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 filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that none of the applied prior art taches the polishing composition has a zeta potential, a positive value of 1 millivolt to 100 mV as required in the currently amended claim 1. Applicant also tried to show unexpected result to use composition that exhibit a positive zeta potential of 22 mV and provides a polishing rate/SER selectivity (pages 9-10 of the argument section), which achieves superior polishing performance/polishing selectivity and defects suppression characteristics .
In response, examiner states that the arguments are not persuasive because applied prior art Otsuka et al disclose a polishing composition comprising abrasive of colloidal silica [0017]; and the zeta potential of the abrasive grain in the polishing liquid is preferably positive, more preferably +4 mV or more, further preferably +6 mV or more, particularly preferably +8 mV or more, and extremely preferably +10 mV or more [0043]; and aforesaid teach reads on the claimed rage of 1 to 100 mV.
Examiner pointed out that the modified Otsuka et al have all the claimed components along with the positive zeta potential and expected to have the same result and so, it could be expected not unexpected result as applicants alleged.
A proper showing of unexpected results includes:
Evidence of unexpected results must be in the form of a direct comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. The showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the invention as claimed. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Further, once such evidence is presented it would not automatically overcome an obviousness rejection, as after making a conclusion of a proper showing of unexpected results, the Examiner then has to determine: 1) if any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties, in other words whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (see: MPEP §716.02); and 2) the evidence of unexpected results supports non-obviousness as weighed against the evidence of obviousness.
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 and 3-13 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al (US 2020/0369917) as supported with Tamada (US 2015/0060400) and further in view of Young et al (KR-20100080072-A).
With regards to claims 1 and 4, Otsuka et al disclose a polishing liquid (composition) comprises an abrasive particle of colloidal silica, alumina and ceria [0012],[0031],, the polishing composition further contain other additives such a water-soluble polymer, and an oxidizing agent (for example, hydrogen peroxide) [0060]; and examples of the water-soluble polymer include polyacrylic acid-based polymers such as polyacrylic acid, a polyacrylic acid copolymer, polyacrylate, and a polyacrylic acid copolymer salt; polymethacrylic acid-based polymers such as polymethacrylic acid and polymethacrylate; polyacrylamide (reads on the claimed polyacrylicamide); polydimethylacrylamide; polysaccharides such as alginic acid, pectinic acid, carboxymethylcellulose, agar, curdlan, dextrin, cyclodextrin, and pullulan; vinyl-based polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and polyacrolein; glycerin-based polymers such as polyglycerin and polyglycerin derivatives; and polyethyleneglycol [0061];and aforesaid polyvinyl alcohol reads on the claimed “nonionic polymer” as of the instant claims 1 and 4; and the “polyacrylamide” reads on the claimed “compound comprising one or more functional groups capable of hydrogen bonding” as of the instant claim 1.
It is noted that Otsuka et al may not disclose using both the polyacrylamide and polyvinyl alcohol together in the composition.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any combination of the water-soluble polymer in the Otsuka et al’s teaching including the polyvinyl alcohol and polyacrylamide (reads on the claimed polyacrylicamide) defined in the applicant’s claim 1 because it has been held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose." In re Kerkhoven 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
Additionally, Tamada (US 2015/0060400) discloses a polishing composition comprises abrasive particles [0021], oxidizing agent [0023],[0024] and water- soluble polymers including polyvinyl alcohols or polyacrylamide copolymers, polyvinyl alcohols having cationic functional groups (cationized polyvinyl alcohols), polyacrylic acids, polyacrylamides, etc. [0035] and such water-soluble polymer is used in the composition in a predetermined amount or more is adsorbed on the surfaces of the abrasive grains and the surface property of the abrasive grains is changed. Consequently, generation of dishing and erosion on the surface of the object to be polished can be suppressed [0036].
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 Tamada's teaching of using such water-soluble polymer into the polishing composition of Otsuka et al for suppressing dishing and erosion on the surface of the object to be polished as suggested by Tamada.
In the above teaching, Otsuka et al fail to teach the polishing composition comprises picolinic acid.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young et al disclose a polishing composition having abrasive particles, polyvinylpyrrolidone used as a dispersant, and an organic acid, for example picolinic acid and glutamic acid, was used as the addition liquid, it was possible to secure a higher polishing amount and stable dispersion stability compared to the conventional ceria slurry ( see, the paragraph, under the heading “ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS” at page 3 of the translation; abstract).
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 Young et al's teaching of introducing an additive of picolinic acid into the teaching of Otsuka et al for securing higher polishing rate with improved polishing selectivity as suggested by Young et al.
Otsuka et al disclose that the polishing liquid of the present invention, it is possible to polish a surface to be polished containing silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and polysilicon while flattening. [0016]; and additionally, the specified polishing object is an intended use of the composition is not given a patentable weight; and Otsuka et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as clamed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
With regards to claims 3 and 6, Otsuka et al may not disclose the concentration of the compound as the water-soluble polymer of polyacrylamide (the compound) and polyvinyl alcohol (non-ionic polymer). Additionally, Tamada discloses the content of the water-soluble polymer in the polishing composition is preferably 10 weight ppm or more, more preferably 50 weight ppm or more, and further preferably 100 weight ppm or more [0040].
However, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
With regards to claim 5, Otsuka et al disclose above that the composition comprises polyvinyl alcohol, which is the same as the claimed invention and expected to have the similar molecular weight. Additionally, Tamada discloses weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer is preferably 100 or more, more preferably 300 or more [0042]; and preferably 500,000 or less, more preferably 300,000 or less [0043], which overlaps the claimed range.
With regards to claim 7, Otsuka et al disclose above that the abrasive particle comprises colloidal silica [0031] and Tamada discloses that surface-modified abrasive grains in the polishing composition may be silica on which an organic acid is fixed. Specifically, colloidal silica on which an organic acid is fixed is preferable [0021].
With regards to claim 8, Otsuka et al disclose the colloidal silica having an average primary particle diameter of the abrasive grains is preferably 40 nm or less, more preferably 35 nm or less, and further preferably 30 nm or less, [0037]; and the average secondary particle diameter of the abrasive grains is preferably 80 nm or less [0041], which are overlapping the claimed range, MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 9, Otsuka et al disclose that a lower limit of the content of the abrasive grains is preferably 0,005% by mass or more; and an upper limit of the content of the abrasive grains is preferably 20% by mass or less [0045], which overlaps the claimed range, and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 10, Otsuka et al disclose that the oxidizing agent comprises hydrogen peroxide [0060].
With regards to claim 11, Otsuka et al remain silent regarding the content of the oxidizing agent but Tamada discloses that the content of the oxidant in the polishing composition is preferably 100 mol/L or less, more preferably 50 mol/L or less [0027], However, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
With regards to claim 12, Otsuka et al disclose that the pH of the polishing composition is 2-5 (claim 4, [0064]).
With regards to claim 13, Otsuka et al disclose that the pH of the polishing liquid can be adjusted by an acid component such as an inorganic acid or an organic acid [0065] and aforesaid acid component easily reads on the claimed pH adjusting agent.
With regards to claim 15, Young et al teach the concentration of the picolinic acid is about 2% in the preparation of the additives in the polishing solution (see the paragraph under the heading “Additives Preparation” at page 5 of the translation).
Additionally, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
With regards to claim 18-19, Otsuka et al disclose that the polishing liquid of the present invention, it is possible to polish a surface to be polished containing silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and polysilicon while flattening. [0016]; and additionally, the specified polishing object is an intended use of the composition is not given a patentable weight; and Otsuka et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as clamed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
With regards to claims 20-22, the polishing selectivity of a polishing composition is purely an intended use of the composition and Otsuka et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as clamed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
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