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 Amendment
The Amendment filed May 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-17 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered in view of the Amendment filed on the same date, but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the limitation “from 3.0 wt. % to 15.0 of an abrasive comprising silica” does not overcome the obviousness rejection with regards to the reference Shi, including an overlapping range of 0.01 wt. % to 20 wt. %. No evidence or argument has been made in regards to the content range of the abrasive comprising silica specifically contributing to an unexpected result such as to render the claims nonobvious due to this amended limitation. (Applicant argues that the CMP formulation of Claim 1 including the specific combination of ethoxylated surfactants and planarization agents provide an synergistic effect resulting in unexpected results {see page 7 of Remarks Made in an Amendment}, with no specific comment upon the abrasive content as compared to the prior art). See MPEP 716.02 and the claim rejections below.
The limitation “0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.% of a wetting agent” does not overcome the obviousness rejection with regards to the reference Shi, including an anticipatory range of 0.001 wt. % to 0.2 wt. %, and no argument has been made specifically in regards to the content range of the wetting agent.
In regards to the argument that the specific combination of ethoxylated surfactants and planarization agents provide a synergistic effect resulting in unexpected results {see pages 7-8 of Remarks), the argument is not persuasive for the following reasons: The evidence of improved dishing and erosion performance cited, including Table 2 and Table 4 and associated paragraphs, includes a comparison of slurries including (a) no planarization agent and (b) one of several planarization agents. That is, the evidence and conclusions cited in the argument (¶ [0079-80, 0088-89] of the Specification) are in regards to improvement from the addition of a planarization agent, not in regards to the content range of the planarization agent (or of a content range of another constituent of the Claim 1 formulation as compared to references cited in the rejection of Claim 1); but Shi also includes a planarization agent (with an overlapping range), and no evidence has been put forth which would support an argument that the claimed content range of planarization agent should be viewed as non-obvious over the overlapping range of the planarization agent of Shi. Further, in regards to the argument of a synergistic effect from the combination of the planarization agent with claimed ethoxylated surfactants, this is contradicted by paragraph [0081] of the Specification which states that addition of a wetting agent (including the ethoxylated surfactant Dynol 607 of Table 1) cannot improve planarity.
Please refer to MPEP 716.02(b) regarding Applicant’s Burden to establish that results are unexpected and significant, and associated explanation of data.
The claim rejections included below cite the same references as the prior Office Action, updated due to the Amendment.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi; Xiaobo et al. (US 2016/0358790; hereinafter Shi) in view of Graham; Maitland Gary et al. (US 2015/0104941; hereinafter Graham).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses a barrier chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) polishing composition comprising:
from 3.0 wt. % to 15.0 wt. % of an abrasive comprising silica (0.01 wt.% to 20 wt.%; ¶ [0079-84]; where the overlapping range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP 2144.05.I., regarding overlapping ranges; further; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the claimed range may be preferable for certain applications and in combination with the several other variable components of the CMP polishing composition, and depending upon factors such as desired removal rate, removal selectivity, barrier material, and material underlying the barrier layer {Shi; ¶ [0078-79]});
from 0.005 wt. % to 2.0 wt.% of a planarization agent, wherein the planarization agent is selected from the group consisting of (…) polyethylene oxide (0.0010 wt. % to 1.0 wt.% ; ¶ [0041]; where the overlapping range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP 2144.05.I., regarding overlapping ranges);
corrosion inhibitor (for example benzotriazole (BTA); ¶ [0012; 0047]);
water soluble solvent, wherein the water soluble solvent is selected from the group consisting of DI water (water; ¶ [0013]; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that water in semiconductor applications is deionized (DI) water), (….); and
from 0.001 wt.% to 1.0 wt.% of a wetting agent, wherein the wetting agent is an acetylenic diol surfactant (0.001 wt.% to 0.2 wt.%; ¶ [0104-105]; Dynol 607 at 0.00775 wt.%; Table 10; where the specific example anticipates the claimed range, and justifies interpretation of the disclosed range as having sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range);
optionally
rate boosting agent (potassium silicate or ammonium silicate to tune removal rates; ¶ [0147]);
pH adjusting agent (nitric acid or potassium hydroxide as pH adjusting agent; ¶ [0147]);
oxidizing agent (¶ [0111-114]); and
chelator (¶ [0043]);
wherein
the polishing composition has a pH from 7 to 12 (8.0-11; ¶ [0095; 0093-96]);
the polishing composition is free of a water soluble aluminum compound (there is no mention of a water soluble aluminum compound, while the balance of un-itemized component in exemplary compositions is listed as water {see Tables 1,4,7,10, and 13}; the polishing compound is therefore assumed to be free from it).
Shi does not disclose the polyethylene oxide has a molecular weight ranging from 50 Dalton to 1 million Dalton.
In the same field of endeavor, Graham discloses a barrier CMP polishing composition comprising polyethylene oxide having a molecular weight ranging from 50 Dalton to 1 million Dalton (most preferred range of 400,000 to 1,000,000; Table 7; ¶ [0053-54, 0119]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used polyethylene oxide in the composition of Shi having a molecular weight ranging from 50 Dalton to 1 million Dalton due to Graham’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to do this in order to increase removal rate and reduce defectivity of the CMP process, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the material is well-known in the art, and the molecular weight range is explored and characterized in Graham’s disclosure in the similar endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the abrasive is colloidal silica [Shi; ¶ [0082-83]), and the colloidal silica has a mean particle size of between 20 nm and 200 nm (Shi; most preferably between 50 and 100 nanometers; ¶ [0083])).
Regarding claim 4, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the planarization agent is the polyethylene oxide (Shi; as explained for claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the corrosion inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of benzotriazole (Shi; as explained for claim 1; benzotriazole (BTA); ¶ [0012; 0047]),(….); and
the corrosion inhibitor is present in an amount of from about 0.0005 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.% (Shi; 0.0005 wt.% to about 0.5 wt.%; ¶ [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the rate boosting agent is selected from the group consisting of potassium silicate (Shi; as explained for claim 1; ¶ [0147]), (….); and
the rate boosting agent is used in an amount ranging from about 0.01 wt.% to about 15.0 wt.% (Shi; 0.1 wt.% to about 1.0 wt.%; ¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 10, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the pH adjusting agent is selected from the group consisting of
a) nitric acid (Shi; as explained for claim 1; ¶ [0147]), (….); or
(b) potassium hydroxide (Shi; as explained for claim 1; ¶ [0147]), (….) to raise pH of the polishing composition; and
the pH adjusting agent is used in an amount ranging from about 0.001 wt.% to about 3.0 wt.% (Shi; 0.001 wt.% to 0.1 wt.%; ¶ [0147]).
Regarding claim 11, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the oxidizing agent is selected from the group consisting of periodic acid (Shi; ¶ [0111]), (…); and
the oxidizing agent is used in an amount ranging from about 0.2 wt.% to about 2.0 wt.% (Shi; depending upon desired removal rates, more preferably 0.005 wt.% to 3.0 wt.%, which establishes a prima facie case of obviousness; ¶ [0114]; see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP 2144.05.I., regarding overlapping ranges).
Regarding claim 12, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the chelator is selected from the group consisting of phosphonic acids, and salts thereof; (Shi; ¶ [0087, 0085-87]); and
the chelator is used in an amount ranging from about 0.05 wt.% to about 5.0 wt.% (Shi; a more preferred range is 0.1 wt. % to 1.0 wt. %; ¶ [0088]).
Regarding claim 13, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition comprises ≥ 2.0 wt.% colloidal silica (Shi; as explained for claim 1); benzotriazole (as per claim 1); and the polyethylene oxide (as per claim 1);
wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition has a pH of 8 to 12 (as per claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition comprises ≥ 2.0 wt.% colloidal silica (as explained for claim 1); benzotriazole (as per claim 1); the polyethylene oxide (as per claim 1); potassium silicate (as per claim 1; potassium silicate; ¶ [0147]; and nitric acid or potassium hydroxide (as per claim 1);
wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition has a pH of 8 to 12 (as per claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Shi in view of Graham discloses the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition of Claim 1, wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition comprises ≥ 2.0 wt.% colloidal silica (Shi; as explained for claim 1); the polyethylene oxide (as per claim 1); a wetting agent selected from the group consisting of an acetylenic diol surfactant (as per claim 1), (….)
wherein the barrier chemical mechanical planarization polishing composition has a pH of 8 to 12 (as per claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Shi in view of Graham discloses a polishing method (Shi; ¶ [0018-28]) for chemical mechanical planarization of a semiconductor device comprising at least one surface having at least a barrier layer (Shi; ¶ [0124]) and a dielectric layer (Shi; TEOS oxide film; ¶ [0124]); the method comprising the steps of:
a. delivering to the at least one surface the polishing composition of Claim 1 (Shi; ¶ [0020-26], and the additional citations from claim 1 for the polishing composition);
b. polishing the at least one surface with the polishing composition by using a polishing pad (Shi; ¶ [0019, 0028]);
wherein the barrier layer comprises tantalum or titanium containing films selected from the group consisting of tantalum, tantalum nitride, tantalum tungsten silicon carbide, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium-tungsten, titanium tungsten nitride, and combinations thereof (Shi; an exemplary method comprises a cobalt barrier layer, but the method’s use with the barrier layer materials of claim 16 are also disclosed: Figs 1-2; ¶ [0178-183]); and the dielectric layer selected from the group consisting of oxide film (Shi; TEOS oxide film; ¶ [0124]), low-K material, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Shi in view of Graham discloses a system for chemical mechanical planarization (Shi; ¶ [0029-39]), comprising:
a semiconductor device comprising at least one surface having at least a barrier layer (Shi; ¶ [0124]) and a dielectric layer (Shi; TEOS oxide film; ¶ [0124]);
a polishing pad (Shi; ¶ [0031]); and
the polishing composition of Claim 1 (Shi; ¶ [0032-37], and the additional citations from claim 1 for the polishing composition);
wherein the barrier layer comprises tantalum or titanium containing films selected from the group consisting of tantalum, tantalum nitride, tantalum tungsten silicon carbide, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium-tungsten, titanium tungsten nitride, and combinations thereof (Shi; an exemplary method comprises a cobalt barrier layer, but the method’s use with the barrier layer materials of claim 16 are also disclosed: Figs 1-2; ¶ [0178-183]); and the dielectric layer selected from the group consisting of oxide film (TEOS oxide; ¶ [0124]), low-K material, and combinations thereof; and
the at least one surface is in contact with the polishing pad and the polishing composition (Shi; ¶ [0039]).
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 BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights