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 .
Examiner’s Comment
A restriction requirement was presented to Applicant’s representative, attorney Katerin Venter (Reg. no. 57,634) on 3/3/2026 in response to which Applicant’s representative elected Group I, claims 1-16 with traverse (Group II, claims 17-20 was not elected). However, upon further consideration and search of the claims, it was concluded that although the two groups of claims were directed to a composition and a method, examining the two groups would not have undue burden on the Examiner. Therefore, the restriction presented on the phone on 3/3/2026 is hereby withdrawn.
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) 1-20 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, oxidizing agents, corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-trizaole or 1,2,4-triazole (Schroeder, [0025]-[0027], [0048]-[0051]). Although not claimed in claim 1, Schroeder teaches abrasive particles having a particle size of about 20-500nm in an amount of about 0.01wt% or more and about 10wt% or less, oxidizing agents in a concentration of about 0.2-10 wt%, and a concentration of a corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole of 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0026]-[0027], [0050]-[0051]) which clearly show that Schroeder teaches a composition very similar to the composition of the present Application under examination based on the dependent claims and the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. In addition, Schroeder teaches the material for the substrate to be polished are copper, tantalum and silicon oxide layers (Schroder, [0048], [0055], [0066], [0083], [0087]). Thus, Schroeder teaches many of the features of the polishing composition of the present Application under examination as well as a substantially similar substrate material to be polished with their composition.
Schroeder does not teach or suggest hydroxylamine even though the reference teaches oxidizing agents.
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]).
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 by Nojo.
With respect to claim 2, the disclosed polishing composition of Schroeder in view of Nojo is expected to adapted to have a polishing adaptivity 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 3, 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 “at least 80 wt%”, to be of zirconia.
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 “at least 80 wt%”, to be of zirconia.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of reference 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 6, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is in particular, because Schroder teaches an amount of the abrasive particle of 0.1-10 wt% (Schroder, [0027]).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Schroeder teaches the use of oxidizing agents in an amount of 0.1-15 wt% (Schroder, [0050]) and Nojo teaches the use of hydroxylamine as an oxidizing agent in a concentration of 0.02-10 wt% (Nojo, [0052]-[0053]). Thus, the combination of references reads on the claimed invention.
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 9, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Schroeder teaches the use of 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole in a concentration of about 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0051]).
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]).
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, Schroeder teaches a chemical mechanical polishing composition comprising abrasive particles such as zirconia and oxidizing agents (Schroeder, [0025]-[0027], [0048]-[0050]).
Although not claimed by claim 15, Schroeder teaches abrasive particles having a particle size of about 20-500nm in an amount of about 0.01wt% or more and about 10wt% or less, oxidizing agents in a concentration of about 0.2-10 wt%, and concentration of a corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole of 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0026]-[0027], [0050]-[0051]) which clearly show that Schroeder teaches a composition very close to the composition of the present Application under examination. In addition, Schroeder teaches polishing a substrate containing copper, tantalum and silicon oxide layer (Schroder, [0048], [0055], [0066], [0083], [0087]). Thus, Schroeder teaches many of the features of the polishing composition of the present Application under examination.
Schroeder does not teach or suggest hydroxylamine even though the reference teaches oxidizing agents.
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 in the sense that 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 in which the polishing rate of TaN film is increased but the polishing rate of Cu and SiO2 film are suppressed (Nojo, page 12, [0042]).
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 further motivated by the fact that hydroxylamine is a known oxidizing agent in the field of CMP, as that shown by Nojo.
Thus, the polishing composition of the combination of references is expected to be adapted to result in a polishing selectivity of copper (Cu) to tantalum nitride (TaN) ranging from 1:0.5 to 1:3 because the combination of references teaches a substantially similar composition with what is not only claimed in claim 15, but also disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination; substantially similar composition used on substantially similar substrate cannot result in mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of references is seen to read on claim 16; this is, in particular, because Schroeder teaches corrosion inhibitors such as 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole in their CMP (Schroeder, [0051]).
Nojo, the secondary reference, also teaches the use of rust inhibitors such as triazole (Nojo, [0050]).
With respect to claim 17, Schroeder teaches a method of polishing a substrate using a polishing composition and a polishing pad, wherein the polishing composition comprises corrosion inhibitors such as 1,2,3-trizale or 1,2,4-triazole, and oxidizing agents (Schroeder, abstract, [0012], [0024], [0048]-[0051]).
Although not claimed by claim 17, Schroeder teaches abrasive particles having a particle size of about 20-500nm in an amount of about 0.01wt% or more and about 10wt% or less, oxidizing agents in a concentration of about 0.2-10 wt%, and concentration of a corrosion inhibitor such as 1,2,3-triazole or 1,2,4-triazole of 0.001-2 wt% (Schroeder, [0026]-[0027], [0050]-[0051]) which clearly show that Schroeder teaches a composition very similar to the composition of the present Application under examination. In addition, Schroeder teaches polishing a substrate containing copper, tantalum and silicon oxide layer (Schroder, [0048], [0055], [0066], [0083], [0087]) which are the materials in the substrate of the present application under examination. Thus, Schroeder teaches many of the features of the polishing composition of the present Application under examination.
Schroeder does not teach or suggest hydroxylamine even though the reference teaches oxidizing agents.
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 containing TaN, Cu, and SiO2 films (Nojo, page 12, [0042]).
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 importance of using oxidizers, and further motivated by the fact that hydroxylamine is a known oxidizing agent in the field of CMP, as that shown by Nojo.
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.
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