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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/05/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 3, 6 and 9-10 are canceled. Claim 14 is new. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-14 remain pending and have been examined below.
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, 7-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20200082827) as evidenced by the machine translation of Moon, in view of Wang et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0330983), and in further view of Ganapathiappan et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0100817), hereinafter referred to as Moon, Wang, and Ganapathiappan, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended) Moon discloses a method comprising:
providing a substrate containing an amorphous carbon layer [Moon, page 1, pp’s 0003-0004 and page 11, pp 0066, teaching the target is a substrate that can have according to an embodiment an amorphous carbon layer], the amorphous carbon layer including surface protrusions [Moon, page 1, pp 0003 and page 39, pp’s 0169-0170, teaching that the substrate, and hence the ACL, has a surface roughness, which is interpreted to be surface protrusions];
providing a polishing pad [Moon, page 4, pp 0004, providing a polishing pad during CMP and Moon, page 12, pp 0074]; and
polishing the substrate while supplying a polishing slurry composition [Moon, page 2, pp 0004, the polishing pad contacts the substrate with a polishing composition] containing modified fumed silica as an abrasive particle between the substrate and the polishing pad [Moon, page 9, pp 0055, page 8, pp 0048, and page 14 pp 0088 and claim 7], wherein the polishing slurry composition contains no colloidal silica [Moon, page 8, pp 0048 teaches “examples of the silica include colloidal silica and fumed silica”, where the term “example” suggests that the silica may not include a particular element as well including that element and that other types of the element are contemplated. In the instant case, there exists and is contemplated by Moon a silica that is just fumed silica, where colloidal silica is not used, which meets the limitation],
wherein the modified fumed silica includes non-spherical, amorphous fumed silica with a surface thereof modified with an aluminum compound as a surface modifier [Moon, page 8, pp’s 0045-0046 and page 9, pp 0055, aluminum clusters and page 8, pp 0050, the aluminum clusters have aluminum compound coating the clusters],
wherein the polishing slurry composition further comprises an anionic surfactant [Moon, page 8, pp 0046, an anionic complex structure is included as a counter to the cationic complex, where the anionic structures meet the definition of a surfactant within a polishing composition, where the definition of a surfactant by definition is a substance that changes the surface tension of the fluid. In the instant case, the anion complex structure, which is part of the aluminum clusters, changes the pH of the slurry, this change in pH also changes the surface tension, therefore the aluminum clusters and therefore also the anion complex structure discussed in Moon is interpreted under the broadest reasonable definition of being an anion surfactant and meets the limitation].
Moon does not explicitly teach the amorphous carbon layer being deposited by a CVD system, and providing a polishing pad having a Shore A hardness of less than 80, and the anionic surfactant is contained in an amount of about 0.001 to 0.02% by weight based on a total weight of the polishing slurry composition.
Regarding the amorphous carbon layer being deposited by a CVD system, Wang et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0330983) teaches a method comprising:
providing a substrate containing an amorphous carbon layer deposited by a CVD system [Wang, fig 1F, 60 which has an amorphous carbon layer 20, and page 6, pp 0035, 20 is an amorphous carbon layer and can be deposited by CVD]; and
subjecting the substrate [Wang, fig 1F, 60] to chemical mechanical polishing to smooth out the rough surfaces of the substrate [Wang, page 8, pp’s 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the substate containing the amorphous carbon layer that is also being subjected to CMP of Moon to have the amorphous carbon layer be deposited by CVD as taught by Wang because per MPEP 2143(I)(A), the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case to include the ACL to be deposited on a substrate by CVD as taught by Wang in the system of Moon, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ACL on the substrate being deposited by CVD as taught by Wang in the method of depositing the ACL on the substrate of Moon because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the ACL being deposited by a CVD system. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of that the substrate of Moon would have the ACL deposited by a CVD system.
Regarding the polishing pad having a shore A hardness less than 80, Ganapathiappan et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0100817) teaches a polishing method comprising: polishing a substrate [Ganapathiappan, fig 1A, 110] on a CMP device [Ganapathiappan, fig 1A, 100] comprising a polishing pad [Ganapthiappan, fig 1A, 106 and fig 2A, 200a, 200a being the polishing pad hereinafter referred to], wherein the polishing pad has properties selected to tune the polishing pad for use and having a shore A hardness less than 80 [Ganapathiappan, page 32, pp 0208, 200 may have a shore A hardness of 25, which is less than a shore A hardness of 80].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the polishing pad in the CMP of Moon as modified to be a polishing pad having a shore hardness A of less than 80 as taught by Ganapathiappan because the polishing pad as taught by Ganapathiappan has the advantage of being able to be tuned [Ganapathiappan, page 32, pp 0208] such that the polishing pad of Ganaptahiappan forms structural and dynamic properties not found in a pad body formed of a single material composition [Ganapathiappan, page 32, pp 0207, summarized].
Regarding the amount of the anionic surfactant, Moon discloses that amount of the surfactant needs to be optimized to influence the pH and pKa values in particles which improves the polishing speed [Moon, page 7, pp’s 0040 and 0042]. The amount of surfactant influences the surface of the particles which influences the polishing speed such that amount of surfactant is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that adjusting the pH and pKa values influences the amount of surfactant also adjusts the polishing speed by the surface of the abrasive particles. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Moon abrasives to have the amount of surfactant be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the pH and pKa values of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moon by making the amount of the anionic surfactant to be between 0.01 % to 0.02% weight based on a total weight of the polishing slurry as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where 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”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range. See pp [0093] of the applicant’s specification the use of the term “may” implies that the range also may not lie within that range (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the polishing pad has the Shore A hardness of 10 to 80 [Ganapathiappan, page 32, pp 0208, 200 may have a shore A hardness of 25, which is less than a shore A hardness of 80].
Regarding claim 4 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified further the method according to claim 1, wherein the polishing removes the surface protrusions of the amorphous carbon layer [Moon, page 1, pp 0003 and page 39, pp’s 0169-0170, teaching that the substrate, and hence the ACL, has a surface roughness, which is interpreted to be surface protrusions].
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a protrusion removal efficiency of the surface protrusions of the amorphous carbon layer is high [Moon page 1, pp 0006, 0008, page 19, pp 0019, and page 9, pp 0055, teaching that the polishing quality is high, where the protrusion removal efficiency is interpreted to be the quality in which the roughness of the ACL is polished].
Moon as modified does not explicitly disclose the protrusion removal efficiency is 80% or higher as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the protrusion removal efficiency would result in a difference in function of the Moon as modified device. Further a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with increasing the protrusion removal efficiency of Moon as modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed protrusion removal efficiency. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating the protrusion removal efficiency “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g. 90% or 100%, specification pp’s [0051-0052]) and therefore appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion removal efficiency of Moon as modified to be 80% or higher as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein an average particle size of the modified fumed silica is greater than about 150 nm and equal to or less than about 250 nm [Moon, page 16, pp 0109, 190 nm, which overlaps the claimed range].
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Moon as modified further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the modified fumed silica is contained in an amount of about 0.1 to about 20% by weight based on a total weight of the polishing slurry composition [Moon, page 9, pp 0055, range of 0.1 to 10 wt% of the polishing composition, which overlaps the claimed range].
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Moon as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a protrusion removal efficiency of the surface protrusions of the amorphous carbon layer is 80% or more for the surface protrusions having a dimension of 3 pm or more as required by the claim.
Moon discloses planarization efficiency (i.e. removal rate or removal efficiency) needs to be optimized to have a high polishing speed and good polishing quality [Moon, page 2, pp’s 0006-0008]. Where the removal rate is a result effective variable in that adjusting the polishing composition changes the removal rate such that removal efficiency is disclosed to be a result effective variable. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Moon device to have removal efficiency be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the polishing composition of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moon by making the removal efficiency to be 80% or more for the surface protrusions of 3pm or more as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where 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”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range because per the Applicant’s disclosure in pp [0049] the use of the term “may” implies that it may also lie outside of the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claim 12 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Moon as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a protrusion removal efficiency of the surface protrusions of the amorphous carbon layer is 90% or more for the surface protrusions having a dimension of 1 to 3 pm as required by the claim.
Moon discloses planarization efficiency (i.e. removal rate or removal efficiency) needs to be optimized to have a high polishing speed and good polishing quality [Moon, page 2, pp’s 0006-0008]. Where the removal rate is a result effective variable in that adjusting the polishing composition changes the removal rate such that removal efficiency is disclosed to be a result effective variable. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Moon device to have removal efficiency be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the polishing composition of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moon by making the removal efficiency to be 90% or more for the surface protrusions having a dimension of 1 to 3 pm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where 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”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range because per the Applicant’s disclosure in pp [0054] the use of the term “may” implies that it may also lie outside of the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), Moon as modified discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Moon as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a protrusion removal efficiency of the surface protrusions of the amorphous carbon layer is 97% to 100% for the surface protrusions having a dimension of 1 pm or less as required by the claim.
Moon discloses planarization efficiency (i.e. removal rate or removal efficiency) needs to be optimized to have a high polishing speed and good polishing quality [Moon, page 2, pp’s 0006-0008]. Where the removal rate is a result effective variable in that adjusting the polishing composition changes the removal rate such that removal efficiency is disclosed to be a result effective variable. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Moon device to have removal efficiency be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the polishing composition of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Moon by making the removal efficiency to be 97% to 100% for the surface protrusions having a dimension of 1 pm or less as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held in MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) that “where 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”. Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range because per the Applicant’s disclosure in pp [0054] the use of the term “may” implies that it may also lie outside of the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al (Korean Patent Publication No. KR20200082827) as evidenced by the machine translation of Moon, in view of Wang et al (US PGPUB No. 2018/0330983), and in further view of Ganapathiappan et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0100817), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Reiss et al (US Patent No. 11,802,220), hereinafter referred to as Moon, Wang, Ganapathiappan, and Reiss, respectively.
Regarding claim 14 (New), Moon further discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly wherein, during said polishing, a pressure of 0.5 psi to 2 psi is applied.
Reiss teaches a method [Reiss, col 19, lines 15-35] comprising: providing a polishing pad [Reiss, col 19, lines 27, Fujibo pad]; and polishing a substrate while supplying a polishing slurry composition between the substrate and the polishing pad [Reiss, col 2, lines 31-43], wherein, during said polishing, a pressure of 0.5 psi to 2 psi is applied [Reiss, col 19, lines 26-27 polishing downforce of 2 psi, where per MPEP 2144.05(I) when the prior art range touches or overlaps the claimed range, prima facie case of obviousness exists].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Moon to include the polishing down force of 2 psi as taught by Reiss because it has been held per MPEP 2143(B)(I) that each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case that is in the substitution of the processing conditions of the workpiece, including the polishing downforce of Reiss for the polishing conditions of Moon as modified. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. The predictable result being that the wafer is polishing according to the conditions of Reiss and would achieve the desired polishing result of Moon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the following points:
A) on page 5 that Moon does not teach the polishing slurry contains no colloidal silica as now required by the claim.
B) on page 5 that Moon does not teach or suggest the polishing slurry comprises an anionic surfactant because the recitation cited by the Office are merely simple inorganic counter anions for charge balance of the aluminum cluster cation and do not possess the hydrophilic/hydrophobic characteristics or surface-active functionality that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize them an anionic surfactant.
Respectfully the Office disagrees for the following reasons:
A) Moon, page 8, pp 0048 teaches “examples of the silica include colloidal silica and fumed silica”, where the term “example” suggests that the silica may not include a particular element as well including that element and that other types of the element are contemplated. In the instant case, there exists and is contemplated by Moon a silica that is just fumed silica, where colloidal silica is not used, which meets the limitation.
B) Moon, page 8, pp 0046, an anionic complex structure is included as a counter to the cationic complex, where the anionic structures meet the definition of a surfactant within a polishing composition, where the definition of a surfactant by definition is a substance that changes the surface tension of the fluid. In the instant case, the anion complex structure, which is part of the aluminum clusters, changes the pH of the slurry, this change in pH also changes the surface tension, therefore the aluminum clusters and therefore also the anion complex structure discussed in Moon is interpreted under the broadest reasonable definition of being an anion surfactant and meets the limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be able to recognize that the aluminum clusters and the anion complex structure meets the definition of a surfactant. Further the Applicant has not claimed the hydrophilic and/or hydrophobic characteristics or surface-active functionality of an anionic surfactant. Should the applicant make these functions explicit, this would require further search and consideration.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights