DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending
Claim 2 is canceled
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended
Claims 14-19 have been added
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,4-8, 10-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov (US 2007/0037892 A1) in view of Ahn et al. (US 2011/0045741 A1) and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2013/0146804 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Belov teaches a polishing composition comprising:
an abrasive (silicon dioxide abrasive particles / abrasive particles; Abstract; paragraphs [0027], [0032]);
water (aqueous slurry composition / water-based slurry; paragraphs [0027], [0061]);
wherein the abrasive comprises anionically modified colloidal silica (silicon dioxide abrasive particles anionically modified/doped with metallate anions to provide a high negative surface charge; the modification process commences on the surface of the particle and results in an overall increase of surface negative charge; the aluminate-modified silica may be colloidal silica; paragraphs[0027], [0038], [0039]);
and the polishing composition has a pH of about 2.5 or less (slurries preferably have a pH below 3.5; paragraphs [0044]).
Belov does not expressly teach wherein the colloidal silica is modified on its surface with anionic functional groups selected from the group consisting of sulfonic acid, carboxylic acid, and a combination thereof and wherein the additive comprises an aminoalkyl alcohol, including wherein when the aminoalkyl alcohol is tertiary amine, a hydroxyl group-substituted alkyl group bonded to nitrogen atom is linear.
Mizuno teaches wherein the abrasive comprises anionically modified colloidal silica modified on its surface with anionic functional groups selected from the group consisting of sulfonic acid, carboxylic acid, and a combination thereof (a polishing composition containing colloidal silica in which an organic acid, such as sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid, is immobilized; wherein immobilization of the organic acid on the surface of colloidal silica is carried out by chemically bonding a functional group of the organic acid to the surface of colloidal silica; and wherein sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid may be immobilized on the surface of colloidal silica; Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0011]). Mizuno further teaches that the colloidal silica in which an organic acid is immobilized has a controlled zeta potential under acidic conditions to prevent the colloidal silica from being repelled from a nitride surface (paragraph [0030]).
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 composition of Belov to include colloidal silica is modified on its surface with anionic functional groups selected from the group consisting of sulfonic acid, carboxylic acid, and a combination thereof because Mizuno teaches the usefulness of negatively charged/anionic colloidal silica in acidic polishing environments for controlling the zeta potential of the particles and preventing the particles from being repelled from the to be polished surface and use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (C).
The modified Belov does not teach wherein the additive comprises an aminoalkyl alcohol, including wherein when the aminoalkyl alcohol is tertiary amine, a hydroxyl group-substituted alkyl group bonded to nitrogen atom is linear.
Ahn teaches wherein the additive comprises an aminoalkyl alcohol (amino alcohols used in chemical-mechanical polishing compositions; Abstract; claim 9). Ahn further teaches wherein when the aminoalkyl alcohol is tertiary amine, a hydroxyl group-substituted alkyl group bonded to nitrogen atom is linear (triethanolamine, which is a tertiary aminoalkyl alcohol having linear 2-hydroxyethyl groups bonded to the nitrogen atom; claim 9).
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 composition of modified Belov to include the aminoalkyl alcohol additive taught by Ahn because Ahn teaches amino alcohols as polishing composition additives, including tertiary, secondary, and primary aminoalkyl alcohol species. Combining Ahn’s known amino alcohol additive with the polishing composition of modified Belov would have represented the predictable use of a known prior art element according to its established function. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol is a C5–C10 aminoalkyl alcohol.
As set forth above for claim 1, Ahn teaches aminoalkyl alcohol additives including N-n-butyldiethanolamine (C8) and N-cyclohexyldiethanolamine (C10) ([Claim 9]).
It would have been obvious to select any aminoalkyl alcohol within the disclosed Ahn species, including those falling within the claimed C5–C10 range, because they are disclosed for the same polishing purpose and represent a finite set of predictable alternatives. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites a carbon-to-nitrogen or carbon-to-oxygen atom ratio of 1 to 12.
The aminoalkyl alcohols disclosed by Ahn have defined atomic ratios based on their molecular structures, including triethanolamine, diethanolamine, and N-n-butyldiethanolamine (Claim 9).
Selection of a compound having an atomic ratio within the claimed range represents selection among known compounds disclosed for the same polishing function, yielding predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites an aminoalkyl alcohol represented by N(R₁)(R₂)(R₃) with the recited substitution requirements.
As set forth above for claim 1, Ahn teaches aminoalkyl alcohols satisfying this general structure, including triethanolamine, N-methyldiethanolamine, and N-n-butyldiethanolamine (Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to select any of these compounds because they are expressly taught for use in polishing compositions and satisfy the claimed structural formula. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites that when the hydroxyl-substituted alkyl group comprises a quaternary carbon, the group contains two or more hydroxyl groups.
Ahn teaches 2-amino-2-ethyl-1,3-propanediol, which includes a quaternary carbon bonded to multiple hydroxyl-substituted groups (Claim 9).
Selection of such a compound represents a predictable structural variation within the expressly disclosed aminoalkyl alcohol class. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 8, Belov teaches colloidal silica abrasive concentrations spanning and encompassing the claimed range (Claim 6, paragraph [0041]).
Belov does not teach an aminoalkyl alcohol additive concentration.
Ahn teaches amino alcohol concentrations of from 0.5 to 15% by weight (Ahn Claim 2), and further teaches narrower ranges of from 1 to 10% by weight (Ahn Claim 4).
Selection of concentrations within known operable ranges constitutes routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 10 depends from claims 1 and 6 and recites an abrasive concentration of about 3 wt.% or more and an R group having six or more carbon atoms.
Belov teaches abrasive concentrations of about 3 wt.% or more (Claim 28).
Belov does not teach an aminoalkyl alcohol additive having an alkyl group with six or more carbon atoms.
Ahn teaches aminoalkyl alcohols having alkyl groups with six or more carbon atoms, including N-n-butyldiethanolamine and N-cyclohexyldiethanolamine (Claim 9).
Selection of these parameters represents routine optimization of known variables. See MPEP § 2144.05. Furthermore, selection of such a compound represents a predictable structural variation within the expressly disclosed aminoalkyl alcohol class. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol is a primary or secondary amine.
Belov does not explicitly teach the aminoalkyl alcohol being a primary or secondary amine.
Ahn explicitly discloses amino alcohol additives that include primary amines (e.g., 1-amino-2-propanol) and secondary amines (e.g., diethanolamine) (Claim 9).
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 composition of Belov with the aminoalkyl alcohol additive of Ahn. Selection of a primary or secondary amine from among the aminoalkyl alcohols expressly disclosed by Ahn represents a selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G.)
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol lacks a quaternary carbon.
Belov does not explicitly teach an aminoalkyl alcohol lacking a quaternary carbon.
Ahn teaches aminoalkyl alcohol additives including several primary and secondary amines. Structural analysis of these compounds demonstrates that many lack a quaternary carbon, including diethanolamine, 1-amino-2-propanol, and 2-(butylamino)ethanol (Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the composition of Belov with the aminoalkyl alcohol additive of Ahn. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an aminoalkyl alcohol lacking a quaternary carbon from among those disclosed by Ahn to achieve the desired polishing functionality. This represents a selection from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 13 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol contains a secondary hydroxyl group.
Belov does not explicitly teach an aminoalkyl alcohol containing a secondary hydroxyl group.
Ahn discloses amino alcohol additives that contain secondary hydroxyl groups, including 1-amino-2-propanol and 2-amino-2-pentanol (Claim 9).
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 composition of Belov with the aminoalkyl alcohol additive of Ahn. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select an aminoalkyl alcohol containing a secondary hydroxyl group from among those expressly taught by Ahn, as such compounds are disclosed for use in polishing compositions and represent predictable structural variations. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol has a linear structure. Ahn teaches aminoalcohol additives including 1-amino-2-propanol and 2-amino-1-propanol, each of which has a linear propanol backbone and therefore satisfies the recited linear structure limitation (Ahn, claim 9). Selection of these expressly disclosed aminoalcohols represents selection from a finite number of identified, predictable alternatives for the same polishing-additive purpose. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol is a primary amine and has a secondary hydroxyl group. Ahn teaches 1-amino-2-propanol as an aminoalcohol additive (Ahn, claim 9). 1-amino-2-propanol is a primary amine and includes a secondary hydroxyl group. Selection of this expressly disclosed aminoalcohol represents selection from a finite number of identified, predictable alternatives for use in a polishing composition.
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol is selected from a group including 1-amino-2-propanol. Ahn expressly teaches 1-amino-2-propanol as an aminoalcohol additive for a polishing composition (Ahn, claim 9).
Claim 18 depends from claim 14 and further recites that the aminoalkyl alcohol is a secondary amine and contains a primary hydroxyl group or a secondary hydroxyl group. Ahn teaches secondary aminoalcohols including diethanolamine and 2-ethylamino-1-ethanol (Ahn, claim 9). These compounds are secondary amines and include primary hydroxyl groups. Selection of such expressly disclosed aminoalcohols represents selection from a finite number of identified, predictable alternatives for use in a polishing composition.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Belov, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2017/0247574 A1).
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further recites that the anionically modified colloidal silica has a silanol density of about 5.0/nm2 or more.
Belov and Ahn do not explicitly recite a silanol density of about 5.0 /nm² or more.
Takahashi teaches polishing compositions including colloidal silica particles having a density of silanol groups ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 pieces/nm² (paragraphs [0009], [0020]). This disclosed range encompasses silanol densities of about 5.0/nm² or more.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize colloidal silica having such silanol densities in the polishing composition of modified Belov, in view of the known relationship between silanol density and adsorption of polishing accelerators as taught by Takahashi. Selection of a silanol density of about 5.0/nm² or more within the known operable range taught by Takahashi represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. See MPEP §§ 2144.01 and 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9, Belov teaches colloidal silica having an average (mean) particle size of about 10-200 nm, preferably about 20 – 140nm (paragraph [0040]), which encompasses and overlaps the recited particle range 20 – 70 nm. Ahn teaches amino alcohol additives including 2-diethylaminoethanol(paragraph [0022]), which corresponds to the recited 2-diethyl ethanolamino species in claim 9.
Belov and Ahn do not explicitly recite a silanol density of about 5.8 /nm² to about 6.2/nm2.
Takahashi teaches that colloidal silica particles used in polishing compositions may have a density of silanol groups ranging from 1.5 to 6.0 pieces/nm² (paragraphs [0009], [0020]). The recited silanol density range of about 5.8/nm² to about 6.2/nm² overlaps the upper portion of the silanol density range taught by Takahashi.
Selection of a silanol density within this known operable range represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Belov, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0195242 A1).
Chen teaches aminoalkyl alcohol is 3-amino-4-octanol (paragraph [0033]).
It would have been obvious to select 3-amino-4-octanol as the aminoalkyl alcohol additive in the polishing composition of modified Belov because Cheng teaches 3-amino-4-octanol as an aminoalcohol for use in chemical mechanical polishing compositions. Selection of this expressly disclosed aminoalcohol represents selection from a finite number of identified, predictable alternatives for the same polishing-additive purpose. See MPEP § 2143(I)(G).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Belov, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kaufman et al. (US 6063306 A).
Modified Belov, as applied to claim 1, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, including a polishing composition comprising: an abrasive; an additive; and water, wherein the abrasive comprises the recited anionically modified colloidal silica and wherein the additive comprises an aminoalkyl alcohol.
Modified Belov does not expressly teach wherein the aminoalkyl alcohol is 2-(octylamino)ethanol.
Kaufman teaches chemical mechanical polishing slurries useful for polishing substrates including copper and tantalum, wherein the first CMP slurry includes an abrasive and at least one organic amino compound (Kaufman Abstract; col. 1, lines 7-21). Kaufman further teaches that the organic amino compounds useful in the CMP slurry include alkylamines and alcohol amines, and that preferred organic amino compounds include long chain alkylamines and alcoholamines (Kaufman col. 6, lines 3-10). Kaufman teaches that “long chain alkylamines” refers to alkylamines having from 7 to 12 or more carbon atoms, including nonylamine and dodecylamine, and further teaches alcoholamines including monoethanolamine and triethanolamine (Kaufman col. 6, lines 10-18).
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 aminoalkyl alcohol additive of modified Belov to use 2-(octylamino)ethanol, because Kaufman teaches organic amino compounds, including alcoholamines and long-chain alkylamines having 7 to 12 or more carbon atoms, as useful additives in CMP polishing slurries. The claimed 2-(octylamino)ethanol is an aminoalkyl alcohol having an ethanolamine/alcoholamine portion and an octyl alkyl group, wherein octyl is a C8 alkyl group falling within Kaufman’s taught C7-C12 long-chain alkyl range. Thus, selecting 2-(octylamino)ethanol would have represented a predictable selection of a structurally related organic amino compound for use in a CMP polishing slurry. See MPEP §§ 2143(I)(G) and 2144.09.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Belov, Ahn, and Takahashi fail to teach or suggest “anionically modified colloidal silica modified on its surface with anionic functional groups selected from the group consisting of sulfonic acid, carboxylic acid, and a combination thereof,” as newly recited in amended claim 1. However, the above final rejection addresses this newly added limitation by relying on Mizuno, which teaches colloidal silica in which an organic acid, such as sulfonic acid or carboxylic acid, is immobilized on the surface of the colloidal silica by chemically bonding a functional group of the organic acid to the surface of the colloidal silica. Accordingly, applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection as newly presented.
Applicant’s argument, with regard to the teachings of Belov, Ahn, and Takahashi filed 06/16/2025, with regard to amendments made to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot, due to the new rejection applied in the above final office action not relying on the teachings of Belov, Ahn, or Takahashi to address the newly added subject matter.
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 JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 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 L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights