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, Species A1, B1 and C1 in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 9 and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 14, 2026.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 13 will be examined on the merits.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0157070 to Lee in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0330927 to Kumagai et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0170008 to Park et al.
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method for processing a surface in which a surface of a pattern on a substrate is processed, the method comprising: a first step for processing the surface of the pattern with a first chemical solution, the first chemical solution comprising a silane coupling agent (see Lee paragraphs [0030]-[0036] disclosing contacting the surface of a substrate with a silane coupling agent, such as 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane where the SP value of Hansen solubility parameter of 15 or more is considered an inherent property of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, which is one of the Applicant’s disclosed silane coupling agents – see Specification paragraph [0039] and [0053] that has a SP value of Hansen solubility parameter of 15 or more).
Regarding the recitation “a second step for processing the surface of the pattern with a second chemical solution after the first step, the second chemical solution comprising an anionic or amphoteric surfactant,” Lee further discloses that the substrate surface can be treated with a surfactant (see Lee paragraphs [0038]-[0041] and [0043]) and that the substrate surface can be rinsed after treatment (see Lee paragraphs [0048]-[0050]). Lee does not explicitly disclose that the surfactant is an anionic or amphoteric surfactant. Kumagai discloses that use of anionic and/or amphoteric surfactants are known in the art (see Kumagai paragraphs [0085]-[0097]). Furthermore, Park discloses that it is known in the art to include a surfactant in the rinse (see Park paragraphs [0032]-[0034]. [0056] and [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to either use an anionic or amphoteric surfactant as disclosed by Kumagai and/or include a surfactant in the rinsing step as disclosed by Park in order to improve the treatment of the substrate (where separation of steps and/or duplication of steps are considered prima facie obvious – see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) and see In re Citron, 326 F.2d 418 (1964) (mere duplication of steps without change in function is obvious).
As to claims 2 and 3, the combination of Lee, Kumagai and Park discloses that the silane coupling agent comprises a Si atom and an amino group and that the silane coupling agent is selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by formula (1a) (see Lee paragraphs [0030]-[0036] disclosing contacting the surface of a substrate with a silane coupling agent, such as 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane).
As to claims 4 and 5, the combination of Lee, Kumagai and Park discloses that the surfactant is at least one selected from the group consisting of a compound represented by the formula (2a) (see Kumagai paragraph [0091]).
As to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Lee, Kumagai and Park discloses that the first and second chemical solution can comprise water (see Lee paragraphs [0044], [0050]; Kumagai paragraph [0029]; Park paragraph [0055]).
As to claim 10, while Lee does not explicitly disclose the concentration of the silane coupling agent, Kumagai discloses a similar composition wherein the amount of silane coupling agent is preferably 5% by mass or less and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use 5% or less as disclosed by Kumagai and the results would have been predictable (see Kumagai paragraph [0049]; see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) where differences in concentration will not support patentability unless there is evidence that concentration is critical).
As to claim 11, the combination of Lee, Kumagai and Park discloses that the surfactant concentration can be from 0.001-5 wt% (see Park paragraphs [0056], [0062]; see also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) where differences in concentration will not support patentability unless there is evidence that concentration is critical).
As to claim 13, the combination of Lee, Kumagai and Park discloses that the method can include a step for preparing a substrate with an etched pattern (see Lee paragraphs [0003], [0057]-[0062], [0068], [0080] and claim 17), and the step for processing the surface of the substrate by the method according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights