DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 and 15-23 are pending before the Office for review.
In the response filed May 13, 2026:
Claim 1 was amended.
No new matter is present.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 17, 2024.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0194504) hereinafter Sato’504 in view of SINGH et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0221520).
With regards to claim 1, Sato’504 discloses at least one abrasive (Paragraph [0025]) wherein the at least one silica-based abrasive is in an amount of from about 0.01-30 mass% (Paragraph [0025] discloses colloidal silica) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.01% to about 50% by weight of the composition; at least one organic acid or a salt thereof (Paragraph [0028]) wherein the at least one organic acid is in an amount of from about 0.01 to 10 mass% (Paragraph [0029]) which falls within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition; at least one amine compound, the at least one amine compound comprising an amino acid comprising at least two amino groups, an alkylamine having a 10-24 carbon alkyl chain, or a mixture thereof (Paragraph [0028]); wherein the at least one amine compound is in an amount of from about 0.01 to 10 mass% (Paragraph [0029]) which overlaps applicant’s claimed amount of about 0.001% to about 5% by weight of the composition, an organic solvent (Paragraphs [0064]) and an aqueous solvent (Paragraph [0046]); wherein the polishing composition has a pH of about 2 -12 (Paragraph [0051]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of about 2 to about 3.5. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Sato’504 does not explicitly disclose at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent, wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent is from 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition and wherein the polishing composition has a removal rate ratio of a removal rate for molybdenum to a removal rate for silicon nitride of from at least about 2:1 to at most about 1000:1, and wherein the polishing composition has a removal rate ratio of a removal rate for molybdenum to a removal rate for silicon oxide of from at least about 1:50 to at most about 50:1.
However Sato’504 discloses a surfactant wherein the surfactant comprises a phosphate ester having an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms may be used (Paragraph [0031]) which renders obvious at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent and wherein the at least one nitride removal rate educing agent is 5 mass% or less (Paragraph [0036]) which renders obvious Applicant’s claimed amount of from 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Sato’504 to include the nitride removal rate reducing agent (surfactant) as rendered obvious by the general disclosure of Sato’504 because the reference of Sato’504 teaches that such compound inhibits dishing (Paragraph [0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the nitride removal rate reducing agent (surfactant) as rendered obvious by Sato’504 . MPEP 2143D
Sato’504 discloses wherein the composition is provided to polish a fill of metal, for metal wiring to fill groves, barrier film and interlay dielectric film (Paragraphs [0059]-[0061]). Singh discloses a polishing composition for molybdenum comprising at least one silica based abrasive (Paragraph [0015]), an acid (Paragraph [0026]), a water surface active material including materials such as poly acrylic acid (PAA) polymethacyrlic acid (PMMA) which renders obvious at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent (Paragraphs [0017]-[0021]) at a pH in a range between about 3 to about 6 (Paragraph [0026]) wherein the polishing removal rate can be adjusted based on the abrasive content, pH and oxidizer content (Paragraphs [0035]-[0041]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the removal rate ratio to amounts including of a removal rate for molybdenum and/or its alloys to a removal rate for silicon nitride of from at least about 2:1 to at most about 1000:1 and a removal rate for molybdenum and/or its alloys to a removal rate for silicon oxide of from at least about 1:50 to at most about 50:1 as claimed in order to achieved the suitable surface roughness and removal rate as taught by the modified teachings of Sato’504 in view of Singh (Singh Paragraphs [0036]-[0041], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the composition of Sato’504 as modified by Singh would provide Applicant’s claimed removal rate ratio as this is the property of the composition based off the processing conditions. 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). MPEP 2112.01
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Sato’504 to include the adjusting removal rate as rendered obvious by Singh because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the removal rate ratio as rendered obvious by Moringa. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious wherein the at least one abrasive is selected from the group consisting of colloidal silica, fumed silica and mixtures thereof (Sato’504 Paragraph [0025], Singh Paragraph [0015],[0023]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least one abrasive is in an amount of from about 0.01-30 mass% (Sato’504Paragraph [0025]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.05% to about 45% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious wherein the at least one organic acid is selected from the group consisting of gluconic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, glycolic acid, malonic acid, formic acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, peracetic acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, amino acetic acid, phenoxyacetic acid, bicine, diglycolic acid, glyceric acid, and mixtures thereof (Sato’504Paragraph [0028] discloses glycolic acid, formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid).
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least one organic acid is in an amount of from about 0.01 to 10 mass% (Sato’504 Paragraph [0029]) which falls within Applicant’s claimed range of about 0.003% to about 9% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious wherein the at least one amine compound is selected from the group consisting of histidine, arginine, lysine, and mixtures thereof (Sato’504Paragraph [0028]).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least one amine compound is in an amount of from about 0.01 to 10 mass% (Sato’504 Paragraph [0028])which overlaps applicant’s claimed amount of about 0.003% to about 4.5% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 8-11, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent comprises a phosphate ester having an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms; the phosphate ester include alkyl phosphate esters such as octylphosphoric acid, decylphosphoric acid, laurylphosphoric acid, myristylphosphoric acid, cetylphosphoric acid, stearylphosphoric acid, secondary alkyl (average carbon number of 13) phosphoric acid, 2-ethylhexylphosphoric acid and oleylphosphoric acid; and polyoxyalkylene ether alkyl phosphate esters such as monostearyl glyceryletherphosphoric acid, monocetyl glyceryl ether phosphoric acid, monooleyl glyceryl ether phosphoric acid, isostearyl glyceryl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene octyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene decyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene lauryl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene myristyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene cetyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene stearyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene secondary alkyl (average carbon number of 13) ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene 2-methylhexyl ether phosphoric acid, polyoxyethylene 2-oleyl ether phosphoric acid and polyoxyethylene nonyl phenyl ether phosphoric acid (Sato’504 Paragraph [0031]) which renders obvious wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent comprises: a hydrophobic portion comprising a C6 to C4o hydrocarbon group; and a hydrophilic portion comprising at least one group selected from the group consisting of a sulfinite group, a sulfate group, a sulfonate group, a carboxylate group, a phosphate group, and a phosphonate group; and wherein the hydrophobic portion and the hydrophilic portion are separated by zero to ten alkylene oxide groups; wherein the hydrophobic portion comprises a C12 to C32 hydrocarbon group; wherein the hydrophilic portion comprises a phosphate group or a phosphonate group and wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent has zero alkylene oxide group separating the hydrophobic portion and the hydrophilic portion.
With regards to claim 15, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least one nitride removal rate educing agent is 5 mass% or less (Sato’504Paragraph [0036]) which renders obvious Applicant’s claimed amount of from 0.003% to about 9% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 16, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious wherein the composition further comprises at least one azole compound (Sato’504Paragraph [0037]-[0045]).
With regards to claim 17, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the at least azole compound is from about 0.001 to 1 mass% (Sato’504 Paragraph [0045]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of from about 0.001% to about 5% by weight for the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 18 and 19, the modified teachings of Sato’504 discloses wherein the composition comprise organic solvent/water mixed with the composition to form an aqueous composition (Sato’504Paragraph [0046]) wherein the organic solvent maybe an aqueous alcohol including aqueous ethanol, ethylene glycol and the link (Singh Paragraph [0014]) and added in sufficient amounts to dissolve the components prior to use (Sato’504Paragraphs [0046], [0064] Singh [0029]) which renders obvious wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of ethanol and ethylene glycol (Singh [0029]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of organic solvent to amounts including applicants claimed amount of about 0.001 % to about 10% by weight in order to have a sufficient amount to dissolve to components at point of use as taught by the modified teachings of Sato’504 . (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), Sato’504Paragraphs [0046], [0064] Singh [0029]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0194504) hereinafter Sato’504 in view of SINGH et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0221520), as applied to claims 1-11 and 15-19, in further view of SATO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0289217) hereinafter Sato’217.
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
However the modified teachings of Sato’504 are silent as to wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent is selected from the group consisting of lauryl phosphate, myristyl phosphate, cetyl phosphate, stearyl phosphate, octadecylphosphonic acid, oleyl phosphate, behenyl phosphate, octadecyl sulfate, lacceryl phosphate, oleth-3-phosphate, oleth-10-phosphate, 1,4- phenylenediphosphonic acid, dodecylphosphonic acid, decylphosphonic acid, hexylphosphonic acid, octylphosphonic acid, phenylphosphonic acid, 1,8-octyldiphosphonic acid, 2,3,4,5,6- pentafluorobenzylphosphonic acid, heptadecafluorodecylphosphonic acid, and 12- pentafluorophenoxydodecylphosphonic acid.
Sato’217 discloses a polishing composition comprising a phosphate ester having an alkyl group of 8 or more carbon atoms wherein the phosphate esters include an alkyl phosphate ester such as lauryl phosphate, myristyl phosphate, cetyl phosphate, stearyl phosphate, secondary alkyl (average number of carbon atoms and oleyl phosphate (Paragraphs [0117]-[0118]) which renders obvious wherein the at least one nitride removal rate reducing agent is selected from the group consisting of lauryl phosphate, myristyl phosphate, cetyl phosphate, stearyl phosphate and oleyl phosphate
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Sato’504 to include the nitride removal rate reducing agent (phosphate ester) as rendered obvious Sato’217 because the reference of Sato’217 teaches that such compound further enhances the surface planarity (Paragraph [0117]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the nitride removal rate reducing agent (phosphate ester) as rendered obvious by Sato’217 . MPEP 2143D
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SATO et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0194504) hereinafter Sato’504 in view of SINGH et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0221520), as applied to claims 1-11 and 15-19, in further view of SCOTT (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0159085).
With regards to claims 22-23, the modified teachings of Sato’504 renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
However the modified teachings of Sato’504 are silent as to the composition further comprising a chelating agent selected from the group consisting of 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-hydroxy-1- naphthalenesulfonic acid, 8-hydroxyquinoline-5-sulfonic acid, aminomethanesulfonic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, hydroxylamine O-sulfonic acid, methanesulfonic acid, m-xylene-4- sulfonic acid, poly(4-styrenesulfonic acid), polyanetholesulfonic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, trifluoromethane-sulfonic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid, nitrilotriacetic acid, acetylacetone, aminotri(methylenephosphonic acid), 1- hydroxyethylidene (1,1-diphosphonic acid), 2-phosphono-1,2,4-butanetricarboxylic acid, hexamethylenediaminetetra(methylenephosphonic acid), ethylenediaminetetra(methylenephosphonic acid), diethylenetriaminepenta(methylenephosphonic acid), salts thereof, and mixtures thereof and wherein the chelating agent is in an amount of from 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition.
Scott discloses a polishing composition for polishing a metal substrate comprising a complexing agent (chelating agent or selectivity enhancer) wherein suitable complexing agents (chelating agent or selectivity enhancer) includes compounds such as disodium EDTA (Paragraphs [0038], [0047]) rendering obvious a salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid wherein the chelator can be in a range from 50ppm to 5% (Paragraph [0047]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of wherein the chelating agent is in an amount of from 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Sato’504 to include the chelating agent (complexing agent) as rendered obvious Scott because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the chelating agent (complexing agent) as rendered obvious by Scott . MPEP 2143D
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-10 of Applicant’s response that the cited prior art fails to teach or render obvious Applicant’s claimed invention. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or render obvious Applicant’s claimed composition as presented in amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the Sator’504 does not render obvious the claimed range. Applicant argues that the instant specification shows that the removal rate (RR) for silicon nitride increased significantly at pH 4 and above. Applicant points to Table 3 for support that a lower pH results in a higher Mo RR although the SER was relatively stable and a significant increase in SiN removal rate at a pH of 4 or higher. As such the results are unexpected in view of Sato’504 in view of Singh as the prior art does not even mention a removal rate for silicon nitride. Applicant argues that a sufficient number of test both inside and out the claimed range has been provided. Further more Sato’504 teaches a preferred pH range from 5 to 10 which does not overlap the claimed range. In addition all the working examples of Sato’504 have a pH higher than 9 except composition 6 which provides for a pH of 6.5. As such a “pH of about 2 to about 3.5” is not render obvious by the prior art. As to the dependent claims they are allowable based on the allowability of claim 1. This is found unpersuasive.
It is the Examiner’s position that the cited prior art renders obvious Applicant’s claimed invention including ‘pH of about 2 to about 3.5” and further Applicant’s showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Applicant has pointed to Applicant’s specification for a showing of unexpected results. However, Applicant’s showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) MPEP 716.02(d) To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).MPEP 716.02(d)(II)
Applicant’s specification example 2 demonstrate identical composition with differing pH wherein the composition comprises an amine compound and 4X a nitride removal rate reducing agent. While Applicant’s Example 2 demonstrates the criticality of Applicant pH for the composition provided it is unclear if Applicant’s unexpected results would occur across Applicants broadly claimed varying amounts of components such as abrasive, organic acid, amine compound in combination with the nitride removal rate reducing agent. Applicant’s specification provides for particular compositions which does not provide a sufficient basis that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Applicant’s desired unexpected results to occur across Applicant’s currently presented claim. Applicant’s claims are broader than Applicant’s showing of unexpected results. Therefore Applicant’s showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claim.
In addition, while Sato’504 claims a preferred pH range from 5 to 10, it does not take away from the general disclose of a range from 2 to 12 and more preferably from 3 to 11 (see Paragraph [0051]). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123 Therefore the Examiner maintains the rejection on record. As to the remaining dependent claims, they remain rejected as no separate arguments have been provided.
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 STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights