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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2024 has been entered.
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, 3-4,7-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20020011031(US’031), further in view of US20040223898A1(US’898).
Regarding claim 1, US’031 discloses an aqueous dispersion for chemical mechanical polishing characterized by comprising an inorganic abrasive and organic particles with anionic group, wherein the removal rate for silicon oxide film is at least 5 times the removal rate for silicon nitride film. See abstract.
The “inorganic abrasive” may be silica, ceria, alumina, titania, zirconia or the like, and particularly preferred are silica and ceria. See [0024]. The average particle size of the inorganic abrasive is preferably 0.01-3 μm. See [0025]. The content of the inorganic abrasive in the aqueous dispersion will depend on the type of inorganic abrasive. For ceria, it may be 0.02-5 parts, preferably 0.05-2 parts and more preferably 0.1-1 part with respect to 100 parts of the aqueous dispersion. See [0026].
The preferred pH will differ depending on the inorganic abrasive, and in the case of ceria the pH is preferably 5-12; these pH ranges are preferred to allow both enhanced removal rate and selectivity. See [0041].
The aqueous dispersion may also contain surfactants. The surfactants may be anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, cationic surfactant or amphoteric surfactant, but anionic surfactant are preferred. As examples of anionic surfactant there may be mentioned potassium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, ammonium dodecyl sulfate and the like. The contents of these anionic surfactant may be 0 to 0.5 wt %, preferably 0.005 to 0.2 wt % and more preferably 0.01 to 0.1 wt % with respect to the aqueous dispersion. See [0044].
But it is silent using cubiform ceria abrasive particles comprise a mixture of cerium oxide and lanthanum oxide.
US’898 discloses an abrasive solution comprising particles and water, wherein the particles have a particle size of 0.005 to 1 μm and comprise as a main component crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system and as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination thereof, wherein the additional component is contained in X/(Ce+X) molar ratio of 0.001 to 0.5 in which X is lanthanum atoms, neodymium atoms or a combination thereof. US’898 discloses that the particles are suitable as an abrasive and enables to polishing at high removal rate and gives the surface of polished object with high quality. See [0129].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use cubiform ceria abrasive particles comprise a mixture of cerium oxide and lanthanum oxide motivated by the fact that US’898 discloses that such particles are suitable as an abrasive and enables to polishing at high removal rate and gives the surface of polished object with high quality. See [0129].
Regarding claim 3, US’898 discloses an abrasive solution comprising particles and water, wherein the particles have a particle size of 0.005 to 1 μm and comprise as a main component crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system and as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination thereof, wherein the additional component is contained in X/(Ce+X) molar ratio of 0.001 to 0.5 in which X is lanthanum atoms, neodymium atoms or a combination thereof. See abstract.
Regarding claim 4, US’898 discloses that the specific surface area of the particles by a gas adsorption method (BET method) is 2 to 200 m2/g. See [0058].
Regarding claims 7 - 9, US’031 discloses using polyacrylic acid. See [0045].
Regarding claims 10-11 and 18, US’031 discloses using organic acids such as para-toluenesulfonic acid, dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, isoprenesulfonic acid, gluconic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, glycolic acid, malonic acid, formic acid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, fumaric acid, maleic acid, phthalic acid and the like. As inorganic acids there may be mentioned nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and the like. These organic acids or inorganic acids may be used alone or in combinations of two or more, and organic acids and inorganic acids may also be used together. These acids may be included at 0.02-2 parts and especially 0.05-1 part with respect to 100 parts of the aqueous dispersion. See [0040].
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040223898A1(US’898).
Regarding claim 1, US’898 discloses an abrasive solution comprising particles and water, wherein the particles have a particle size of 0.005 to 1 μm and comprise as a main component crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system and as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination thereof, wherein the additional component is contained in X/(Ce+X) molar ratio of 0.001 to 0.5 in which X is lanthanum atoms, neodymium atoms or a combination thereof. See abstract. The abrasive solution prepared as mentioned above can be adjusted by adding a basic substance to a pH ranging 8 to 13. See [0029].
The particles can be contained in an abrasive solution in a range of 0.01 to 50 wt %, preferably 0.1 to 30 wt %. See [0065].
Anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant or cationic surfactant can be used. Illustrative example of them are as follows: water-soluble polymer, such as polyvinyl alcohol, acrylic polymer and ammonium salt thereof, methacrylic polymer and ammonium salt thereof, etc.; anionic surfactant, such as ammonium oleate, ammonium laurate, triethanolamine lauryl sulfate, ammonium polyoxyethylene lauryl ether sulfate, etc.; nonionic surfactant, such as polyoxyethylene lauryl ether, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate, polyoxyethylene glycol disterate, polyethylene glycol monostearate, etc. The surfactants may be added in an amount of 0.01 to 100 parts by weight on the basis of 100 parts by weight of cerium oxide particles. See [0068].
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "overlapping" or “ encompassing” ranges, and overlapping or encompassing ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, the particles have a particle size of 0.005 to 1 μm and comprise as a main component crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system and as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination thereof, wherein the additional component is contained in X/(Ce+X) molar ratio of 0.001 to 0.5 in which X is lanthanum atoms, neodymium atoms or a combination thereof. See abstract.
Regarding claim 4, the specific surface area of the particles by a gas adsorption method (BET method) is 2 to 200 m2/g. See [0058].
Regarding claims 7-11, anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant or cationic surfactant can be used. Illustrative example of them are as follows: water-soluble polymer, such as polyvinyl alcohol, acrylic polymer and ammonium salt thereof, methacrylic polymer and ammonium salt thereof, etc.; anionic surfactant, such as ammonium oleate, ammonium laurate, triethanolamine lauryl sulfate, ammonium polyoxyethylene lauryl ether sulfate, etc. The surfactants may be added in an amount of 0.01 to 100 parts by weight on the basis of 100 parts by weight of cerium oxide particles. See [0068].
Regarding claim 12-13, anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant or cationic surfactant can be used. Nnonionic surfactant, such as polyoxyethylene lauryl ether, is used. The surfactants may be added in an amount of 0.01 to 100 parts by weight on the basis of 100 parts by weight of cerium oxide particles. See [0068].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040223898A1(US’898).as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20120108064A1(US’064).
Regarding claim 17, US’898 disclose an abrasive slurry set forth above. But it is silent about the using of polyvinylpyrrolidone.
US’064 discloses In terms of improving the polishing rate and the wettability of the surface of the silicon wafer and reducing the adhesion of particles to the polished surface, the water-soluble macromolecular compound included in the polishing composition of the present invention is preferably at least one selected from the polyvinylpyrrolidone, the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine), and the hydroxyethyl cellulose, and more preferably at least one selected from the polyvinylpyrrolidone and the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine). See [0060].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use polyvinylpyrrolidone in the teaching of US’898 motivated by the fact that In terms of improving the polishing rate and the wettability of the surface of the silicon wafer and reducing the adhesion of particles to the polished surface, the water-soluble macromolecular compound included in the polishing composition of the present invention is preferably at least one selected from the polyvinylpyrrolidone, the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine), and the hydroxyethyl cellulose, and more preferably at least one selected from the polyvinylpyrrolidone and the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine). See [0060].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as allegedly being obvious over Hattori et al. (US 2002/0011031, hereinafter "Hattori") and further in view of Ota et al. (US 2004/0223898, hereinafter "Ota").
The applicant argues that Ota does not describe cubiform ceria abrasive particles as required by the pending claims and as described in the present application.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Ota discloses that the crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system containing as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination. See [0059].
The applicant argues that Ota describes Comparative Example 2 as cubic ceria. The Examiner respectfully submits that the cubic ceria of comparative Example 2 does not contain an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination
The applicant argues that Ota shows a photograph of the particles from Example 5 in Figure 6, which clearly show the particles not being cubic.
The Examiner respectfully submits that ceria containing an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination is one of the choices for abrasives used by Ota. The Examiner respectfully submits that Ota discloses that the crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system containing as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination. See [0059]. Furthermore, a reference is not limited to the teaching in its preferred embodiment (A reference is good not only for what it teaches but also for what one of ordinary skill might reasonably infer from the teachings. In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (CAFC 1989); In re Bode USPQ 12; In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278; In re Bozek 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969); In re Van Mater 144 USPQ 421; In re Jacoby 135 USPQ 317; In re LeGrice 133 USPQ 365; In re Preda 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In addition, "A reference can be used for all it realistically teaches and is not limited to the disclosure in its preferred embodiments" See In re Van Marter, 144 USPQ 421).
The applicant argues that Ota would not motivate a person of skill in the art to use a cubic shaped ceria abrasive.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Ota discloses that the crystalline cerium oxide of the cubic system containing as an additional component a lanthanum compound, a neodymium compound or a combination. See [0059]..
The applicant argues that Ota fails to teach poly(methacrylic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonic acid), poly(styrene sulfonic acid), poly(2- acrylamido-2-methyl-1-propanesulfonic acid), poly(4-styrenesulfonic acid-co-maleic acid), dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, or a mixture thereof.
The Examiner respectfully submits that claim 18 is not rejected under Ota alone.
The Applicant argues that Suzuki teaches the beneficial effect of the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine) is to interact with the silica abrasive and the silicon wafer.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Suzuki teaches that the abrasive included in the polishing composition is not particularly limited as long as it is in the form of abrasive grains generally used for polishing. For example, the abrasive may be particles containing at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, cerium oxide, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, silicon nitride, manganese dioxide, silicon carbide, zinc oxide, diamond, and magnesium oxide See [0043]. Thus, the beneficial effect of the poly(N-acylalkyleneimine) is expected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights