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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-43, 6-9, 11-14, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100087065(US’065).
Regarding claim 1, US’065 discloses a CMP slurry composition with increased planarization efficiency of copper films, comprising at least one abrasive agent, at least one solvent, at least one passivating agent, a rheology agent, a selectivity additive, bases, and at least one polymeric additive.
The rheology agent is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropylcellullose, hydroxyethylcellulose, both available commercially from Aqualon (Wilmington, Del.), and carboxymethylcellulose. In a preferred embodiment, the rheology agent used in the present invention is hydroxypropylcellulose having a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 1,200,000 MW, preferably about 300,000 to about 1,000,000 MW. See [0061]. The amount of rheology agent(s) is in a range from about 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %, more preferably about 0.01 wt % to about 1 wt %, and most preferably about 0.05 wt % to about 0.2 wt %. See [0045].
The selectivity additive is added to reduce the removal rate of copper during the second step of the CMP polishing process to control selectivity. In a preferred formulation, some copper is removed (at a nonzero rate) to prevent residual copper defects. Preferably, the selectivity additive in the barrier removal CMP composition may comprise one or more selectively components including for example, poly(acrylic acid), anionic surfactants, and other polyelectrolytes. Preferably, the selectivity additive is poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) with a molecular weight in the range from about 400 MW to about 8,000,000 MW. See [0087].
Illustrative bases include, by way of example, potassium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide, trimethyl hydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyl tri(hydroxyethyl) ammonium hydroxide, tetra(hydroxyethyl)ammonium hydroxide, and benzyl trimethylammonium hydroxide. Preferably, the base is KOH. See [0067].
The solvents employed in the copper removal CMP composition of the present invention may be single component solvents or multi-component solvents, depending on the specific application. In one embodiment of the invention, the solvent in the copper removal CMP composition includes water. See [0050].
The abrasive agent in the copper removal CMP composition has a mean particle size in a range from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm, preferably about 20 nm to about 90 nm. See [0049].
Rheology agents tend to be polymeric and therefore molecular weight requirements differ depending on the type of rheology agent. For a class of water soluble polymers, such as those within the scope of the present invention, molecular weights greater than 50,000 are preferred. Preferably, the rheology agent increases the viscosity of the copper removal CMP composition to between 1.5 cSt (1.5 cP) and 50 cSt (52 cP) at 25° C. See [0062].
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “close” ranges, and overlapping or close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 2 – 3, the rheology agent is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropylcellullose, hydroxyethylcellulose, both available commercially from Aqualon (Wilmington, Del.), and carboxymethylcellulose. In a preferred embodiment, the rheology agent used in the present invention is hydroxypropylcellulose having a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 1,200,000 MW, preferably about 300,000 to about 1,000,000 MW. See [0061].
Regarding claims 6-8, the selectivity additive is poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) with a molecular weight in the range from about 400 MW to about 8,000,000 MW. See [0087].
Regarding claim 9, The amount of polymeric additive is about 0.01% to about 5% See [0045].
Regarding claims 11, Illustrative bases include, by way of example, potassium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide, trimethyl hydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyl tri(hydroxyethyl) ammonium hydroxide, tetra(hydroxyethyl)ammonium hydroxide, and benzyl trimethylammonium hydroxide. Preferably, the base is KOH. See [0067].
Regarding claim 12, The pH of the copper removal CMP composition is in a range from about 2 to about 12, preferably in a range from about 4 to about 6, even more preferably in a range from about 4.5 to about 5.5, and most preferably about 5. See [0047].
Regarding claim 13, the abrasives are selected or modified to be compatible with acidic media. In a preferred embodiment, the abrasive used in the copper removal CMP composition comprises a silica species, including, but not limited to, silica, acid-stable silica, silicon nitride, colloidal silica, and amorphous acid stable colloidal silica. See [0049].
Regarding claim 14, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 19, the rheology agent increases the viscosity of the copper removal CMP composition to between 1.5 cSt (1.5 cP) and 50 cSt (52 cP) at 25° C. See [0062]. “about” permits some tolerance.
Regarding claim 20, the amount of rheology agent(s) (cellulose) is in a range from about 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %, more preferably about 0.01 wt % to about 1 wt %, and most preferably about 0.05 wt % to about 0.2 wt %. The amount of polymeric additive (polyacrylic acid) is about 0.01% to about 5% See [0045]. Thus, the ratio of cellulose to the polyacrylic acid overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, US’065 discloses a CMP slurry composition with increased planarization efficiency of copper films, comprising at least one abrasive agent, at least one solvent, at least one passivating agent, a rheology agent, a selectivity additive, bases, and at least one polymeric additive.
The rheology agent is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropylcellullose, hydroxyethylcellulose, both available commercially from Aqualon (Wilmington, Del.), and carboxymethylcellulose. In a preferred embodiment, the rheology agent used in the present invention is hydroxypropylcellulose having a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 1,200,000 MW, preferably about 300,000 to about 1,000,000 MW. See [0061]. The amount of rheology agent(s) is in a range from about 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %. See [0045].
The selectivity additive is added to reduce the removal rate of copper during the second step of the CMP polishing process to control selectivity. In a preferred formulation, some copper is removed (at a nonzero rate) to prevent residual copper defects. Preferably, the selectivity additive in the barrier removal CMP composition may comprise one or more selectively components including for example, poly(acrylic acid)( read on the anionic polymer), anionic surfactants, and other polyelectrolytes. Preferably, the selectivity additive is poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) with a molecular weight in the range from about 400 MW to about 8,000,000 MW. See [0087].
Illustrative bases include, by way of example, potassium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide, trimethyl hydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyl tri(hydroxyethyl) ammonium hydroxide, tetra(hydroxyethyl)ammonium hydroxide, and benzyl trimethylammonium hydroxide. Preferably, the base is KOH. See [0067].
The solvents employed in the copper removal CMP composition of the present invention may be single component solvents or multi-component solvents, depending on the specific application. In one embodiment of the invention, the solvent in the copper removal CMP composition includes water. See [0050].
The abrasive agent in the copper removal CMP composition has a mean particle size in a range from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm, preferably about 20 nm to about 90 nm. See [0049].
Rheology agents tend to be polymeric and therefore molecular weight requirements differ depending on the type of rheology agent. For a class of water soluble polymers, such as those within the scope of the present invention, molecular weights greater than 50,000 are preferred. Preferably, the rheology agent increases the viscosity of the copper removal CMP composition to between 1.5 cSt (1.5 cP) and 50 cSt (52 cP) at 25° C. See [0062]. “About” permits some tolerance
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “close” ranges, and overlapping or close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 10, 22 -23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100087065(US’065) and further in view of US6561883(US’883).
US’065 discloses a CMP slurry composition with increased planarization efficiency of copper films, comprising at least one abrasive agent, at least one solvent, at least one passivating agent, a rheology agent, a selectivity additive, bases, and at least one polymeric additive.
The rheology agent is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropylcellullose, hydroxyethylcellulose, both available commercially from Aqualon (Wilmington, Del.), and carboxymethylcellulose. In a preferred embodiment, the rheology agent used in the present invention is hydroxypropylcellulose having a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 1,200,000 MW, preferably about 300,000 to about 1,000,000 MW. See [0061]. The amount of rheology agent(s) is in a range from about 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %, more preferably about 0.01 wt % to about 1 wt %, and most preferably about 0.05 wt % to about 0.2 wt %. See [0045].
The selectivity additive is added to reduce the removal rate of copper during the second step of the CMP polishing process to control selectivity. In a preferred formulation, some copper is removed (at a nonzero rate) to prevent residual copper defects. Preferably, the selectivity additive in the barrier removal CMP composition may comprise one or more selectively components including for example, poly(acrylic acid), anionic surfactants, and other polyelectrolytes. Preferably, the selectivity additive is poly(acrylic acid) (PAA) with a molecular weight in the range from about 400 MW to about 8,000,000 MW. See [0087].
Illustrative bases include, by way of example, potassium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), tetraethylammonium hydroxide, trimethyl hydroxyethylammonium hydroxide, methyl tri(hydroxyethyl) ammonium hydroxide, tetra(hydroxyethyl)ammonium hydroxide, and benzyl trimethylammonium hydroxide. Preferably, the base is KOH. See [0067].
The solvents employed in the copper removal CMP composition of the present invention may be single component solvents or multi-component solvents, depending on the specific application. In one embodiment of the invention, the solvent in the copper removal CMP composition includes water. See [0050].
The abrasive agent in the copper removal CMP composition has a mean particle size in a range from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm, preferably about 20 nm to about 90 nm. See [0049].
Rheology agents tend to be polymeric and therefore molecular weight requirements differ depending on the type of rheology agent. For a class of water soluble polymers, such as those within the scope of the present invention, molecular weights greater than 50,000 are preferred. Preferably, the rheology agent increases the viscosity of the copper removal CMP composition to between 1.5 cSt (1.5 cP) and 50 cSt (52 cP) at 25° C. See [0062].
But it is silent about using diisopropanolamine.
US’396 discloses that diisopropanolamine as an alkaline compound in a polishing composition can provide a desired pH. See col. 4, lines 30-45.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ diisopropanolamine as an alkaline compound in the teaching of US’065, motivated by the fact that US’396 discloses that diisopropanolamine as an alkaline compound in a polishing composition can provide a desired pH. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to substitute one known compound for another is known in the art.
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “close” ranges, and overlapping or close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100087065(US’065) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100167547(US’547)
US’065 disclose the composition set forth above. But it is silent about the water soluble polymer as applicant set forth in the claim 8.
US’547 discloses a polishing composition comprising water-soluble polymer include polysaccharides such as alginic acid, pectic acid, carboxymethylcellulose, agar, xanthan gum, chitosan, methyl glycol chitosan, methylcellulose, ethylcellulose, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, carboxyethylcellulose, and pullulan [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the claimed base in the polishing composition of US’065, motivated by the fact that US’547 disclose a polishing composition comprising water-soluble polymer include polysaccharides such as alginic acid, pectic acid, carboxymethylcellulose, agar, xanthan gum, chitosan, methyl glycol chitosan, methylcellulose, ethylcellulose, hydroxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, carboxyethylcellulose, and pullulan ([0118]) and US’065 disclose the composition set forth above. US’065 disclose that the rheology agent used in the CMP composition include, but are not limited to, cross-linked acrylic polymers and Water Soluble Polymers (WSPs)([0061]).Substituting one known compound for another for the same purpose is known in the art.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100087065(US’065) and US6561883(US’883), as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of TW200406286A
The combined teaching of US20100087065(US’065) and US6561883(US’883) disclose a polishing composition set forth above. US’065 discloses using acid stable abrasive. See [0017]. But it is silent about using diamond abrasive.
TW200406286A discloses that diamond is acid resistance abrasive.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the claimed base in the polishing composition of US’065 and US’883, motivated by the fact that US’065 discloses using acid resistance abrasive and TW200406286A discloses that diamond is acid resistance abrasive. See page 3, first paragraph.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/07/2025 with respect to claim(s) 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.
Regarding to the argument filed by the applicant on 09/23/2023 related to US20100087065(US’065).
Paragraph [0045] of US20100087065(US’065) is cited to show that the rheology agent is selected from the group consisting of hydroxypropylcellullose, hydroxyethylcellulose, both available commercially from Aqualon (Wilmington, Del.), and carboxymethylcellulose. In a preferred embodiment, the rheology agent used in the present invention is hydroxypropylcellulose(read on the claimed first viscosity modifying agent) having a molecular weight in the range of 50,000 to 1,200,000 MW, preferably about 300,000 to about 1,000,000 MW. See [0061]. The amount of rheology agent(s) is in a range from about 0.01 wt % to 5 wt %. See [0045].
The applicant argues the unexpected result of the instant application. The Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant must compare the instant application with the closest art. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed. In re Linder 173 USPQ 356. In the instant case the applicant uses HEC, however the claim recites “the first viscosity modifying agent comprises a cellulose derivative or a polysaccharide”. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside (i.e. as well as the upper and lower limits) the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In the instant case, there is no the content of the first viscosity modifying agent being in the range of 0-2wt%. Furthermore any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merk & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant argues that US’035 defines that “about” is intended to correspond to ±5.0% of the stated value. The Examiner respectfully submits that the instant application does not define the tolerance of “about”. See instant application [0029].
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 SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731