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
The Amendment filed on August 6th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 21 and claim 22 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claim 21 and claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsuchiya (JP 2020167237 A) is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (JP 2020167237 A) as cited in IDS filed 5/15/2026 and Du (US 20070219103 A1), as evidenced by Polymer Source (“Poly(N-Vinyl Acetamide”).
With regard to claim 21 and claim 22, Tsuchiya discloses a composition for rinse, which comprises a water-soluble polymer (see Abstract). Tsuchiya further discloses one or more polymers selected from polymers having hydroxyl groups, carboxyl groups, acyloxy groups, sulfo groups, amide structures, imide structures, vinyl structures, heterocyclic structures, etc. (see [0016]) and further discloses N-vinylacetamide (see [0020]). N-vinylacetamide is disclosed as a suitable polymer constituent in the instant specifications. When polymerized, the monomer unit of N-vinylacetamide is below, which reads on Formula (1) (see Polymer Source).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsuchiya further discloses the rinse composition may further comprise a surfactant (see [0010]). Tsuchiya further teaches anionic or nonionic surfactants can be preferred (see [0063]). Tsuchiya further discloses the rinse composition may comprise water (see [0067]). Tsuchiya further teaches the rinsing composition may be applied to rinsing an object to be polished (e.g., a silicon wafer) after a polishing process (see [0079]). Tsuchiya further discloses the rinsing composition is supplied to the surface of a polished object after polishing in the form of a rinsing solution containing the rinsing composition and used to rinse the polished object (see [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the polymer, surfactant, and water of Tsuchiya to produce a rinse composition that can reduce the number of defects in the polished object after polishing, as disclosed by Tsuchiya (see [0005]).
However, Tsuchiya fails to disclose at least one of ammonium dodecyl sulphate and polyglycerol lauryl ether as the surfactant.
Du discloses a composition for rinsing a substrate, an analogous art (see Abstract), to minimize the effects of cross-contamination including the differences in composition electrochemical properties and abrasive precipitation (see [0007]). Du further discloses the rinse agent may contain only one individual component selected from the one or more carboxylate acid containing compounds, surfactants, and inhibitors (see [0036]). Du further teaches ammonium dodecyl sulfate as a suitable surfactant (see [0038]). Du further teaches the composition may comprise water (see [0036]).
Both Tsuchiya and Du disclose compositions for rinse. Further, both Tsuchiya and Du disclose compositions comprising water and anionic surfactants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ammonium dodecyl sulfate of Du as an anionic surfactant in a rinse composition. As stated above, both Tsuchiya and Du disclose a composition for rinse comprising water and an anionic surfactant. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the ammonium dodecyl sulfate (an anionic surfactant) of Du with the composition for rinse of Tsuchiya to produce a composition for rinse.
Further, Tsuchiya discloses anionic surfactants are preferred in the composition and ammonium dodecyl sulfate is an anionic surfactant. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the anionic surfactant of Du in the composition of Tsuchiya as Tsuchiya discloses anionic surfactants are preferred in the rinse composition of Tsuchiya and Du discloses a rinse composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 and 22 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.
Applicant argues that Tsuchiya does not teach or suggest a surface treatment method using a surface treatment composition comprising a polymer, at least one of ammonium dodecyl sulphate and polyglycerol lauryl ether, and water, as recited in amended claim 1.
As stated above, while Tsuchiya fails to disclose at least one of ammonium dodecyl sulphate and polyglycerol lauryl ether, Du discloses a composition for rinsing a substrate, an analogous art (see Abstract), to minimize the effects of cross-contamination including the differences in composition electrochemical properties and abrasive precipitation (see [0007]). Du further discloses the rinse agent may contain only one individual component selected from the one or more carboxylate acid containing compounds, surfactants, and inhibitors (see [0036]). Du further teaches ammonium dodecyl sulfate as a suitable surfactant (see [0038]). Du further teaches the composition may comprise water (see [0036]).
Both Tsuchiya and Du disclose compositions for rinse. Further, both Tsuchiya and Du disclose compositions comprising water and anionic surfactants. Applicant is reminded of In re Kerkhoven, which affirmed that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose....the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art". In re Kerkhoven, 626 F .2d 846, 850, 205, USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious because both references teach a composition for rinse. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the ammonium dodecyl sulfate of Du as an anionic surfactant in a rinse composition. As stated above, both Tsuchiya and Du disclose a composition for rinse comprising water and an anionic surfactant. It would, therefore, have been obvious to combine the ammonium dodecyl sulfate (an anionic surfactant) of Du with the composition for rinse of Tsuchiya to produce a composition for rinse.
Further, Tsuchiya discloses anionic surfactants are preferred in the composition and ammonium dodecyl sulfate is an anionic surfactant. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the anionic surfactant of Du in the composition of Tsuchiya as Tsuchiya discloses anionic surfactants are preferred in the rinse composition of Tsuchiya and Du discloses a rinse composition.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights