DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/31/2025:
claims 1, 4, 8-15 and 18-19 are currently pending
claim 1 is amended
previously presented prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Dockery are presented herein
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.
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, 4, 8-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dockery et al. (US 20190085209 A1), hereinafter referred to as DOCKERY.
Regarding claim 1, DOCKERY teaches a polishing slurry composition (Abstract: a chemical mechanical polishing composition) comprising:
abrasive particles (paragraph [0012]: polishing composition contains abrasive particles);
an oxidizer (paragraph [0029]: an oxidizing agent);
an iron-containing catalyst (paragraph [0023]: an iron containing accelerator);
a stabilizer (paragraph [0026]: a stabilizer); and
a polishing inhibitor (paragraph [0035]: a compound that provides further tungsten etching inhibition),
wherein the polishing inhibitor comprises glycine (paragraphs [0035]: amino acids; and [0089]: glycine),
wherein a molar ratio of the stabilizer to the iron-containing catalyst is from 17.9:1 to 200:1 (paragraph [0028]: stabilizers may be added to the compositions of this invention in an amount ranging from about 1 equivalent per iron containing accelerator to about 3.0 weight percent or more). DOCKERY teaches s weight ratio of stabilizer to iron containing accelerator in a range of 3 or more, which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I);
wherein the iron-containing catalyst comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of iron nitrate, iron sulfate, iron halide, iron perchlorate, iron acetate, iron acetylacetonate, iron gluconate, iron oxalate, iron phthalate and iron succinate (paragraph 0023]: iron nitrate, iron sulfate, iron halides, as well as perchlorates, and iron acetates, carboxylic acids, acetylacetonates, citrates, gluconates, malonates, oxalates, phthalates, and succinates),
wherein the stabilizer comprises an organic acid (paragraph [0027]:stabilizers include organic acids),
wherein the organic acid comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of citric acid, malic acid, maleic acid, malonic caid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, tartaric caid, adipic acid, pimelic caid, suberic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, fumaric acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, capric acid, caproic acid, caprylic acid, glutaric acid, glycolic acid, formic acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, phthalic acid, propionic acid, pyruvic acid, stearic acid and valeric acid (paragraph [0028]: stabilizers include phosphoric acid, acetic acid, phthalic acid, citric acid, adipic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, aspartic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, maleic acid),
wherein the stabilizer is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 0.5 wt% in the polishing slurry composition (paragraphs [0028]: stabilizers may be added to the compositions of this invention in an amount ranging from about 1 equivalent per iron containing accelerator to about 3.0 weight percent or more; and [0025]: catalyst may be present in composition in an amount from about 0.5 to about 3000 ppm). Thus, DOCKERY teaches stabilizer being present in an amount ranging from 0.00005% to 0.3% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range;
wherein pH of the polishing slurry composition is in a range from 1 to 2.5 (paragraph [0022]: the polishing composition may have a pH in a range from about 1 to about 6). DOCKERY teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range,
While DOCKERY is silent with respect to a retention rate of the oxidizer according to Equation 1 being 70% or greater:
[Equation 1]
Retention rate (%) of oxidizer = (concentration (%) of oxidizer after 7 days at room temperature x 100)/(initial concentration (%) of oxidizer in polishing slurry composition),
DOCKERY teaches all the components of the polishing composition as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the polishing composition of DOCKERY to necessarily comprises the claimed property such as a retention rate of the oxidizer according to Equation 1 being 70% or greater. See MPEP §2112.01(I): “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”.
Moreover, DOCKERY discloses that the polishing composition may be prepared prior to use, with one or more components, such as the oxidizing agent, being added prior to the CMP operation within about 1 week of the CMP operation (paragraph [0038]). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the retention rate of the oxidizer after storing polishing composition for 7 days.
Regarding claim 4, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1. Wherein the iron-containing catalyst is included in an amount of 0.0001 wt% to 1 wt% in the polishing slurry composition (paragraph [0025]: catalyst may be present in composition in an amount from about 0.5 to about 3000 ppm). Thus, DOCKERY teaches iron containing catalyst being present in an amount ranging from 0.00005% to 0.3%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein
the abrasive particles comprise at least one selected from a group consisting of a metal oxide, a metal oxide coated with an organic material or an inorganic material and a metal oxide in a colloidal phase (paragraph [0012]: the abrasive particles may include substantially any suitable abrasive material such as metal oxide particles), and
the metal oxide comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of silica, ceria, zirconia, alumina, titania, barium titanate, germania, mangania and magnesia (paragraph [0012]: metal oxide particles may include silica and/or alumina abrasive particles).
Regarding claim 9, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the abrasive particles comprise single-sized particles with a size of 10 nanometers (nm) to 200 nm, or a mixture of two or more particles with different sizes of 10 nm to 200 nm (paragraph [0014]: the abrasive particles may have an average particle size in a range of about 5 nm to about 200 nm). DOCKERY teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the abrasive particles are included in an amount of 0.0001 wt % to 10 wt% in the polishing slurry composition (paragraph [0015]: the amount of abrasive particles is in the range from about 0.01 wt.% to about 30 wt.%). DOCKERY teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the oxidizer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of hydrogen peroxide, urea hydrogen peroxide, urea, percarbonate, periodic acid, periodate, perchloric acid, perchlorate, perbromic acid, perbromate, perboric acid, perborate, potassium permanganate, sodium perborate, permanganic acid, permanganate, persulfate, bromate, chlorite, chlorate, chromate, dichromate, chromium compound, iodate, iodic acid, ammonium peroxysulfate, benzoyl peroxide, calcium peroxide, barium peroxide, sodium peroxide, dioxygenyl, ozone, ozonide, nitrate, hypochlorite, hypohalite, chromium trioxide, pyridinium chlorochromate, nitrous oxide, monopersulfate, dipersulfate and sodium peroxide (paragraph [0029]: hydrogen peroxide and its adducts such as urea hydrogen peroxide and percarbonates, organic peroxides such as benzoyl peroxide, peracetic acid, and di-t-butyl peroxide, monopersulfates, dipersulfates, and sodium peroxide, periodic acid, periodate salts, perbromic acid, perbromate salts, perchloric acid, perchlorate salts, perboric acid, and perborate salts and permanganates).
Regarding claim 12, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 11, wherein the oxidizer is included in an amount of 0.00001 wt% to 5 wt% in the polishing slurry composition (paragraph [0030]: the oxidizer may be present in the polishing composition in an amount ranging from about 0.1 to about 6 weight percent). DOCKERY teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein a polishing target film of the polishing slurry composition is a metal film, and the metal film comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of a metal, a metal nitride, a metal oxide and a metal alloy (paragraph [0040]: the polishing composition is particularly useful in the polishing of a substrate comprising at least one metal including tungsten and at least one dielectric material).
Regarding claim 14, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry of claim 13, wherein each of the metal, the metal nitride, the metal oxide and the metal alloy comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of indium (In), tin (Sn), silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), gadolinium (Gd), gallium (Ga), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), aluminum (Al), niobium (Nb), nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), ruthenium (Ru), and tungsten (W) (paragraph [0040]: the polishing composition is particularly useful in the polishing of a substrate comprising at least one metal including tungsten and at least one dielectric material; the tungsten layer may be deposited over one or more barrier layers, for example, including titanium and/or titanium nitride (TiN), the dielectric layer may be a metal oxide such as a silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 15, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry of claim 1, wherein the polishing inhibitor is included in an amount of 0.0001 wt% to 1 wt% in the polishing slurry composition (paragraph [0089]: 1600 ppm glycine/0.16%). DOCKERY teaches 0.16% glycine which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, DOCKERY teaches the polishing slurry composition of claim 1, wherein a polishing speed of the polishing slurry composition for a polishing target film is 500 Å/min or greater (Table 7, sample 7A: tungsten rate of 1337 Å/min, TEOS rate of 1781 Å/min). DOCKERY teaches a polishing speed which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, DOCKERY teaches the polishing composition of claim 1, but is silent with respect to a decomposition rate of the oxidizer according to Equation 3 being 10% or less:
[Equation 3]
Decomposition rate of oxidizer = (initial concentration (%) of oxidizer in polishing slurry composition – concentration (%) of oxidizer after 7 days at room temperature) x 100/(initial concentration (%) of oxidizer in polishing slurry composition).
However, DOCKERY teaches all the components of the polishing composition as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the polishing composition of DOCKERY to necessarily comprises the claimed property such as a decomposition rate of the oxidizer according to Equation 3 being 10% or less. See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed on 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Furthermore, the Declaration Traversing Rejection under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 10/31/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon Castillo in view of Grumbine and Fu as set forth in the last Office action. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dockery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731