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 .
Response to Amendment
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a/1) rejection of claims 1-10, 16-20 as being anticipated by Fukui, is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on August 6, 2026.
New Rejections
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.
Claims 1-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui (Clarivate Analytics English translation of KR-2020-0108887-A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukui teaches a chemical liquid (chemical solution, last para of page 10, 3rd last para of page 12), used for manufacturing a semiconductor (3rd last para of page 3), comprising: a silylation agent ((IV) a silazane compound represented by the general formula [4]), last para of page 10); an aprotic solvent ((III) raw material chemical solution having an aprotic solvent, 4th last para of page 10); an alcohol (protic compound (AH), last para of page 10, alcohol, paras 4-5 of page 11); and water (protic compound (AH), last para of page 10, water, para 4 of page 11).
In addition, Fukui teaches that a content of the water is within a range of 100 ppm by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid (last para of page 2, 1st para of page 3), but fails to be more specific, except to also teach a combined molar content of the alcohol and water, of 0.001 mol as the protic compound with respect to 1 kg of the chemical liquid (1 kg of the total amount of (II), (III) and (IV), 5th para of page 11). Fukui fails to teach a molar ratio of the alcohol to the water, and hence fails to specify individual contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, when the water is within a range of 10 ppm by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid.
However, Fukui teaches that the contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, are adjusted for the purpose of providing the desired water repellency (effect, 4th para of page 11), thus establishing the individual contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, as result-effective variables. The simplest and hence most obvious molar ratio for the alcohol to the water is one to one, such that the simplest and hence most obvious content of the alcohol in the chemical liquid of Fukui, is 30 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid ((((60 g/mol of 2-propanol x ½ x 0.001 mol protic solvent)/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, 2-propanol, 4th para of page 11, has molecular weight of 60 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 5 to 200 ppm by mass; and the simplest and hence most obvious content of the water in the chemical liquid of Fukui, is 9 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid ((((18 g/mol of H2O x ½ x 0.001 mol protic solvent)/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, water, 4th para of page 11, has molecular weight of 18 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 10 ppm by mass or less, each with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, for the purpose of providing the desired water repellency as described above.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been a result of routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have arrived at a content of the alcohol that is within a range of 5 to 200 ppm by mass, and a content of the water that is within a range of 10 ppm or less, each with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid of Fukui, in order to obtain the desired water repellency taught by Fukui.
Regarding claim 2, Fukui teaches that the silylation agent contains a compound having a Si-N bond (a silazane compound represented by the general formula [4]), last para of page 10, hexamethyldisilazane, 5th para of page 17). .
Regarding claims 3-4, 16-17, Fukui teaches that the silylation agent contains a silazane compound (a silazane compound represented by the general formula [4]), last para of page 10, hexamethyldisilazane, 5th para of page 17).
Regarding claims 6, 19, Fukui teaches that the alcohol has 6 or less carbon atoms (4th para of page 11), which is within the claimed range of 10 or less carbon atoms.
Regarding claims 7, 20, Fukui teaches that the alcohol can also have two hydroxyl groups (ethylene glycol, 4th last para of page 11, (((31 ppm = 62 g/mol of 2-propanol x ½ x 0.001 mol protic solvent)/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, ethylene glycol, 4th para of page 11, has molecular weight of 62 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 5 to 200 ppm by mass).
Regarding claim 8, Fukui teaches that the content of the alcohol is 30 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid ((((60 g/mol x 0.001 mol) of ethylene glycol/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, 2-propanol, 4th last para of page 11, has molecular weight of 60 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 5 to 150 ppm.
Regarding claim 9, Fukui teaches a chemical liquid (chemical solution, last para of page 10, 3rd last para of page 12) used for manufacturing a semiconductor (3rd last para of page 3), comprising: a silylation agent ((IV) a silazane compound represented by the general formula [4]), last para of page 10); an aprotic solvent ((III) raw material chemical solution having an aprotic solvent, 4th last para of page 10); an alcohol (protic compound (AH), last para of page 10, alcohol, paras 4-5 of page 11); and water (protic compound (AH), last para of page 10, water, para 4 of page 11).
In addition, Fukui teaches that a content of the water is within a range of 100 ppm by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid (last para of page 2, 1st para of page 3), but fails to be more specific, except to also teach that a combined molar content of the alcohol and water, of 0.001 mol as the protic compound with respect to 1 kg of the chemical liquid (1 kg of the total amount of (II), (III) and (IV), 5th para of page 11). Fukui fails to teach a molar ratio of the alcohol to the water, and hence fails to specify individual contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, when the water is within a range of 10 ppm by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid.
However, Fukui teaches that the contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, are adjusted for the purpose of providing the desired water repellency (effect, 4th para of page 11), thus establishing the individual contents of the alcohol and the water, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, as result-effective variables. The simplest and hence most obvious molar ratio for the alcohol to the water is one to one, such that the simplest and hence most obvious content of the alcohol in the chemical liquid of Fukui, is 30 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid ((((60 g/mol of 2-propanol x ½ x 0.001 mol protic solvent)/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, 2-propanol, 4th para of page 11, has molecular weight of 60 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 5 to 200 ppm by mass; and the simplest and hence most obvious content of the water in the chemical liquid of Fukui, is 9 ppm by mass with respect to a total mass of the chemical liquid ((((18 g/mol of H2O x ½ x 0.001 mol protic solvent)/1,000 g of total amount) x 1,000,000 ppm), 0.001 mol with respect to 1 kg of the total amount of II, III and IV, 3rd last para of page 11, water, 4th para of page 11, has molecular weight of 18 g/mol), which is within the claimed range of 10 ppm by mass or less, with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid, for the purpose of providing the desired water repellency as described above.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been a result of routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have arrived at a content of the alcohol that is within a range of 5 to 200 ppm by mass, and a content of the water that is within a range of 10 ppm or less, each with respect to the total mass of the chemical liquid used for manufacturing a semiconductor of Fukui, in order to obtain the desired water repellency taught by Fukui.
Regarding claim 10, Fukui teaches that the chemical liquid is used in treating a substrate (wafer, 4th para of page 3) having, on a surface, at least two regions made of different materials (inorganic pattern and resin pattern, 4th para of page 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new embodiment, which contains the combination of alcohol and water as the protic compound in the chemical liquid of Fukui, in the new grounds of rejection.
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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (571)272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights