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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/04/2026 has been entered.
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
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 19-30 are pending in the Amendment filed 02/04/2026.
The rejections of record are maintained, but have been modified to include new claim limitations and new claims 24-30.
Additionally, claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, in view of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 21, and 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see “Remarks” filed 02/04/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as to amended independent claims 1, 21, and 23:
“The present application discloses a surface layer of organic silicon oxide (SiOC), which is not the same as the carbon-based materials of Mizutani, which all contain a resin. Therefore, the polishing rate described in Mizutani is not the polishing rate ratio of organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to insulating materials. Thus, Mizutani fails to disclose an organic silicon oxide (a silicon oxide containing carbon - SiOC), and therefore, Mizutani fails to disclose the polishing rate ratio of organic silicon oxide with respect to an insulating material, i.e., a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film or a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film, as presently claimed. Mizutani certainly does not teach a polishing agent configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/SiO₂ film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO2) insulating material film of 4.3 or more or a polishing agent configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si₃N₄ film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more.’ [“Remarks”, pg. 9].
In response, this argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument appears to conflate the term “organic silicon oxide” (a broad term which includes the silicone-containing resin of Mizutani) with the term “SiOC” (a narrow term having the plain meaning of silicon oxycarbide), and therefore improperly interprets the claim to exclude the silicone-containing resin of Mizutani by applying the narrower definition of SiOC.
The claims introduce the term “SiOC” as synonym for the organic silicon oxide: “the organic silicon oxide (SiOC)”. However, the term “organic silicon oxide” is broadly defined in the specification (see Instant Specification at para. 0027: “The organic silicon oxide is not particularly limited as long as it has at least a silicon atom, a carbon atom, and an oxygen atom.”), and the definition includes the silicone-containing resin of Mizutani [para. 0046, “the carbon-based material include resin materials such as…a silicone-containing resin”].
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of record are maintained, but have been modified to include new claim limitations in independent claims 1, 21, and 23 and new claims 24-30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 21, and 23, the limitation “organic silicon oxide (SiOC)” renders the claim ambiguous as to the material of the organic silicon oxide layer—that is, whether the term is limited to an organic silicon oxide or further limited to silicon oxycarbide (i.e., SiOC). SiOC is a chemically defined term meaning silicon oxycarbide, however Applicant appears to use the term as a synonym for “organic silicon oxide”, a far broader category of materials. Therefore the claim is unclear if “organic silicon oxide (SiOC)” is intended to limit the material to silicon oxycarbide (i.e., the plain meaning of the term) or if “SiOC” is merely a synonym of the broader term “organic silicon oxide”, which includes silicon oxycarbide but also many other materials. See also “Response to Arguments”, above.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19-20, 22, and 24-30 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizutani et al. (US 20180179417 A1).
As to claim 1, Mizutani discloses a polishing agent [claims 1-2] for polishing a base substrate having an organic silicon oxide and an insulating material containing silicon (excluding the organic silicon oxide) to remove at least a part of the organic silicon oxide [Examiner Note: The preamble recites an intended use of the claimed composition, which is not given patentable weight--see MPEP 2111.02, II. Mizutani nonetheless discloses: claim 10, “remove at least a part of the carbon-based material”; para. 0046, “Examples of carbon-based material include…silicone-containing resin”; para. 0047, “Examples of the silicon-based insulating material include silica-based materials such as silicon oxide”], the polishing agent comprising:
abrasive grains containing silica [claim 1]; and
an allylamine-based polymer, wherein the abrasive grains have a positive charge in the polishing agent [claim 1],
the allylamine-based polymer has at least one selected from the group consisting of a structural unit represented by Formula (I) below, a structural unit represented by Formula (II) below, a structural unit represented by Formula (III) below, and a structural unit represented by Formula (V) below […] [claim 2, Formula (I), (II), (III), (V)], and
a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2 [claim 5, “pH of 1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness—see MPEP 2144.05, I.].
Mizutani discloses multiple exemplary compositions containing allylamine-based polymers of the claimed structures, in conjunction with colloidal silica having positive zeta potential [Table 1], but each example has a pH slightly below that of the claimed range and therefore fails to anticipate the claimed range of a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2.
However, Mizutani discloses the pH range of the composition may be “1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range—see MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to amended claim 1, Mizutani discloses:
the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2] or wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
As to claim 2, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the allylamine-based polymer has a structural unit represented by Formula (II) below […] [claim 2, Formula (II)].
As to claim 3, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the silica is colloidal silica [claim 3].
As to claim 7, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the pH of the polishing agent is 3.0 to 4.0 [claim 5, “pH of 1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness—see MPEP 2144.05, I.].
As to claim 9, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the polishing agent is stored as a multi-pack type polishing agent [claim 8] having:
a first liquid containing the abrasive grains [claim 8]; and
a second liquid containing the allylamine-based polymer [claim 8].
As to claim 10, Mizutani discloses a stock solution for a polishing agent, the stock solution for obtaining the polishing agent according to claim 1 wherein the stock solution is diluted with water to obtain the polishing agent [claim 9].
As to claim 11, Mizutani discloses a polishing method [claim 10] comprising:
a step of preparing a base substrate having an organic silicon oxide and an insulating material containing silicon (excluding the organic silicon oxide) [claim 10; para. 0046, “Examples of carbon-based material include…silicone-containing resin”; para. 0047, “Examples of the silicon-based insulating material include silica-based materials such as silicon oxide”; See also, the instant specification at para. 0027, “The organic silicon oxide is not particularly limited as long as it has at least a silicon atom, a carbon atom, and an oxygen atom.”]; and
a polishing step of polishing the base substrate by using the polishing agent according to claim 1 to remove at least a part of the organic silicon oxide [claim 10, “remove at least a part of the carbon-based material”].
As to claim 12, Mizutani discloses a polishing method [claim 11] comprising:
a step of preparing a base substrate having an organic silicon oxide and an insulating material containing silicon (excluding the organic silicon oxide) [claim 11; para. 0046, “Examples of carbon-based material include…silicone-containing resin”; para. 0047, “Examples of the silicon-based insulating material include silica-based materials such as silicon oxide”; See also, the instant specification at para. 0027, “The organic silicon oxide is not particularly limited as long as it has at least a silicon atom, a carbon atom, and an oxygen atom.”];
a step of diluting the stock solution for a polishing agent according to claim 10 with water to obtain the polishing agent [claim 11]; and
a polishing step of polishing the base substrate by using the polishing agent to remove at least part of the organic silicon oxide [claim 11].
As to claim 15, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the allylamine-based polymer contains a methyldiallylamine hydrochloride polymer [para. 0092].
As to claim 17, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the allylamine-based polymer contains a methyldiallylamineamide sulfate polymer [para. 0092].
As to claim 19, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein a content of the allylamine-based polymer is 0.001 to 0.4 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polishing agent [claim 1; Table 1—Explicit examples anticipating the claimed range].
As to claim 20, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of a content of the allylamine-based polymer with respect to a content of the abrasive grains is 0.002 to 0.4 [claim 1—disclosed range (“0.002 to 0.4”) anticipates the claimed range.]
As to claim 21, Mizutani discloses a polishing agent for polishing a base substrate having an organic silicon oxide and an insulating material containing silicon (excluding the organic silicon oxide) to remove at least a part of the organic silicon oxide [Examiner Note: The preamble recites an intended use of the claimed composition, which is not given patentable weight--see MPEP 2111.02, II. Mizutani nonetheless discloses: claim 10, “remove at least a part of the carbon-based material”; para. 0046, “Examples of carbon-based material include…silicone-containing resin”; para. 0047, “Examples of the silicon-based insulating material include silica-based materials such as silicon oxide”], the polishing agent comprising:
abrasive grains containing silica [claim 1]; and
an allylamine-based polymer [claims 1-2],
wherein the abrasive grains have a positive charge in the polishing agent [claim 1],
the allylamine-based polymer has a structural unit represented by Formula (IV) below […] [claim 2, Formula (IV)],
the allylamine-based polymer further has a structural unit represented by Formula (IX) below […] [para. 0103, Formula (IX)],
a polishing rate ratio of the organic silicon oxide with respect to the insulating material is 5 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”], and
a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2 [claim 5, “pH of 1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness—see MPEP 2144.05, I.].
Mizutani discloses multiple exemplary compositions containing allylamine-based polymers of the claimed structures, in conjunction with colloidal silica having positive zeta potential [Table 1], but each example has a pH slightly below that of the claimed range and therefore fails to anticipate the claimed range of a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2.
However, Mizutani discloses the pH range of the composition may be “1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range—see MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to amended claim 21, Mizutani discloses:
the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2] or wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
As to claim 22, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 21, wherein the allylamine-based polymer contains a diallyldimethylammonium chloride/acrylamide copolymer [para. 0111-112].
As to claim 23, Mizutani discloses a polishing agent for polishing a base substrate having an organic silicon oxide and an insulating material containing silicon (excluding the organic silicon oxide) to remove at least a part of the organic silicon oxide [Examiner Note: The preamble recites an intended use of the claimed composition, which is not given patentable weight-- see MPEP 2111.02, II. Mizutani nonetheless discloses: claim 10, “remove at least a part of the carbon-based material”; para. 0046, “Examples of carbon-based material include…silicone-containing resin”; para. 0047, “Examples of the silicon-based insulating material include silica-based materials such as silicon oxide”], the polishing agent comprising:
abrasive grains containing silica [claim 1]; and an allylamine-based polymer [claims 1-2],
wherein the abrasive grains have a positive charge in the polishing agent [claim 1],
the allylamine-based polymer is composed of a structural unit represented by Formula (IV) below […] [claim 2, Formula (IV)],
a content of the allylamine-based polymer is 0.003 parts by mass or more with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polishing agent [claim 1; Table 1—Explicit examples anticipating the claimed range, i.e., 0.005 parts by mass],
a polishing rate ratio of the organic silicon oxide with respect to the insulating material is 5 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”], and
a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2 [claim 5, “pH of 1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness—see MPEP 2144.05, I.].
Mizutani discloses multiple exemplary compositions containing allylamine-based polymers of the claimed structures, in conjunction with colloidal silica having positive zeta potential [Table 1], but each example has a pH slightly below that of the claimed range and therefore fails to anticipate the claimed range of a pH of the polishing agent is 2.8 to 4.2.
However, Mizutani discloses the pH range of the composition may be “1.0 to 8.0”, which encompasses the claimed range and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range—see MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to amended claim 23, Mizutani discloses:
the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2] or wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
As to claim 24, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 23, wherein the allylamine-based polymer contains a diallyldimethylammonium chloride polymer [para. 0092; para. 0111, Example 4].
As to claim 25, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2].
As to claim 26, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 1, wherein the wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
As to claim 27, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 21, wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2].
As to claim 28, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 21, wherein the wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
As to claim 29, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 23, wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SIOC film/SiO2 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon dioxide (SiO₂) insulating material film of 4.3 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; Table 2].
As to claim 30, Mizutani discloses the polishing agent according to claim 23, wherein the wherein the polishing agent is configured to provide a polishing rate ratio SiOC film/Si3N4 film of the organic silicon oxide (SiOC) with respect to a silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) insulating material film of 13 or more [claim 7, “50 or more”; para. 0047, “silicon nitride”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713