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
Claims 1-32 are pending. Claims 1-16, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 USC § 112. Claims 1-16 are allowed over the prior art. claims 17-30 are withdrawn as non-elected invention. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1, 31, and 32, it is not clear where in the specification describing “wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation layer to increase removal rate at a given polishing pressure or to maintain removal rates at a reduced polishing pressure” and “wherein the polishing operation may be performed at the given polishing pressure or the reduced polishing pressure to achieve low-stress polishing.”
Furthermore, in claim 1, while on page 7 of the specification has a description of the mechanical wave energy in a megasonic frequency spectrum, “the wave energy source 133 includes a sonic wave generation mechanism having one or more transducers or the like (not shown) that generate mechanical ,waves, e.g., sound waves, cavitation, vibrations, and the like, to acoustically activate the slurry liquids in a storage area of the slurry dispense system 110. In some embodiments, the sonic wave generation mechanism can direct acoustic energy in the megasonic, ultrasonic, or related acoustic frequency spectrum.” However, it is not clear wherein the specification describes the electromagnetic (e.g. a Lightwave energy source: page 8 of the specification) is in a megasonic frequency spectrum.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
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 1-16, 31, 32 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.
In claims 31, and 32, it is not clear what “a nature of the passivation layer” encompasses. The specification doesn’t provide a description of “a nature of the passivation layer.” Therefore, it is not clear what “changes a nature of the passivation layer” would be. In page 7 of the specification, there is a description of “The application of slurry to a substrate surface permits the passivation layer (which is being polished continuously) atop the substrate surface to be become softer and less dense by the chemical reaction with the slurry, which can be enhanced by the sonication of the slurry.” Therefore, it appears that the modification from the chemical reaction provides the passivation layer to be softer and less dense, which is not in the claims. Clarification is required.
The limitation of “wherein modifying the passivation layer changes the passivation layer to increase removal rates at a given polishing pressure or to maintain removal rates at a reduced polishing pressure” are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what this “increase removal rates” are comparing to; what “a given polishing pressure” and “a reduced polishing pressure” encompass. Therefore, it’s unclear how one skilled in the art can perform or to provide claimed process or advantages with these unknown limitations.
The limitation of “wherein the polishing operation may be performed at the given polishing pressure or the reduced polishing pressure to achieve low-stress polishing” is vague and indefinite because it is not clear what “low-stress polishing” encompasses. Also, the term “may be” renders the limitations vague because it doesn’t set forth the intended scope of the claim; therefore, it is not clear the metes and bounds of claims 1, 31, 32. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is not necessarily part of the CMP process and does not contribute to the CMP process of claims 1, 31, and 32.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for depending on the rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (US 2019/0164771).
With respect to claim 32, Liu describes a method comprising providing a source of polishing composition or CMP slurry from a tank 102 having a photocatalyst including hydrogen peroxide or claimed a material additive, modifying the slurry to form a modified slurry by directing a light source of IR or UV light at the slurry and photo-degrade hydrogen peroxide to provide radicals for increasing material removal rate; applying the modified slurry to a polishing apparatus at which a substrate 101 is positioned; polishing the substrate surface 101 containing various layers including semiconductor material, SOI, transistors, interlayer dielectrics, dielectrics with the modified slurry including using hydroxyl radicals which are oxidative or claimed modifying a passivation layer or upper layer of the substrate by a chemical reaction or oxidization with the modified CMP slurry to increase the removal rate of the CMP slurry (para 25-27, 33, 45,49, 51, 52; fig. 1A). The radicals, which are oxidative and cause the removal rate of the system to increase (para 45). This would provide claimed modifying the passivation layer changes the passivation layer to increase removal rate. Furthermore, the CMP is expected to reduce the surface roughness because it provides both chemical etching and physical abrasion to result in planarization of the semiconductor substrate or claimed lowering water-level defects and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive in the slurry (para 3).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kozasa (US 2009/0298393).
With respect to claim 31, Kozasa describes a CMP method comprising providing a source of slurry 92 in slurry receiving unit 40 including colloidal silica abrasives, modifying the source of the slurry to form a modified slurry by directing an ultrasonic wave or mechanical waver energy from ultrasonic wave generator 62 at the source slurry to disintegrate the aggregated abrasives, which provides polishing and flattening waviness and surface roughness with increased polishing rate or claimed enhance removal rate properties, lowering water-level defects and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive ; applying a flow of the modified slurry, including ammonia, ammonium hydrogen carbonate, KOH, NaOH, to the polishing machine 90 for chemical and mechanical finish polishing of a silicon wafer or claimed modifying and removing a passivation layer or upper layer of the substrate by chemical reaction (fig. 1; para 4, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55-57; table 1, 60, 73).
Kozasa’s process is a chemical mechanical polishing, which includes a chemical process provided by the slurry and a mechanical process provided by the apparatus, polishing pad, pressure (para 4, 71). Therefore, it is expected that the polished layer or passivation layer is chemically reactive with the slurry and to be removed with increased removal rates at a processed pressure as compared to without using a slurry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MEPP 2111, this would provide claimed step of modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Gotkis (US 2003/0077988).
With respect to claim 32 Gotkis describes a CMP process comprising providing a polishing composition or slurry with a material additive of oxidizing agents, which modify the slurry (para 33); applying IR or UV or claimed electromagnetic wave energy to the slurry to activate or claimed modify the oxidizing agents of the slurry and enhance chemical reaction between the oxidizing agents and the metallization layer and removal rate of the oxidizing agents in the slurry; applying the slurry to the polishing apparatus to perform polishing on the substrate by modifying/oxidizing a metallization layer or claimed passivation layer or upper layer of the substrate which is then easily removed by the CMP (para 33, 44-46, fig. 3A1-3A2; 55-57; fig. 4).
His method teaches activating the oxidizing agents with IR or UV radiation to expedite a chemical reaction between the oxidizing agents in the slurry and the metallization layer or claimed passivation layer so that the oxide layer is formed and easily removed, thus enhancing the removal of the irradiated CMP system (para 33), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, would provide claimed modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 1-16 under Liu, Gotkis, and Kozasa are withdrawn because Liu and Gotkis, while teach using an IR or UV light source, which provides claimed electromagnetic wave energy, and Kozasa, while teaches using ultrasonic processing or mechanical wave energy; however, none of the applied prior art describe that the IR or UV light source or the mechanical ultrasonic processing is in megasonic frequency spectrum.
Referring to applicant’s remark that “In Liu's process, the hydrogen peroxide is consumed or decomposed through a photocatalytic reaction to produce radicals as a byproduct; the hydrogen peroxide additive itself is not enhanced or modified in terms of its removal rate properties, defect reduction capabilities, or surface roughness characteristics. Rather, Liu's approach may be characterized as using the additive as a precursor that is broken down to generate other reactive species”, while the hydrogen peroxide by itself may not be enhanced or modified in terms of its removal rate properties, defect reduction capabilities, or surface roughness characteristics. However, in a slurry, it contributes to the slurry as a whole to provide a flat and planar surface (para 23) and provides radicals for increasing removal rate (para 33). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, this planarization and increasing removal rate of the slurry from the modification with the light source would read on claimed modifying the source of the CMP slurry including at least one of enhancing removal rate properties of the material additive, lowering wafer-level defects, and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive. Furthermore, the claim doesn’t exclude the broken down of the components in the slurry when exposed to the light. As long as it provide the claimed effects, in any form, it would read on claimed effectiveness.
With respect to applicant’s remark that Liu fails to teach modifying the passivation layer changes the passivation layer to increase removal rate, it is found unpersuasive. The radicals provided in the slurry, which are oxidative (oxidizes the polished layer or changes a nature of the polished layer) and cause the removal rate of the system to increase (para 45). This would provide claimed modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation layer to increase removal rate.
With respect to applicant’s remark that Kozasa’s teaching of using ultrasonic processing to pulverize gelled aggregated slurry into fine particles fails to teach claimed modifying the CMP slurry includes at least one of enhancing removal rate properties of the material additive, lowering wafer-level defects, and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive is found unpersuasive because his process of using the ultrasonic to disintegrate the aggregated abrasives, which contributes to the slurry to provide polishing and flattening waviness and surface roughness (para 55) with increased polishing rate (para 61) and to remove defects and damage on the wafer surface (para 55). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, this would still provide claimed modifying the source of the CMP slurry includes at least enhancing removal rate properties, lowering water-level defects and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive.
With respect to applicant’s remark that Kozasa doesn’t teach modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate, it is found unpersuasive. Kozasa’s process is a chemical mechanical polishing, which includes a chemical process provided by the slurry and a mechanical process provided by the apparatus, polishing pad, pressure (para 4, 71). Therefore, it is expected that the polished layer or passivation layer is chemically reactive with the slurry and to be removed with increased removal rates at a processed pressure as compared to without using a slurry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, this would provide claimed step of modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate.
Applicant’s remarks that Gotkis fails to teach claimed modifying the CMP slurry includes at least one of enhancing removal rate properties of the material additive, lowering wafer-level defects, and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive is found unpersuasive. His method of the enhancing the material removal rate and providing a planarized and flat surface by providing a slurry irradiated with radiation to activate the oxidizing agents (abs.; para 33, 53), under broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, would still read on claimed modifying the CMP slurry includes at least one of enhancing removal rate properties of the material additive, lowering wafer-level defects, and reducing surface roughness properties of the material additive.
With respect to applicant’s remark that Gotkis doesn’t teach modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate, it is found unpersuasive. His method teaches activating the oxidizing agents with IR or UV radiation to expedite a chemical reaction between the oxidizing agents in the slurry and the metallization layer or claimed passivation layer so that the oxide layer is formed and easily removed, thus enhancing the removal of the irradiated CMP system (para 33), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, see MPEP 2111, would still provide claimed modifying a passivation layer by a chemical reaction with the modified slurry, wherein modifying the passivation layer changes a nature of the passivation to increase removal rate.
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 DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
3/2/2026