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 .
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 2 and 5 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 2 recites the limitation “the particles contain silicon oxide”. However, it’s not clear if this is a distinct material, or if this is further limiting of the previously recited “silicon compound”.
Claim 5 recites “an alkoxy alcohol”. However, claim 4 recites an alkoxy alcohol. It’s therefore unclear if this is a separate and new alkoxy alcohol, or a further limiting principle for the previously recited limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 9, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (WO 2019093620) in view of Hanano (US 20180043497).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 18-20;
Samsung discloses a polishing method comprising polishing a member to be polishing using a polishing liquid, the polishing liquid comprises abrasive grains containing cerium oxide (the slurry disclosed includes “ceria” which is cerium oxide). The polishing method is utilized in a method of manufacture of a component, the component being a semiconductor component (silicon wafer).
Samsung fails to teach the member to be polished contains a resin and particles containing a silicon compound, the silicon compound containing silicon oxide, the resin being an epoxy resin.
Hanano teaches a polishing method for a semiconductor component that comprises a resin (3) and silicon compound, including silicon oxide (2). The polishing liquid is applied to the component as a whole, and therefore contains “a resin and a silicon compound”. The resin can be an epoxy resin (Paragraph 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Samsung such that the member to be polished contains an epoxy resin and particles containing a silicon compound, the silicon compound containing silicon oxide as taught by Hanano as resin provides a coating/encapsulation protection of the semiconductor component and polishing thereof provides for planarization of the topology of the component.
Regarding claims 3-4, Samsung as modified by Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 1 above. Samsung further discloses the polishing liquid further comprises an ether compound having a hydroxy group and includes an alkoxy alcohol (see Paragraphs 118-119 which discusses the alkoxy groups as an example; see also Paragraphs 28 and 205).
Regarding claim 9, Samsung as modified by Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 4 above. Samsung further discloses the content of the alkoxy of the alkoxy alcohol is 0.2% to 0.8% by mass on the basis of total mass of the polishing liquid (Samsung discloses a range of the alkoxy alcohol which overlaps with the claimed range: 0.01% to 5%; additional examples throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 13, Samsung as modified by Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 1 above. Samsung further discloses the content of the grains is 0.5 to 2% by mas on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid (Paragraph 23).
Regarding claims 14-15, Samsung as modified by Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 1 above. Samsung further discloses the polishing liquid further comprises an organic acid component selected from the group consisting of ammonium cation (ammonium nitrate in combination with the acids listed in Paragraph 32, the combination forming the ammonium cation).
Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (WO 2019093620) in view of Hanano (US 20180043497), and further in view of Iikura (US 20230145080).
Samsung in view of Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 4 above.
Samsung fails to teach the ether compound includes an alkoxy alcohol having a molecular weight of less than 200 and having an alkoxy group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, the ether compound includes a polyether including polyglycerol, the polyether is 0.5 to 3% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid.
Iikura teaches a polishing liquid in the same field of endeavor as Samsung and utilizes a polymer material in the polishing liquid, including polygycerol (Paragraph 48) and alternatively has the polymer having an average molecular weight of less than 750, and including a preferable weight of 100 (Paragraph 64). Additionally, the polymer may be between 0.5% and 3% of the mass n the basis of total mass of the polishing liquid (Paragraphs 72-74 discloses various mass amounts of claimed compound within the claimed range).
The inclusion of polyglycerol polyethers increases the viscosity of the polishing liquid at the interface, which acts as a lubricant to minimize direct impact between abrasive particles and the wafer surface. This viscoelastic damping effect significantly reduces scratch density. Alkoxy alcohols with 1 to 5 carbon atoms (such as methoxy or ethoxy variants) act as powerful wetting agents. Their low molecular weight (< 200) allows for rapid diffusion to the surface, ensuring the polishing liquid spreads evenly and reaches recessed areas of the topography. Because Samsung discloses a polishing method with an compound polishing liquid, and because Iikura teaches a polishing liquid and method in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Samsung such that the ether compound includes an alkoxy alcohol having a molecular weight of less than 200 and having an alkoxy group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms, the ether compound includes a polyether including polyglycerol, and the polyether is 0.5 to 3% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid as taught by Iikura for the purposes of reducing defects and scratch prevention, and enhancing surface wetting.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (WO 2019093620) in view of Hanano (US 20180043497), and further in view of Song (WO 2012051786).
Samsung in view of Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 4 above.
Samsung fails to teach the alkoxy alcohol includes 1-propoxy-2-propanol.
Song teaches the utilization of an alkoxy alcohol for a polishing method in the same field of endeavor as Samsung (polishing), and further teaches that the alkoxy alcohol includes 1-propoxy-2-propanol (listed as “propylene glycol propyl ether”).
Because Samsung in view of Hanano teaches the utilization of an alkoxy alcohol solvent in the polishing methodology, and because Song teaches the utilization of an alkoxy alcohol solvent that contains 1-propoxy-2-propanol, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Samsung such that the alkoxy alcohol includes 1-propoxy-2-propanol as taught by Song for the purposes of PnP’s dual hydrophilic-hydrophobic nature makes it an excellent solvent for lifting residual ceria during the cleaning phase, reducing post-CMP particle contamination.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (WO 2019093620) in view of Hanano (US 20180043497), and further in view of Fujita (JP 2003228164).
Samsung in view of Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 4 above.
Samsung fails to explicitly teach the alkoxy alcohol including a compound including 1-propoxy-2-propanol or 3-methoxy-3-methyl-butanol.
Fujita teaches a polishing liquid that includes an alkoxy alcohol which includes 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol (Paragraph 105).
In the semiconductor manufacturing art, solvents are utilized in CMP processes. 1-Propoxy-2-propanol (PnP) is an exceptional solvent for organic residues, such as leftover photoresist or corrosion inhibitors like benzotriazole (BTA). Meanwhile, 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol (MMB) provides high-purity alcoholic solvency that interacts better with the water-based chemistry of the slurry. Using both ensures that the slurry can simultaneously dissolve organic contaminants while keeping inorganic abrasive particles (like silica or ceria) perfectly dispersed. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Samsung such that the alkoxy alcohol including a compound including 3-methoxy-3-methyl-butanol as taught by Fujita for the purposes of keeping the abrasive particles dispersed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samsung (WO 2019093620) in view of Hanano (US 20180043497), and further in view of Suzuki (US 20130029489).
Samsung in view of Hanano teaches the polishing method according to claim 1 above.
Samsung fails to teach the pH of the polishing liquid is 9 to 11.
Suzuki teaches a polishing liquid for semiconductor mediums, the pH of the liquid adjusted between 9 and 14 (Paragraph 24). The slurry includes cerium oxide particles and is utilized on a silicon oxide (Paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing method of Samsung such that the pH of the polishing liquid is 9 to 11 as taught by Suzuki for the purposes of optimizing and adjusting the pH of the polishing liquid to achieve enhanced chemical dissolution and accelerate the chemical reaction, and enhancing ionic strength of the slurry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745