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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to claim 7, the limitation “wherein the abrasive agent includes an unmodified abrasive agent or a modified abrasive agent” does not further limit the abrasive agent of claim 1 because it does not exclude any abrasive agents (i.e., every abrasive agent is either modified or unmodified). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220112401 A1) in view of JP ‘685 (JP 2000515685 A, Machine Translation).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses a CMP slurry composition for polishing tungsten [Abstract; claim 1], the composition comprising:
a polar solvent or a nonpolar solvent [claim 1];
an abrasive agent [claim 1].
Kim discloses including a catalyst to improve the polishing rate of tungsten that comprises an iron trivalent cation-containing complex [para. 0049-53], such as Fe(III)-EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) [para. 0052].
Kim therefore fails to explicitly disclose:
a compound represented by Formula 3 or a complex thereof:
[Formula 3]
PNG
media_image1.png
482
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP ‘685 teaches complexing agents [claim 1] having improved complexing effect with iron as compared with the compound EDTA [Comparative Examples].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the iron complexing agent EDTA, of Kim, to include the iron complexing agents, of JP ‘685, because they are a known alternative to EDTA and have improved complexing effects with iron as compared to EDTA, as taught by JP ‘685 [Comparative Examples; claim 1].
As to claim 2, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula 3 is a compound represented by Formula 3-1 [JP ‘865, claim 1] or a salt thereof with an alkali metal cation:
[Formula 3-1]
PNG
media_image2.png
258
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein:
the composition includes the complex [Kim, para. 0049-53] of the compound represented by Formula 3 [JP ‘685, claim 1], and
the complex is formed by coordination bonding of the compound represented by Formula 3 to a metal ion [Kim, para. 0049-53].
As to claim 4, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 3, wherein the metal ion is a divalent iron cation (Fe²⁺) or a trivalent iron cation (Fe³⁺) [Kim, para. 0049-53].
As to claim 5, discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein:
the composition includes the complex of the compound represented by Formula 3 [JP ‘685, claim 1], and
the complex is a complex represented by Formula 4 [Kim, para. 0049-53; JP ‘685, claim 1]:
[Formula 4]
PNG
media_image3.png
278
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein the compound represented by Formula 3 or the complex thereof is included in the composition in an amount of 0.001 wt% to 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the composition [Kim, para. 0053, “an amount of, e.g., about 0.001 wt % to about 10 wt %”].
As to claim 7, modified Kim discloses the discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive agent includes an unmodified abrasive agent or a modified abrasive agent [Kim, claim 1, claims 6-7].
As to claim 8, modified Kim discloses the discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 7, wherein:
the abrasive agent includes the modified abrasive agent [Kim, claims 6-7], and
the modified abrasive agent includes silica modified with an amino silane containing 1 to 5 nitrogen atoms [Kim, claims 6-7]
As to claim 9, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, further comprising an oxidant, an amino acid, or an organic acid [Kim, claim 9].
As to claim 10, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 9, wherein the composition includes:
0.001 wt% to 20 wt% of the abrasive agent [Kim, claim 9],
0.001 wt% to 10 wt% of the compound represented by Formula 3 or the complex thereof [Kim, claim 9],
0.001 wt% to 10 wt% of the organic acid [Kim, claim 9],
0.001 wt% to 10 wt% of the amino acid [Kim, claim 9], and
30 wt% to 99 wt% of the solvent [Kim, claim 9], all wt% being based on a total weight of the composition.
As to claim 11, modified Kim discloses the CMP slurry composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition has a pH of 2 to 7 [Kim, claim 1, “ pH of about 4 to about 7”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show compositions comprising nitrogen-containing macrocycle compounds or complexes thereof [Abstracts].
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
Prosecution Insights