DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1,2,4-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0037892 A1 (Belov) in view of US 2011/004541 A1 (Ahn et al).
Regarding Claim 1, Belov teaches a polishing composition (Abstract) comprising:
• an abrasive (abrasive particles)
– colloidal silica particles (paragraphs [0032], [0033], [0039]);
• water (aqueous dispersion medium)
– water-based slurry (paragraph [0061]);
• wherein the abrasive comprises colloidal silica
– colloidal silicon dioxide (paragraph [0039]);
• and a polishing composition pH adjustable to acidic conditions– slurries preferably have a pH below 3.5, (paragraph [0044]).
Belov does not teach an aminoalkyl alcohol additive having the recited structural limitations, including the requirement that when the aminoalkyl alcohol is a tertiary amine, a hydroxyl-substituted alkyl group bonded to the nitrogen atom is linear.
Ahn teaches polishing compositions including amino alcohols (Abstract), including tertiary, secondary, and primary aminoalkyl alcohol species (Claim 9). Ahn’s disclosed tertiary aminoalkyl alcohols include triethanolamine, which comprises three linear 2-hydroxyethyl groups bonded to nitrogen, thereby satisfying the requirement that when the aminoalkyl alcohol is a tertiary amine, the hydroxyl-substituted alkyl group bonded to the nitrogen atom is linear (Claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polishing composition of Belov to include an aminoalkyl alcohol taught by Ahn, because Ahn teaches amino alcohols for use in polishing compositions (Abstract), and Belov teaches acidic colloidal silica slurries (paragraph [0044]). Combining a known CMP additive with a known CMP slurry represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 2, Belov further teaches that the colloidal silica abrasive is anionically modified (Claim 1, paragraph [0027]).
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).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belov in view of Ahn, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2017/0247574 A1 (Takahashi et al).
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 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
Conclusion
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 /JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713