 18, line 1, it is suggested that Applicant delete “includes” and insert “comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US2016/0215241).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Lee et al teach cleaner composition for a process of manufacturing a semiconductor and a display. The cleaner
composition includes 0.01 to 5.0 wt% of amino acid-based chelating agent, 0.01 to 1.5 wt% of organic acid, 0.01 to 1.0 wt% of inorganic acid, 0.01 to 5.0 wt% of alkali compound, and the balance of deionized water and is based on acidic water with pH levels of 1 to 5. The cleaner composition may enhance metal contaminants removal capability and have a function to remove particles and organic contaminants, and prevent corrosion of copper and reverse adsorption of copper. Thus, cleaner composition may be used for various purposes of etching copper, removing residues, and a cleaner by adjusting an etch rate. See Abstract. The organic acid may be at least one selected from the group consisting of a lactic acid, lactic acid alkyl ester,
acetic acid, and acetic acid alkyl ester, and the inorganic acid may be a nitric acid or sulfuric acid. See para. 11. Also, in the cleaner composition of an embodiment
of the present disclosure, an oxidizing agent may be added within a range from 0.01 to 0.1 wt% to replace a portion of the inorganic acid of the foregoing composition, and the oxidizing agent may serve to adjust an etching rate and enhance removability of metal contaminants. See para. 20. Suitable oxidizing agents include hydrogen peroxide, etc. See para. 29.
Lee et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Lee et al suggest a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-8, 11-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al (US 2019/0136161).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, treatment liquid for a semiconductor device, comprising: an oxidizing agent; a corrosion inhibitor; water; and Fe. See paras. 10-20. The pH of the treatment liquid is −3.0 to 5.0. See para. 44. The treatment liquid preferably further includes a polyfunctional organic acid. See para. 94. Suitable organic acids include malic acid, citric acid, etc., in amounts from 0.01% to 5% by weight. See paras. 195-206. The treatment liquid contains an oxidizing agent, wherein suitable oxidizing agents include hydrogen peroxide, etc., in amounts from 0.01 to 10% by weight. See paras. 100-104. The treatment liquid according to the preferably further contains a halide. By incorporation of the halide into the treatment liquid, a residue removing property is improved in the production of a semiconductor device. The halide is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrobromic acid (HBr), hydroiodic acid (HI), fluorosilicic acid (H.sub.2SiF.sub.6), fluoroboric acid, an ammonium fluorosilicate salt ((NH.sub.4).sub.2SiF.sub.6), tetramethylammonium hexafluorophosphate, ammonium fluoride, an ammonium fluoride salt, an ammonium bifluoride salt, quaternary ammonium tetrafluoroborate (for example, tetramethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetraethylammonium tetrafluoroborate, tetrapropylammonium tetrafluoroborate, and tetrabutylammonium tetrafluoroborate), and quaternary phosphonium tetrafluoroborate (for example, tetrabutylphosphonium tetrafluoroborate). In the case where the halide is contained, the content thereof is preferably 0.01% to 30% by mass, more preferably 0.1% to 15% by mass, and still more preferably 0.1% to 5% by mass, with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid. See paras. 192-197. The treatment liquid according to the embodiment of the present invention may contain a pH adjuster. See para. 213.
Kamimura et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Kamimura et al suggest a composition having a pH of less than 2.5, the composition containing a carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US2016/0215241) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 11-20 above, and further in view of Kamimura et al (US 2019/0136161).
Lee et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Kamimura et al do not teach the use of a chloride ion in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Kamimura et al are relied upon as set forth above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a chlorine ion source such as hydrochloric acid in the composition taught by Lee et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kamimura et al teach that the use of a chlorine ion source such as hydrochloric acid in a similar composition provide enhanced residue removing properties in the production of a semiconductor device and further, such properties would be desirable in the composition taught by Lee et al.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al (US 2019/0136161) as applied to claims 1-8, 11-16, 19, and 20 above, and further in view of Andou et al (US2008/0045016) or Pasqualoni et al (US2003/0064671).
Kamimura et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Kamimura et al do not teach the use of an inorganic acid such as sulfuric acid as recited by the instant claims.
Andou et al teach a cleaning composition can decontaminate a surface of a chemically mechanically polished semiconductor substrate having a metal wiring and a low dielectric constant film and can highly remove impurities such as residual abrasive grains, residual polishing waste, and metal ions on the metal wiring and low dielectric constant film without corroding the metal wiring, degrading electric characteristics of the low dielectric constant film, and causing mechanical damage to the low dielectric constant film. See Abstract. The cleaning composition according to the present invention may further contain a pH adjuster (F) if necessary. Examples of the pH adjusters (F) include inorganic acids such as hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, and sulfuric acid; the pH adjusters (F) may be used alone or in combination of two or more kinds. See paras. 68-72.
Pasqualoni et al teach a CMP slurry composition used for polishing metals comprising an abrasive and an oxidizer. See Abstract. Various acids such as sulfuric acid, nitric acid, etc., may be added to the composition as pH adjusters in amounts from 0.1% to 2% by weight of the composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an acid such as sulfuric acid in the composition taught by Kamimura et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Pasqualoni et al or Andou et al teach the use of an acid such as sulfuric acid as a pH adjustor in similar composition and further, Kamimura et al teach the use pH adjusters in general.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights