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
This Office Action is in reply to the amendment filed on 05/28/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 17-20 and new claims 21-22 are currently pending in this application.
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the oxidizing agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted claim 1 has been amended to delete “an oxidizing agent”.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0124959 to Schroeder et al. (hereinafter Schroeder) in view of JP 2005-026606 to Nojo et al. (hereinafter Nojo).
References made to the page numbers and paragraph numbers are based off of the attached machine translation of Nojo.
With respect to claim 1, Schroeder, as part of their disclosure, teaches a
chemical-mechanical polishing composition comprising abrasive particles such as
zirconia in an amount of about 0.01-10wt% preferably about 0.02-5 wt%, oxidizing agents in an amount of about 0.1-15 wt%, corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-trizaole or 1,2,4-triazole in an amount of about 0.0001-2 wt% or preferably about 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0025]-[0027], [0048]-[0051]). Schroeder teaches zirconia as the material for the abrasive particles, and although a “combination” of the disclosed materials is disclosed, the use of a combination is not required which clearly implies that the use of each individual type abrasive particles alone is also within the teaching of the reference. The fact that the reference teaches the use of zirconia is taken to read on and render the recitation of “wherein the zirconia particles comprise at least 98 wt% zirconia” obvious. Although not claimed in claim 1, Schroeder teaches abrasive particles have a particle size of about 20-500nm ([0026]). Thus, Schroeder teaches a composition which is very similar to the composition of the present Application under examination based on not only the claimed features but the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. In addition, Schroeder teaches the material of the substrate to be polished are copper, tantalum and silicon oxide layers (Schroder, [0048], [0055], [0066], [0083], [0087]). Thus, Schroeder not only teaches many of the elements and features of the claimed polishing composition of the present Application under examination but also teaches a substantially similar substrate material to be polished with their composition, as compared with what is presented in the present Application under examination.
Although Schroeder teaches the use of oxidizing agent, said reference does not teach or suggest hydroxylamine. Schroeder, however, teaches a substantially overlapping range of concentration for their oxidizing agent as compared to what is claimed instantly.
Nojo, also directed to chemical mechanical polishing, discloses a polishing
composition comprising hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent (Nojo, page 14, [0052]). It is important to note that Nojo is similar to Schroeder because Nojo, also, teaches abrasive grains such as zirconia in a concentration of 0.05-20 wt% (Nojo, [0027]-[0028], [0035]), oxidizing agent in a concentration of 0.02-10 wt% (Nojo, page 14, [0053]), and a rust inhibitor, i.e. corrosion inhibitor, such as triazole in a concentration of 0.01-2 wt% (Nojo, [0050]-[0051]). Finally, Nojo teaches planarization of a substrate comprising TaN, Cu, and SiO2 films (Nojo, page 12, [0042]). Thus, the reference are seen to be directed to same field of art and endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schroeder, which teaches oxidizing agents in a concentration of 0.2-10 wt%, in order to incorporate the use of hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent, as that taught by Nojo, motivated by the fact that Schroeder is not silent to the use of oxidizing agent and clearly recognizes the use of oxidizers, and further motivated by the fact that hydroxylamine is a known oxidizing agent in the field of CMP, as that shown and taught by Nojo.
With respect to overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have the claimed polishing selectivities of copper to tantalum nitride of 1:0.5 to 1:3, of copper to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, and of tantalum nitride to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, or at least polishing selectivities having overlapping with these claimed ranges; this is motivated by the fact that the combination of references discloses a polishing composition which not only reads on claim 1, but also contains the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges of concentration and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed, as that demonstrated above under the rejection of claim 1, and based of the fact that both references are directed to CMP used on substrates containing tantalum, copper and silicon dioxide. Thus, the characteristic of polishing selectivities are expected to follow from the composition of the combined references.
With respect to claim 2, the disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have a polishing selectivity of TaN to silicon dioxide (SiO₂) which would have, at least, an overlapping with the claimed range of 1:0.5 to 1:3 based on the fact that the combination of references discloses a polishing composition which not only reads on claim 1, but also contains the claimed components is substantially overlapping ranges of concentration and/or particle size, where applicable, as that demonstrated above under the rejection of claim 1, and based of the fact that both references are directed to CMP used on substrates containing tantalum, cupper and silicon dioxide. Thus, the characteristic of polishing selectivity of TaN to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3 is expected to follow from the composition of the combined references.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references renders this claim obvious because Schroeder teaches zirconia as an abrasive particle (Schroeder, [0026]). The reference teaches a few other materials, and discloses a "combination thereof" may be used, which clearly implies that the use of each individual type abrasive particle alone is also within the teaching of the reference. Thus, the combination of references, in particular, Schroeder, is seen to read on having all the abrasive particles, which would read on the claimed “abrasive particles consists essentially of zirconia”.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Schroder teaches a particle size for the abrasive particles, such as zirconia, to be about 20-500 nm (Schroeder, [0026]).
MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside
ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In
re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of references is seen to read on the
claim because they both teach the use of oxidizing agents, and in particular, because the teaching of the use of oxidizing agents other than hydroxylamine is not seen to teach away from the claimed language due to the fact that MPEP 2111.03 III states "The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect
the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis in original).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Schroeder teaches a pH of preferably about 3 to about 6 (Schroeder, [0047]) which substantially overlap, and in fact shares an end point, with the claimed range.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is because Schroeder, as the primary reference, teaches abrasive particles such as zirconia wherein the abrasive particles have a concentration of 0.001wt% or more and 10 wt% or less (Schroder, [0027]), corrosion inhibitors such as 1,2.3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole in an amount of about 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0051]), and oxidizing agents in a concentration of 0.2-10 wt% (Schroeder, [0050]). As detailed out above, under the rejection of claim 1 to which claim 10 depends from, it is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schroeder in order to include hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent, as that taught by Nojo, motivated by the fact that Schroeder recognizes the use of oxidizing agents, and both references are drawn to similar field of art and discloses very similar components used on similar type of polishing compositions, namely CMP,
and disclose substantially similar substrate materials.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because the polishing composition taught by the
combination of references, as that detailed out under the rejection of claim 1, teach a CMP containing the same components in, at least, substantially overlapping ranges of concentrations and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed in the claims of the present Application under examination and/or disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. Therefore, the CMP of the references, when used in polishing a substrate containing Cu, TaN, and SiO₂, is expected to be adapted to result in a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum to silicon dioxide (Cu:TaN:SiO₂) to 1:1:1 with a variation not greater than ± 50%. It is noted that a variation of "50%" for a selectivity of 1:1:1 clearly means that the selectivity can vary up to 50% from the claimed ratio for each selectivity.
Nevertheless, again, due to the fact that the references teach substantially
similar composition used in similar field of art, any characteristic or effect such as the specifically claimed polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum to silicon dioxide is expected to follow from the teaching of the references because substantially similar products cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, the combination of references is seen to render the claimed stability factor of at least 7, or of at least 15, as claimed in claims 13 and 14 respectively obvious motivated by the fact that the references teach a substantially similar polishing composition in terms of components, concentrations, and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed in the claims of the present Application under examination and disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as detailed out above under the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, it would be expected of the combination of references to result in a polishing composition having the claimed stability factors because substantially similar products cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 15, the disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have the claimed polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitride of 1:0.5 to 1:3 or at least, an overlapping range of such a selectivity; this is motivated by the fact that the combination of references discloses a polishing composition which not only reads on claim 1, but also contains the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges of concentration and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed, as that demonstrated above under the rejection of claim 1, and based of the fact that both references are directed to CMP used on substrates containing tantalum, copper and silicon dioxide. Thus, the characteristic of polishing selectivity is expected to follow from the composition of the combined references.
With respect to claim 17, Schroeder teaches a method of polishing a substrate using a polishing composition and a polishing pad (Schroeder, abstract, [0012], [0024]), wherein the polishing composition comprises abrasive particles such as zirconia in an amount of about 0.01-10wt% preferably about 0.02-5 wt%, oxidizing agents in an amount of about 0.1-15 wt%, corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-trizaole or 1,2,4-triazole in an amount of about 0.0001-2 wt% or preferably about 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0025]-[0027], [0048]-[0051]). Schroeder teaches zirconia as the material for the abrasive particles, and although a “combination” of the disclosed materials is disclosed, the use of a combination is not required which clearly implies that the use of each individual type abrasive particles alone is also within the teaching of the reference. The fact that the reference teaches the use of zirconia is taken to read on and render the recitation of “wherein the zirconia particles comprise at least 98 wt% zirconia” obvious. Although not claimed in claim 1, Schroeder teaches abrasive particles have a particle size of about 20-500nm ([0026]). Thus, Schroeder teaches a composition which is very similar to the composition of the present Application under examination based on not only the claimed features but the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. In addition, Schroeder teaches the material of the substrate to be polished are copper, tantalum and silicon oxide layers (Schroder, [0048], [0055], [0066], [0083], [0087]). Thus, Schroeder not only teaches many of the elements and features of the claimed polishing composition of the present Application under examination but also teaches a substantially similar substrate material to be polished with their composition, as compared with what is presented in the present Application under examination.
Although Schroeder teaches the use of oxidizing agent, said reference does not teach or suggest hydroxylamine. Schroeder, however, teaches a substantially overlapping range of concentration for their oxidizing agent as compared to what is claimed instantly.
Nojo, also directed to chemical mechanical polishing, discloses a polishing
composition comprising hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent (Nojo, page 14, [0052]). It is important to note that Nojo is similar to Schroeder because Nojo, also, teaches abrasive grains such as zirconia in a concentration of 0.05-20 wt% (Nojo, [0027]-[0028], [0035]), oxidizing agent in a concentration of 0.02-10 wt% (Nojo, page 14, [0053]), and a rust inhibitor, i.e. corrosion inhibitor, such as triazole in a concentration of 0.01-2 wt% (Nojo, [0050]-[0051]). Finally, Nojo teaches planarization of a substrate comprising TaN, Cu, and SiO2 films (Nojo, page 12, [0042]). Thus, the reference are seen to be directed to same field of art and endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schroeder, which teaches oxidizing agents in a concentration of 0.2-10 wt%, in order to incorporate the use of hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent, as that taught by Nojo, motivated by the fact that Schroeder is not silent to the use of oxidizing agent and clearly recognizes the use of oxidizers, and further motivated by the fact that hydroxylamine is a known oxidizing agent in the field of CMP, as that shown and taught by Nojo.
With respect to overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have the claimed polishing selectivities of copper to tantalum nitride of 1:0.5 to 1:3, of copper to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, and of tantalum nitride to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, or at least polishing selectivities having overlapping with these claimed ranges; this is motivated by the fact that the combination of references discloses a polishing composition which not only reads on claim 1, but also contains the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges of concentration and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed, as that demonstrated above under the rejection of claim 1, and based of the fact that both references are directed to CMP used on substrates containing tantalum, cupper and silicon dioxide. Thus, the characteristic of polishing selectivities are expected to follow from the composition of the combined references.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Schroeder teaches substrates comprising tantalum, copper, and silica layers wherein the substrate may be patterned (Schroeder, [0066], [0073], [0076], [0083], [0087]). Although a patterned substrate comprising copper, tantalum and silica layer is disclosed in examples of Schroeder, it nevertheless, shows that the use of their composition in polishing substrates containing tantalum, copper and silicon dioxide.
Although Schroeder may not literally disclose TaN, even though said reference discloses the presence of tantalum in the substrate, the use of the disclosed composition in polishing a substrate comprising a barrier layer of TaN has been known and recognized in the art of semiconductor manufacturing as that taught and shown by Nojo (page 1, overview, also claims 13, 16, and [0024], [0031], [0042]). Schroeder is, also, directed to the field of semiconductor industry (Schroeder, [0004]-[0005]). Thus, it would have been obvious and well within the scope of a skilled artisan, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the substrate being polished in Schroeder could, in fact, contain TaN as a barrier layer, where disclosed to contain tantalum in the substrate, motivated by the fact that both references are directed to the same field of art and substrates containing copper, tantalum and silica.
With respect to claim 19, the combination of references is seen to render the
claimed stability factor of at least 7 obvious motivated by the fact that the references
teach a substantially similar polishing composition in terms of components,
concentrations, and/or particle size, where applicable, and used on substantially similar substrate materials, with what are claimed in the claims of the present Application under examination and disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as detailed out above under the rejection of claim 17. Therefore, it would be expected of the combination of references to result in a polishing composition having the claimed stability factor because substantially similar products used in polishing substantially similar substrates cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because there is no disclosure in either of the
references in changing the temperature of the polishing composition or polishing
environment; thus, inevitably, it is expected of the polishing to be conducted at room
temperature.
With respect to claim 21, the disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have the claimed polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitride of 1:0.5 to 1:3 or at least, an overlapping range of such a selectivity; this is motivated by the fact that the combination of references discloses a polishing composition which not only reads on claim 1, but also contains the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges of concentration and/or particle size, where applicable, with what are claimed, as that demonstrated above under the rejection of claim 1, and based of the fact that both references are directed to CMP used on substrates containing tantalum, copper and silicon dioxide. Thus, the characteristic of polishing selectivity is expected to follow from the composition of the combined references.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,778,212 to Jin et al. (hereinafter Jin).
With respect to claim 1, Jin teaches a chemical mechanical polishing composition comprising zirconia particles in a concentration of 0.1wt% or more, or even 0.5 wt% or more, and 5wt% or less, or even 3 wt% or less, also comprising oxidizing agent such as hydroxylamine in a concentration of 0.1 wt% or more and 5wt% or less, nitrogen containing heterocyclic compounds such as 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole or 3-amino-5-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole in a concentration of 0.02wt% or more and 2wt% or less (abstract, col. 2, lines 15-30 and 50-61; col. 4, lines 26-65; col. 5, lines 1-10). The disclosed concentrations substantially overlap the claimed ones, if not anticipating them by sharing at least one end point. Additionally, the reference reads on “zirconia particles comprise at least 98 wt% zirconia” because it is the only type of abrasive particle material which is disclosed in the reference. Although not claimed in claim 1, the reference teaches zirconia particles have an average particle size of 30 nm or more and 500 nm or less (col. 2, lines 24-35) and the polishing composition of Jin has a pH of 4 or more and 6 or less (col. 5, lines 15-20). Furthermore, although not claimed in claim 1, the substrate being polished with the polishing composition of Jin comprises at least one copper layer and at least one silicon dioxide layer, and can further comprise at least one tantalum layer such as tantalum nitride (col. 7, lines 33-47).
Therefore, obtaining a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitride or 1:0.5 to 1:3, or a polishing selectivity of copper to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, or a polishing selectivity of tantalum nitride to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3 would be expected to follow from the chemical mechanical polishing composition of Jin when used on polishing a substrate comprising copper, silicon dioxide, and tantalum nitride motivated by the fact that the reference discloses a polishing composition comprising all the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges, if not at least sharing an end point, and substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 2, as noted above, considering the fact that Jin teaches a substantially similar composition in terms of composition, concentration and particle size where applicable, with what is claimed in the present Application under examination, obtaining a polishing selectivity of TaN to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, or at least a polishing selectivity having overlapping with this range is expected to follow from the polishing composition of Jin when applied onto a substrate containing tantalum nitride and silicon dioxide because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 4, as noted above, Jin discloses the use of zirconia particles as the abrasive particles in the polishing composition of the reference; no other abrasive particle has been disclosed. Thus, the reference reads on claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, as noted above, Jin discloses an average particle size of 30 nm or more and 500 nm or less for zirconia abrasive particles (col. 2, lines 15-35).
With respect to claim 8, as noted above, Jin teaches hydroxylamine as an oxidizing agent (col. 4, lines 25-31). It is noted that independent claim 1 to which claim 8 depends from, claims the open transitional phrase “comprising” which would allow any other component in the claimed composition.
With respect to claim 10, Jin teaches a pH of 4 or more and 6 or less for their polishing composition (col. 5, lines 15-20).
With respect to claim 11, Jin teaches the use of hydroxylamine in a concentration of 0.5 wt% or more and 2 wt% or less (col. 4, lines 23-43), zirconia particles in a concentration of 0.1 wt% or more and 2 wt% or less (col. 2, lines 15-61), and nitrogen containing compounds such as 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole in a concentration of 0.05 wt% or more and 1 wt% or less (col. 4, line 44 to col. 5, line 10).
With respect to overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 12, considering the fact that Jin teaches a substantially similar composition compared with what is claimed in the present claims in terms of components, concentrations and/or particle size where applicable, the claimed characteristic of a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitrate to silicon dioxide of 1:1:1 with a variation not greater than ±50% is expected to follow from the composition of Jin upon polishing a substrate comprising all the claimed components motivated by the fact that substantially similar composition used in polishing substantially similar substrates cannot result in mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 13, because Jin teaches a substantially similar composition in terms of components, concentrations, and/or particle size where applicable, obtaining a stability factor of at least 7 is expected to follow from the composition of the reference because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 14, because Jin teaches a substantially similar composition in terms of components, concentrations, and/or particle size where applicable, obtaining a stability factor of at least 15 is expected to follow from the composition of the reference because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 15, considering the fact that Jin teaches a substantially similar composition compared with what is claimed in the present claims in terms of components, concentrations and/or particle size where applicable, the claimed characteristic of a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitrate of from 1:0.5 to 1:3 is expected to follow from the composition of Jin upon polishing a substrate comprising all the claimed components motivated by the fact that substantially similar composition used in polishing substantially similar substrates cannot result in mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 17, Jin teaches a chemical mechanical polishing composition and a method of polishing using said composition wherein the substrate to be polished is held in place and a polishing pad is moved relative to the substrate (col. 7, line 62 to col. 8, line 42).
Jin teaches a chemical mechanical polishing composition comprising zirconia particles in a concentration of 0.1wt% or more, or even 0.5 wt% or more, and 5wt% or less, or even 3 wt% or less, also comprising oxidizing agent such as hydroxylamine in a concentration of 0.1 wt% or more and 5wt% or less, nitrogen containing heterocyclic compounds such as 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole or 3-amino-5-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole in a concentration of 0.02wt% or more and 2wt% or less (abstract, col. 2, lines 15-30 and 50-61; col. 4, lines 26-65; col. 5, lines 1-10). The disclosed concentrations substantially overlap the claimed ones, if not anticipating them by sharing at least one end point. Additionally, the reference reads on “zirconia particles comprise at least 98 wt% zirconia” because it is the only type of abrasive particle material which is disclosed in the reference. Although not claimed in claim 1, the reference teaches zirconia particles have an average particle size of 30 nm or more and 500 nm or less (col. 2, lines 24-35) and the polishing composition of Jin has a pH of 4 or more and 6 or less (col. 5, lines 15-20). Furthermore, although not claimed in claim 1, the substrate being polished with the polishing composition of Jin comprises at least one copper layer and at least one silicon dioxide layer, and can further comprise at least one tantalum layer such as tantalum nitride (col. 7, lines 33-47).
Therefore, obtaining a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitride or 1:0.5 to 1:3, or a polishing selectivity of copper to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3, or a polishing selectivity of tantalum nitride to silicon dioxide of 1:0.5 to 1:3 would be expected to follow from the chemical mechanical polishing composition of Jin when used on polishing a substrate comprising copper, silicon dioxide, and tantalum nitride motivated by the fact that the reference discloses a polishing composition comprising all the claimed components in substantially overlapping ranges, if not at least sharing an end point, and substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to overlapping ranges, MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 19, because Jin teaches a substantially similar composition in terms of components, concentrations, and/or particle size where applicable, obtaining a stability factor of at least 7 is expected to follow from the composition of the reference because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 20, Jin does not disclose in placing the polishing apparatus in a closed environment wherein the temperature is controlled, raised, or reduced; in other words, because there is no requirement in Jin in conducting the polishing under a certain temperature, it is inevitably expected that the chemical mechanical polishing composition in Jin is use at room temperature absence evidence proving the contrary.
With respect to claim 21, considering the fact that Jin teaches a substantially similar composition compared with what is claimed in the present claims in terms of components, concentrations and/or particle size where applicable, the claimed characteristic of a polishing selectivity of copper to tantalum nitrate of from 1:0.5 to 1:3 is expected to follow from the composition of Jin upon polishing a substrate comprising all the claimed components motivated by the fact that substantially similar composition used in polishing substantially similar substrates cannot result in mutually exclusive characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 22 in which the zirconia particles of claim 1 comprise chloride (Cl-) in an amount of at least 50 ppm and not greater than 1500 ppm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted the primary reference, Schroeder, discloses a polishing composition containing any type of abrasive particle, optionally any type of oxidizing agent, and optionally any type of corrosion inhibitor, and that from the countless options of selecting an abrasive, an oxidizer, and a corrosion inhibitor based on the teachings of Schroeder, the actual examples of said reference contain the combination of alumina particles, hydrogen peroxide, and benzotriazole, of which no ingredient matches the presently claimed invention (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has, further, asserted the experimental data in Schroeder show about 110 to 145 times higher selectivity for copper than to silica, and about 100 times higher selectivity of copper to tantalum containing substrate, and about ten times higher selectivity of tantalum containing substrate to silicon dioxide (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has asserted, in contrast to Schroeder, the polishing composition of the presently claimed invention has a very even selectivity of copper to silica, copper to tantalum nitride, and tantalum nitride to silica which are illustrated in the table provided in the Remarks, page 9. Applicant has asserted that as demonstrated in said table, the claimed selectivities are much lower in the present Application under examination than Schroeder. Applicant has, then, concluded that Schroeder would not have considered the presently claimed polishing composition as falling under its invention or bring a desired improvement thereof. Applicant has asserted the claimed combination of ingredients, i.e. zirconia particles as abrasive particles, hydroxylamine, and 1,2,4-trizaole or a 1,2,3-triazole is nowhere shown or suggested by the teachings of Schroder and Nojo (Remarks, page 9).
The examiner, respectfully, submits Schroeder has not been used in a 102 anticipatory rejection because there is no single embodiment, such as no example alone, in the reference to teach each and every claimed elements/limitations. However, the reference, in combination with Nojo, renders the claims obvious. It is respectfully submitted that a reference needs not to teach every element in a single embodiment; according to MPEP 2123 “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Schroeder teaches almost every claimed components in, at least, substantially overlapping ranges, and with respect to “hydroxylamine”, Schroeder clearly teaches and recognizes the use of oxidizing agent. However, Nojo, which is directed to the same field of art, teaches the use of hydroxylamine as an oxidizing agent. It is, respectfully, submitted a reference is not limited to only what is taught in its examples. The rejection of the claims, both in the previous Office Action, and hereby above, are based on 103 obviousness rejection. Thus, irrespective of whether Schroeder may teach some of the components as optional or discloses more than the specifically claimed compounds as options, the reference teaches almost all of the claimed components in, at least, substantially overlapping ranges; this presents sufficient grounds for an obviousness rejection. For the missing component, i.e. hydroxylamine, reliance has been made on Nojo (see above rejections for details).
Applicant has asserted (1) Schroeder teaches seven broad compound classes as abrasive particles, and that the preferred abrasive particle of said reference is alumina (Remarks, pages 9-10). (2) Schroeder teaches the use of oxidizing agent as optional, and lists compound classes of “per-compounds, bromates, nitrates, chlorates, chromates, iodates, iron and copper salts, rare earth and transition metal oxides” as oxidizing agent, and states peroxy-group containing compounds as preferred ones (Remarks, page 10). Applicant has disagreed that in view of the extensive teaching in Schroeder about the selection of an oxidizing agent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have further expanded the nearly endless group of oxidizing agents and picking hydroxylamine from Nojo (Remarks, page 10). Applicant has, additionally, asserted no reason or desire can be found in the cited references why the hydrogen peroxide or any of the other listed oxidizing agent taught by Schroeder should have been replaced with the hydroxylamine mentioned in Nojo (Remarks, page 10).
In response to applicant's argument that no reason or desire can be found in the cited references why to replace any of the oxidizing agents of Schroeder with the hydroxylamine of Nojo, it is hereby stated the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, considering the fact that Schroeder teaches the use of oxidizing agent, and the fact that both references are from the same field of art, it would be well within the scope of a skilled artisan to have recognized the use of hydroxylamine as the oxidizing agent in the teaching of Schroeder.
Applicant has asserted (3) Schroeder teaches the use of corrosion inhibitor as optional, and that only one actual example of Schroeder teaches the use of a corrosion inhibitor, which is benzotriazole; Applicant has, then, concluded that this means that Schroeder does not give any preference to 1,2,4 triazole or 1,2,3 triazole, and does not recognize the influence of these types of triazoles on modifying the polishing selectivity of copper to silicon dioxide or the selectivity of copper to tantalum nitride (Remarks, page 11).
The examiner, additionally, respectfully, submits that regardless of whether the use of corrosion inhibitor is disclosed as optional or not, the reference inevitably recognizes the use and presence of corrosion inhibitors in chemical mechanical polishing slurries, and the reference, specifically, discloses compounds such as 1,2,4-trizaole or 1,2,3-triazole as the corrosion inhibitor. For an obviousness rejection, this disclosure is sufficient; again, the rejection made in the previous Office Action or above is not a 102 anticipatory rejection. Therefore, the reference needs not to disclose one specific embodiment teaching each and every claimed limitation in one example/embodiment.
Applicant has, again, asserted the combination of Schroeder in view of Nojo is not made or suggested in the cited documents of the rejection, and would require testing a nearly endless amount of combination (Remarks, page 11). Applicant has asserted the property of the copper selectivity of the presently claimed invention is not a property aimed for or desired in Schroeder, the primary reference (Remarks, page 11).
The examiner, respectfully, submits the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The examiner, respectfully, submits that because the combination of references renders the claimed composition obvious, any claimed characteristics/properties such as the claimed selectivities are naturally expected to follow from the composition of the combination of references because substantially similar compositions cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
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 PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights