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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
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 and 3-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pH value of the chemical -mechanical polishing composition" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-20 are directly or indirectly depends on the claim 1 and therefore, also include the limitation.
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, 3-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2018/0323058) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2016/0201986) and further in view of Kawase et al (US 2006/0151854).
Regarding claim 1, Ye et al disclose a series of post CMP cleaning process configured to remove particles, including but not limited to slurry residue such as silica, alumina or the like, and organic polymer residue from the polishing agent, using many different fluids, including cleaning fluids, de-ionized water, O.sub.3, SC1, surfactant, and/or air [0025]; the cleaning process comprises a chemical mechanically cleaning (CMC) process on the same polishing pad and platen as the CMP process [0026]; and aforesaid obvious to the claimed limitation of “applying a first composition to a polished substrate; and bringing a pad into contact with a polished surface and moving the pad in relation to the substrate to form a rinse polished substrate”.
Ye et al disclose that at least two cleaning steps being performed as the post-CMP cleaning using inorganic acid of sulfuric acid and an oxidizer of hydrogen peroxide [0030]; and aforesaid teaching obviously reads on the limitation of cleaning the rinsed polished substrate with a second composition comprises components of the first composition.
Unlike the instant invention, Ye et al fail to disclose transferring the rinse polished substrate from the polishing tool to a post CMP cleaning apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Velazquez et al disclose that following CMP, substrates may be rinsed in a first post-CMP rinse (this corresponding the claimed applying a first composition to the polished substrate in a polishing tool); and then may be transferred directly to a post-cleaning module, such as a scrubber brush box, a megasonic tank, or the like, for further cleaning, that may provide improved residue removal as a substrate is removed from a rinsing bath [0020].
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 Velazquez et al's teaching of transferring the rinse polished substrate to a post-cleaning apparatus into the teaching of Ye et al for providing an improved residue removal form a polished substrate as suggested by Velazquez et al.
Modified Ye et al above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose the first composition has a difference in pH value that is no more than about ± 3, as compared to the pH value of the chemical-mechanical polishing composition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kawase et al disclose that the polishing composition and the rinsing composition preferably have a pH of from 8 to 12; and a polishing composition and rinsing composition having too high of a pH are easily gelled. It is preferred that the pH of the polishing composition be almost the same as the pH of the rinsing composition. When the pH of the polishing composition is greatly different from the pH of the rinsing composition, during rinsing, the polishing composition remaining on the silicon wafer surface and polishing pad is gelled or roughness is generated on the silicon wafer surface [0028]; and aforesaid teaching easily reads on the limitation of the first composition (rinsing composition) has a pH difference in pH value that is no more than about ± 3, as compared to the pH value of the chemical-mechanical polishing composition, keeping in mind that the pH of the polishing composition be almost the same as the pH of the rinsing composition as taught by Kawase et al.
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 Kawase et al's teaching of maintaining the pH of the rinsing composition is almost same as the polishing composition into the teaching of the modified Ye et al for reducing gelling of the remaining polishing composition and reducing roughness on the polished surface as suggested by Kawase et al.
Regarding claim 3, Ye et al disclose that the cleaning process may be but not limited to a chemical mechanically cleaning (CMC) process on the same polishing pad and platen as the CMP process [0026]; and aforesaid teaching easily reads on the limitation of polishing and applying (cleaning/rinsing solution) in the same polishing tool.
Regarding claims 4-6, Ye et al disclose above that post-CMP cleaning is performed using a cleaning fluid in order to remove abrasive particles [0025]. Therefore, the cleaning fluid is substantially free of abrasive and if some lower content of the residual abrasive particles left behind, such would be obviously lower than the CMP composition having particles.
Regarding claim 8, Kawase et al disclose that the polishing composition and the rinsing composition preferably have a pH of from 8 to 12 [0028], which overlaps the claimed range of about 7 and 14; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Kawase et al disclose that the polishing composition and the rinsing composition preferably have a pH of from 8 to 12; and a polishing composition and rinsing composition having too high of a pH are easily gelled. It is preferred that the pH of the polishing composition be almost the same as the pH of the rinsing composition [0028]; and aforesaid teaching easily reads on the limitation of the first composition (rinsing composition) has a pH difference in pH value that is no more than about ± 2.5, as compared to the pH value of the chemical-mechanical polishing composition, keeping in mind that the pH of the polishing composition be almost the same as the pH of the rinsing composition as taught by Kawase et al.
Regarding claim 10, Ye et al disclose above that the post-CMP cleaning is performed in at least two steps using similar components [0030].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2018/0323058) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2016/0201986) and Kawase et al (US 2006/0151854) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardikar et al (US 2005/0287928).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ye et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose the pH of the first composition between about 1 and 7.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hardikar et al disclose a process of post-CMP cleaning, where the first cleaning step (310) may further comprise the step of determining whether to first impart an acidic or basic cleaning composition to the polished work piece. This determination is largely dependent upon whether the work piece was exposed to a polishing slurry during the CMP step (210) [0024]; and if an acidic polishing slurry was utilized during the CMP step (210), the first cleaning composition may be an acidic cleaning composition. As is known in the art, acidic cleaning compositions are useful for removing inorganic contaminants. When exposed to an acidic composition, the metal ion contaminants form soluble salts that can be removed from the workpiece surface. If the metal ion contaminants are exposed to a basic cleaning chemistry, insoluble hydroxides may form, which may be difficult to remove. Thus, when slurry having an acidic pH is used in the CMP processing of a work piece, the work piece may first be cleaned with an acidic cleaning composition to remove inorganic contaminants [0025]; and aforesaid “acidic composition” obviously encompasses the claimed pH value between about 1 and about 7 as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2018/0323058) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2016/0201986) and Kawase et al (US 2006/0151854) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas et al (US 2020/0071642).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ye et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose the pH of the first composition between about 1 and 7.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thomas et al disclose that the pH of the composition is greater than 8, greater than 9, greater than 10 or greater than 11, less than 14, less than 13, less than 12, or less than 11; In certain embodiments, the pH of the diluted composition is about 8 to 12 [0021]; and aforesaid pH value of about 8 is very much close enough to the claimed range of “the pH value between about 1 and about 7” that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 11-12, Thomas et al disclose that the removal or cleaning composition being diluted and dilution of the concentrated aqueous composition may be in a range from about 1:1 to about 2500:1, about 5:1 to about 200:1, or about 20:1 to about 120:1, wherein the aqueous composition is diluted at or just before the tool with solvent, e.g., deionized water. [0044].
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Ye et al disclose the cleaning composition comprises inorganic acid of sulfuric acid and an oxidizer of hydrogen peroxide [0030] but fail to disclose the listed components in claim 13.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thomas et al disclose a removal composition for the removal of abrasive particles and CMP contaminants from a microelectronic device, wherein the composition comprises oxidizing agent, complexing agent, cleaning agent, water, etc. [0010]; wherein the complexing agent comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), which reads on the claimed “polyamine” and also reads on the claim 15.
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 Thomas et al's teaching of introducing multiple components recited in the instant claim 13, along with the claimed pH range of the cleaning composition into the modified teaching of Ye et al for effectively removing the particles resulted from a CMP process as suggested by Thomas et al [0008].
Regarding claim 14, Ye et al disclose above that the cleaning composition comprises inorganic acid such as sulfuric acid [0030].
Regarding claim 16, Thomas et al disclose that the composition may comprises alkanoamines such as monoethanolamine (MEA), triethanolamine (TEA), etc. [0018], aforesaid reads on the claimed “aminoalcohol” as of the instant claims 13 and 16.
Regarding claim 17, Thomas et al disclose that the composition may comprises amino acid such as cysteine ([0018] and claim 5); and aforesaid teaching reads on the claimed amino acid as of claim 13 also.
Regarding claim 18, Thomas et al disclose that the surfactant comprises non-ionic surfactants such as alcohol alkoxylates, etc. [0042]; aforesaid reads on the claimed non-ionic surfactant as of claims 13 and 18.
Regarding claim 19, Ye et al disclose above that the cleaning composition comprises oxidizing agent of hydrogen peroxide [0030].
Regarding claim 20, Thomas et al disclose the composition comprises a metal corrosion inhibitor comprises azoles such as 5-aminotetrazole [0028]; and also disclose that the compositions are substantially devoid of (a) corrosion inhibitors [0031]. Therefore, the composition is substantially free of azole corrosion inhibitors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwasa (US 2004/0098924) disclose that in order to adjust the pH of the rinse composition, and to reduce the haze level of the wafer surface. If a rapid change in pH occurs on the surface of a polished wafer, surface roughness is easily produced. Therefore, it is preferred that the pH of the rinse composition is almost the same level as the pH of the polishing composition [0069].
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