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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I which corresponds to claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions or Species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/7/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “a material located on the surface the work piece” lacks the word “of” between “surface” and “the work piece”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2-10 is 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 2 recites “ the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture comprises a gas containing a liquid vapor of a CMP polishing fluid immersed therein.”, while claim 3 further recites that “the liquid vapor of the CMP polishing fluid comprise droplets of a liquid.” It is unclear whether the claimed liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture requires a true vapor, liquid droplets entrained in a gas, or some other multiphase mixture. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed “liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture” are not reasonably obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claims 4-10 depends from claim 2-3 therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et. al. (US-20200262024A1, hereinafter Chang), and further in view of JP973 (JP2007035973A, hereinafter JP973)
Regarding Claim 1.
Chang teaches A chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method, comprising:
providing a liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture to a polishing pad (#30); and
polishing a surface of a work piece on the polishing pad using the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture. (Abstract [0042-0066])
Regarding Claim 12.
Chang teaches The CMP method of claim 1,
Chang also teaches in Fig. 2 and in related text wherein the providing the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture to the polishing pad comprises spraying a jet of the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture from a diverging nozzle onto a surface of the polishing pad. ([0042-0066])
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et. al. (US-20200262024A1, hereinafter Chang), and further in view of JP973 (JP2007035973A, hereinafter JP973)
Regarding Claim 2.
Chang teaches The CMP method of claim 1,
JP973 teaches in Fig 2(a) and in related text wherein the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture comprises a gas containing a liquid vapor of a CMP polishing fluid immersed therein. (See JP973 [0020]) CMP chemicals can be added to the steam during the polishing process)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s method with the teachings of JP973, as identified above, in order to enhance the effectiveness, reliability and performance of the polishing process.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et. al. (US-20200262024A1, hereinafter Chang), in view of JP973 (JP2007035973A, hereinafter JP973), and further in view of Wang et. al. (US6660638B1, hereinafter Wang)
Regarding Claim 3-4.
Chang modified by JP973 teaches The CMP method of claim 2, wherein: the gas comprises steam;
Chang modified by JP973 does not explicitly disclose
(claim 3) the liquid vapor of the CMP polishing fluid comprise droplets of a liquid that has a boiling point or decomposition temperature higher than a boiling point of water, and that acts as an etchant for a material located on the surface the work piece.
(claim 4) the droplets of the liquid comprise tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) droplets;
the work piece comprises a wafer; and
the material located on the surface of the wafer comprises silicon.
However, Wang discloses
(claim 3) the liquid vapor of the CMP polishing fluid comprise droplets of a liquid that has a boiling point or decomposition temperature higher than a boiling point of water, (TMAH which having a boiling points above 100C ) and that acts as an etchant for a material located on the surface the work piece.
(claim 4) the droplets of the liquid comprise tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) droplets; the work piece comprises a wafer; and the material located on the surface of the wafer comprises silicon.
(Wang [col 2 line 35 – col 3 line 13] teaches to use TMAH which having a boiling points above 100C as known CMP etchant for silicon wafer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chang and JP973 with the teachings of Wang, as identified above, in order to enhance the effectiveness, reliability and performance of the polishing process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et. al. (US-20200262024A1, hereinafter Chang), and further in view of Wang et. al. (US6660638B1, hereinafter Wang)
Regarding Claim 11.
Chang teaches The CMP method of claim 1,
Wang teaches wherein the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture is free from solid abrasive particles. (Wang use TMAH is free from solid abrasive particles)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang with the teachings of Wang, as identified above, abrasive-free etchant like TMAH is a well-known practice in the art yielding predictable outcome.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-10 are rejected.
Claims 5-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Claim 5 would be allowable, because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the method, wherein… further comprising:
providing an aqueous TMAH solution; at least partially evaporating the water in the aqueous TMAH solution to form a polishing fluid mixture; and mixing the polishing fluid mixture with a heated carrier gas to form the liquid-gas polishing fluid mixture. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 6-10 would be allowable because they depends from the allowable claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights