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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/21/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 7-8 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.
As to claim 7, the limitation “the method using the composition of claim 1.” does not set forth any steps involved in the process and therefore raises an issue of indefiniteness. The claim is indefinite because it does not include any active, positive steps delimiting how the claimed use is actually practiced.
Claim 8 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 7, and failing to cure the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (US 20210108106 A1).
As to claim 1, Liang discloses a slurry composition [Abstract] for final polishing of a silicon wafer for reducing surface defects and haze [Here, the preamble is not given patentable weight because it merely recites an intended use of the claimed composition and does not limit the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, II.], the slurry composition [Abstract] comprising:
colloidal silica as abrasive particles [Tables 1-2, para. 0049] ;
a surfactant [Table 1, “anionic surfactant”];
a pH adjuster [Table 1, “Barrier Film Removal Rate Enhancer (Organic Acid)”; para. 0024];
a water-soluble thickener [Table 1, “TEOS Removal Rate Inhibitor”; para. 0053, “Compositions 16-19 included a cationic polymer…as a TEOS removal rate inhibitor”];
a chelating agent [Table 1, “amino acid”; para. 0028];
a polishing accelerator [Table 1, “pH adjuster”; para. 0021, “tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide”]; and
the balance being water [Table 1, “Solvent (DI Water)”].
As to claim 6, Liang discloses the slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the colloidal silica has a particle size of 30 to 70 nm [para. 0049].
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 2, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 20210108106 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
As to claim 2, Liang discloses the slurry composition of claim 1 comprises, based on the total weight:
1 to 20 wt% of the colloidal silica [Table 1, “Abrasive (silica)…0.1-12 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.];
0.03 to 0.5 wt% of the surfactant [Table 1, “anionic surfactant”…0.0001-0.2 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.];
0.1 to 10 wt% of the pH adjuster [Table 1, Table 1, “Barrier Film Removal Rate Enhancer (Organic Acid)…0.01-1 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.];
0.02 to 2 wt% of the water-soluble thickener [Table 1, “TEOS Removal Rate Inhibitor…0.1-10 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.];
0.05 to 0.2 wt% of the chelating agent [Table 1, “amino acid…0.01-2 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.];
0.1 to 1 wt% of the polishing accelerator [Table 1, “pH adjuster”; para. 0021, “tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide…0-3 wt%”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.]; and
the remaining percent by weight of the water [Table 1].
Liang discloses a concentration range for each claimed component that overlaps or lies within the claimed range for each claimed component, and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over each of the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to claim 4, Liang discloses the slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the polishing accelerator is an organic base that is tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide (THEMAH) having a structure represented by Formula 1 [para. 0021].
PNG
media_image1.png
124
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, Liang lists the claimed polishing accelerator, THEMAH, among the disclosed pH adjustors [para. 0021; claim 4], and therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include THEMAH in the polishing slurry of Liang, because it is an effective pH adjuster for the disclosed polishing slurry, as taught by Liang [Abstract; para. 0021; claim 4].
As to claim 5, Liang discloses the slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the slurry composition has a pH value of 10.5 to 12 [Table 1, “pH…7-12”; See MPEP 2144.05, I.].
Liang discloses a pH range that encompasses the claimed pH range, and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
As to claim 7, Liang discloses a method of performing final polishing on a silicon wafer [Here, the preamble is not given patentable weight because it merely recites an intended use of the claimed composition and does not limit the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, II.], the method using the composition of claim 1 [Abstract; Table 5].
Claims 1, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho et al. (JP 2001107089 A, Machine Translation).
As to claim 1, Bessho discloses a slurry composition for final polishing of a silicon wafer for reducing surface defects and haze [Here, the preamble is not given patentable weight because it merely recites an intended use of the claimed composition and does not limit the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, II.], the slurry composition [Abstract] comprising:
colloidal silica as abrasive particles [pg. 11, para. 3, “colloidal silica particles”];
a surfactant [pg. 5, para. 5, “polyoxyethylene monomethacrylate”; pg. 16, para. 13];
a pH adjuster [pg. 10, para. 10-11];
a water-soluble thickener [pg. 13, para. 2];
a chelating agent [pg. 10, para. 4-7];
a polishing accelerator [pg. 10, para. 4-7]; and
the balance being water [pg. 9, para. 7-8].
Bessho fails to explicitly disclose an example comprising each of the claimed components, above.
However, Bessho teaches each the above claimed component may be combined, each component for its intended purpose, to form an effective semiconductor substrate polishing composition [Abstract] for planarizing interlayer insulating films [pg. 3, para. 7], and therefore renders obvious the composition of claim 1.
Additionally, as to “a water-soluble thickener”, Bessho teaches “thickeners” [pg. 13, para. 2] which broadly includes water-soluble thickeners that are more commonly used in water-based CMP formulations, and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 3, modified Bessho discloses the slurry composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant is PEO- methacrylate having a structure represented by Formula 2
PNG
media_image2.png
120
278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(in Formula 2, n is in a range of 7 to 22) [pg. 5, para. 5, “polyoxyethylene monomethacrylate (addition product of 2 to 20 moles of alkylene oxide)”, which overlaps the claimed range and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05, I.].
As to claim 7, modified Bessho discloses a method of performing final polishing on a silicon wafer [Here, the preamble is not given patentable weight because it merely recites an intended use of the claimed composition and does not limit the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, II.], the method using the composition of claim 1 [Abstract].
As to claim 8, modified Bessho discloses the method of claim 7, wherein a polishing speed is higher than 40 nm/min [Table 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show compositions comprising PEO-methacrylate surfactants and/or tris(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonium hydroxide [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713