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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s), specifically, 1 and 23, as to the point that the applied prior arts fail to teach “a ratio D90/D10 of the cationized silica is 1.5 or more and 5.0 or less” 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.
Applicants argue that JP-582 uses a pH range of 1.5 to 7, whereas the pH of Tada is 7-14 and Kadohashi pH is less than 7 and so Tada’s pH value falls outside the range recited in the claims (pH 3.5-5).
In response, examiner states that such argument is not persuasive because the primary reference, JP-582 already discloses the pH range and Tada and Kadohashi were introduced for a different purpose not the remedy for the pH (see the rejection).
Further, in response to applicant's argument against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3,6,8-14,19, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-582 in view of Tada (US 2019/0071588) and Kadohashi et al (US 2020/0303198; provided with the IDS of dated 12/11/2024) and further in view of Yoshizaki et al (US 2019/0276706).
With regards to claims 1 and 19, JP-582 discloses a polishing composition comprises polishing liquid containing colloidal silica particles having a positive zeta potential and an anionic surfactant and having a pH in a range of 1.5 to 7.0 [0009],[0029]; wherein, colloidal silica synthesized by chemically treating silanol groups on the surface of the colloidal silica with an amino group-containing silane coupling agent [0016],[0047]; and zeta potential of the cationized colloidal silica is 5 to 50 mV (see, claim 9, [0016]); and aforesaid pH range and the zeta potential range overlaps the claimed ranges of “pH value 3.5 or more and 5 or less” and the claimed “zeta potential of 30 mV or more” and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
JP-582 discloses above but fails to teach the polishing composition comprises the anionic surfactant comprises a linear alkylbenzene sulfonate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tada discloses a polishing composition for polishing a layer containing a silicon material portion. Examples of the silicon material include single crystal silicon, polycrystalline silicon (polysilicon) [0015], wherein the composition comprises anionic surfactant comprises polyoxyethylene dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, etc. [0027] and aforesaid anionic surfactant reads on the claimed linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (chemical formula: C18H30NaO3S) (source: Google); and aforesaid surfactant obviously reads on the claimed specific anionic surfactant as required in the instant claim 19.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Tada's teaching of introducing the anionic surfactant into the teaching of JP-582 for improvement in the polishing speed as suggested by Tada [0029].
Tada also disclose that the polishing composition further comprises other components such as a water-soluble polymer [0046] but fails to disclose the specific water-soluble polymer listed in the claim 1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kadohashi et al disclose a polishing composition comprises polishing speed adjusting agents, at least one selected from the group consisting of water-soluble polymers having a polyalkylene chain and surfactants having a polyoxyalkylene chain is preferred, and a polyalkylene glycol and a polyalkylene copolymer are more preferred. In addition, the polyalkylene glycol is more preferably at least one of polypropylene glycol and polybutylene glycol [0048].
Kadohashi et al disclose that the object to be polished (workpiece) is, for example, silicon, polysilicon, silicon oxide film (silicon oxide), silicon nitride, or a wiring, plug, or the like made of metal or the like [0011]-[0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Kadohashi et al's teaching of introducing specified water-soluble polymer into the modified teaching of JP-582 for properly adjusting the polishing speed as suggested by Kadohashi et al.
Modified JP-582 fails to disclose “a ratio D90/D10 of the cationized silica is 1.5 or more and 5.0 or less”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshizaki et al disclose a polishing composition comprises a surface modified colloidal silica particles [0012],[0020], wherein a particle size distribution of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition, obtained by a laser diffraction scattering method, a lower limit of a ratio between a particle diameter D90 when particle mass integrated from fine particles reaches 90% of total particle mass and a particle diameter D10 when particle mass integrated from fine particles reaches 10% of total particle mass (in the present specification, also simply referred to as “D90/D10”) is preferably 1.3 or more, more preferably 1.4 or more, more preferably 1.5 or more, more preferably 1.6 or more, more preferably 1.7 or more, more preferably 1.8 or more, more preferably 1.9 or more, and still more preferably 2.0 or more; Particularly, when the upper limit of D90/D10 is 2.3 or less or 2.2 or less, the effect of suppressing erosion becomes significant [0017]; and the object to be polished includes the silicon nitride film; and at least one of the silicon oxide film and the polysilicon film [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Yoshizaki et al's teaching of using abrasive particles with the specified ratio of D90/D10 into the teaching of modified JP-582 for suppressing erosion of the polished surface as suggested by Yoshizaki et al.
With regards to clams 2-3 and 12, JP-582 discloses that the silane coupling agent comprises aminotrialkoxysilane, such as the amino group-containing silane coupling agent, a commercially available amino group-containing silane coupling agent (e.g., 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane, 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane [0047].
With regards to claims 13 and 14, JP-582 discloses above that zeta potential of the cationized colloidal silica is 5 to 50 mV [0016], which overlaps the claimed range of “30mV or more”. See, MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claims 6 and 19, Tada discloses a polishing composition comprises anionic surfactant, which includes sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate [0027]; and aforesaid anionic surfactant of “sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate” reads on the claimed linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (chemical formula: C18H30NaO3S) (source: Google);
With regards to claims 8-9, Kadohashi et al teach the water-soluble polymer comprises polybutylene glycol [0048]; the polishing speed enhancer is a water-soluble polymer, the lower limit of the weight-average molecular weight (Mw) of the polishing speed enhancer is not limited, but preferably 500 or more, more preferably 2000 or more, still more preferably 4000 or more, and yet still more preferably 6000 or more [0049]; and aforesaid overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 10, modified JP-582 discloses above for the composition as the context of claim 1 and JP-582 also discloses that each component of the composition mixes together to form the polishing composition [0132] along with pH adjusting agent [0122].
With regards to claim 11, modified JP-582 discloses above for the composition as the context of claim 1 and JP-582 discloses that the polishing composition is used to polish an object comprises silicon oxide [0009]; and modified JP-582 disclose above that polishing composition comprises all the claimed components along with the composition pH (see, the rejection for claim 1 above); and Kadohashi et al disclose that the object to be polished (workpiece) is, for example, silicon, polysilicon, silicon oxide film (silicon oxide), silicon nitride, or a wiring, plug, or the like made of metal or the like [0011]-[0012]; and Tada et al also disclose the object to be polished (workpiece) is, for example, silicon, polysilicon, silicon oxide film (silicon oxide), silicon nitride, etc. [0015].
With regards to claim 21, Kadohashi et al disclose that the composition further comprises water- soluble polymer, such as non-ionic polymer [0046].
Regarding claim 23, modified JP-582 discloses above (see rejection for the claim 1) but fails to disclose “a ratio D90/D10 of the cationized silica is 1.5 or more and 5.0 or less”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yoshizaki et al disclose a polishing composition comprises a surface modified colloidal silica particles [0012],[0020], wherein a particle size distribution of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition, obtained by a laser diffraction scattering method, a lower limit of a ratio between a particle diameter D90 when particle mass integrated from fine particles reaches 90% of total particle mass and a particle diameter D10 when particle mass integrated from fine particles reaches 10% of total particle mass (in the present specification, also simply referred to as “D90/D10”) is preferably 1.3 or more, more preferably 1.4 or more, more preferably 1.5 or more, more preferably 1.6 or more, more preferably 1.7 or more, more preferably 1.8 or more, more preferably 1.9 or more, and still more preferably 2.0 or more; Particularly, when the upper limit of D90/D10 is 2.3 or less or 2.2 or less, the effect of suppressing erosion becomes significant [0017]; and the object to be polished includes the silicon nitride film; and at least one of the silicon oxide film and the polysilicon film [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Yoshizaki et al's teaching of using abrasive particles with the specified ratio of D90/D10 into the teaching of modified JP-582 for suppressing erosion of the polished surface as suggested by Yoshizaki et al.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-582 in view of Tada (US 2019/0071588) and Kadohashi et al (US 2020/0303198; provided with the IDS of dated 12/11/2024).
Regarding claim 24, JP-582 discloses a polishing composition comprises polishing liquid containing colloidal silica particles having a positive zeta potential and an anionic surfactant and having a pH in a range of 1.5 to 7.0 [0009],[0029]; wherein, colloidal silica synthesized by chemically treating silanol groups on the surface of the colloidal silica with an amino group-containing silane coupling agent [0016],[0047]; and zeta potential of the cationized colloidal silica is 5 to 50 mV (see, claim 9, [0016]); and aforesaid pH range and the zeta potential range overlaps the claimed ranges of “pH value 3.5 or more and 5 or less” and the claimed “zeta potential of 30 mV or more” and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
JP-582 discloses above but fails to teach the polishing composition comprises the anionic surfactant comprises a linear alkylbenzene sulfonate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tada discloses a polishing composition for polishing a layer containing a silicon material portion. Examples of the silicon material include single crystal silicon, polycrystalline silicon (polysilicon) [0015], wherein the composition comprises anionic surfactant comprises polyoxyethylene dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, etc. [0027] and aforesaid anionic surfactant reads on the claimed linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (chemical formula: C18H30NaO3S) (source: Google).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Tada's teaching of introducing the anionic surfactant into the teaching of JP-582 for improvement in the polishing speed as suggested by Tada [0029].
Tada also discloses that the polishing composition further comprises other components such as a water-soluble polymer [0046] but fails to disclose the specific water-soluble polymer listed in the claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kadohashi et al disclose a polishing composition comprises polishing speed adjusting agents, at least one selected from the group consisting of water-soluble polymers having a polyalkylene chain and surfactants having a polyoxyalkylene chain is preferred, and a polyalkylene glycol and a polyalkylene copolymer are more preferred. In addition, the polyalkylene glycol is more preferably at least one of polypropylene glycol and polybutylene glycol [0048].
Kadohashi et al disclose that the object to be polished (workpiece) is, for example, silicon, polysilicon, silicon oxide film (silicon oxide), silicon nitride, or a wiring, plug, or the like made of metal or the like [0011]-[0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Kadohashi et al's teaching of introducing specified water-soluble polymer into the modified teaching of JP-582 for properly adjusting the polishing speed as suggested by Kadohashi et al.
So, the modified composition is capable of polishing both silicon oxide and polysilicon and the polishing selectivity with each other depends on the requirement or the type of device to be formed. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would easily recognize that the polishing composition taught by modified JP-582 is similar in nature as the claimed ones and expected to or capable of polishing selectively silicon dioxide (silicon oxide) with respect to polysilicon as claimed.
Regarding claim 25, without showing any criticality of the polishing rate of silicon oxide to polysilicon would have been optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art because the polishing composition of the modified JP-582 has all the components as the instant invention and used for polishing both the silicon oxide and polysilicon and expected to have the same result, unless applicants show on the contrary.
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 SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights