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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by WO (2022240220A1), referred as WO ‘220.
With respect to claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11-13, 17 WO ‘220 describes a polishing composition comprising abrasives (abs.); an amino acid including glycine, lysine, alanine or claimed “second molybdenum static etch rate suppressor comprises a basic amino acid” (page 7); anionic surfactants comprising alkylbenzene sulfonates (-SO3) or claimed “first molybdenum static etch rate comprises an anionic surfactant having a sulfonic acid moiety -SO3” (page 5); two oxidizing agents comprising hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate (page 8); a pH from 3-7, examples 1 and 2 show a pH at 4.6 (pages 1, 11). Prior art which teaches a range overlapping, approaching or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. The (i) overlapping ranges and (ii) examples with pH at 4.6, together show that the claimed full range of 4-9 is taught with sufficient specificity.
With respect to the limitation of a molybdenum polishing composition and the composition has a ratio of molybdenum removal rate to molybdenum static etch rate greater than 6 of claim 17, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The composition of WO ‘220 contains the same components as that of the claimed composition. Therefore, it is expected that the composition would be able to provide a ratio of molybdenum removal rate to molybdenum static etch rate greater than 6.
With respect to claim 7, the WO ‘220 describes the anionic surfactants includes alkylbenzene sulfonates (page 5) or claimed benzene sulfonated (acid type) or salts thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘220 as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claimed 2, even though WO ‘220 doesn’t specifically describe that the abrasive comprises unmodified colloidal silica. However, WO ‘220 teaches that in general known abrasives such as colloidal silica or unmodified colloidal silica is used for a CMP slurry and describes “in order to improve the dispersibility of nanoparticles, a technique for controlling the surface charge of nanoparticles is required. In particular, for example, dispersion in an aqueous solution of ceria or silica nanoparticles used as abrasive particles in a slurry in a semiconductor CMP process is very important” (page 2). This indicates that silica or unmodified colloidal silica is an obvious abrasive material to be used for the process with expected results.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 202219235A, referred as TW ‘235 and further in view Singh et al. (US 2023/0002641).
With repsect to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, TW 202219235A describes a composition for polishing molybdenum comprising colloidal silica or claimed unmodified colloidal silica (page 2); at least one organic acid (e.g. two or three) selected from “1 ,2-ethanedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-hydroxy-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid, 8-hydroxyquinoline-5-sulfonic acid, aminomethanesulfonic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, hydroxylamine-0-sulfonic acid , methanesulfonic acid, m-xylene-4-sulfonic acid, poly-p-styrenesulfonic acid, polyanetholesulfonic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, ethyl phosphoric acid” ,which provides claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor comprises an anionic surfactant having a sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3); cyanoethylphosphoric acid, phenylphosphoric acid, which also provides claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor comprises an anionic surfactant having a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3); amino acid including alanine, lysine, arginine, histidine, which provide claimed “second molybdenum static etch rate suppressor comprises a basic amino acid” (page 1, 3); pH ranges from at least about 3 up to about 7 (page 4); an oxidizing agent selected from hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate (page 4). Unlike claimed invention, TW ‘235 doesn’t describe that the oxidizing agent including a first and a second oxidizer. However, using two oxidizing agents such as hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate in a polishing solution is known and practiced by one skilled in the art as shown here by Singh et al. (US 2023/0002641) (para 12, 30). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a mixture of oxidizing agents including hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate, in light of Singh, because he teaches that using at least one oxidizing agents including hydrogen peroxide and potassium iodate provide a polishing composition for molybdenum material, which is also a material can be polished as taught by TW ‘235 (page 1), with expected results.
With respect to claim 7, TW ‘235 describes the organic acid includes benzenesulfonic acid (page 1) and anionic surfactant further include alkylbenzene sulfonates (page 5) or claimed benzene sulfonated (acid type) or salts thereof .
With respect to claim 16, TW ‘235 teaches the organic acids (e.g. two or three) and salt thereof as described above has a concentration from 0.001 to at most 10 wt%, and further including at least about 0.005 to at most about 1 wt% (page 3). Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges of about 0.03 wt% to about 1 wt% of the organic acids to provide a polishing composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 17, the composition of TW ‘235 contains the same components as that of the claimed composition. Therefore, it is expected that the composition would be able to provide a ratio of molybdenum removal rate to molybdenum static etch rate greater than 6.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘220 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of WO 2022210744A1, referred as WO ‘744.
With respect to claims 4-6, 10 WO ‘220 doesn’t teach the composition includes anionic surfactant compounds having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3), or an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3). WO ‘744 teaches a polishing composition for various materials wherein anionic surfactants such as poly oxyethylene alkyl phosphate or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3); alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3) (pages 12, 16, 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add those anionic surfactants in light of WO ‘744 because WO ‘744 teaches that those “surfactants imparts hydrophilicity to the surface to be polished after polishing, thereby improving the cleaning efficiency of the surface to be polished” (page 12).
Claim(s) 4-6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW ‘235 and Singh as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of WO 2022210744A1, referred as WO ‘744.
With respect to claims 4-6, 10 TW ‘235 doesn’t teach the composition includes anionic surfactant compounds having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3), or an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3). WO ‘744 teaches a polishing composition for various materials wherein anionic surfactants such as poly oxyethylene alkyl phosphate or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3); alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3) (pages 12, 16, 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add those anionic surfactants in light of WO ‘744 because WO ‘744 teaches that those “surfactants imparts hydrophilicity to the surface to be polished after polishing, thereby improving the cleaning efficiency of the surface to be polished” (page 12).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘220 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Negishi et al. (US 2022/0144649).
With respect to claim 14, WO ‘220, as described above, fails to teach a silanol group density of 2.0/nm2 or more. Negishi teaches method for making colloidal silica abrasive for polishing composition for semiconductor wafers (para 2) and a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more (para 50). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more in light of Negishi because he teaches that “a lower limit of the density of silanol groups falling within these ranges further suppresses the formation of scratches on a polished object” (para 50).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW ‘235 and Singh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Negishi et al. (US 2022/0144649).
With respect to claim 14, the prior art of TW ‘235 and Singh, as described above, fail to teach the abrasive has a silanol group density of 2.0/nm2 or more. Negishi teaches method for making colloidal silica abrasive for polishing composition for semiconductor wafers (para 2) and a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more (para 50). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more in light of Negishi because he teaches that “a lower limit of the density of silanol groups falling within these ranges further suppresses the formation of scratches on a polished object” (para 50).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘220 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2022210744A1, referred as WO ‘744 and Negishi et al. (US 2022/0144649).
With respect to claim 15, WO ‘220, as described above, doesn’t teach the composition includes anionic surfactant compounds having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3), an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3). WO ‘744 teaches a polishing composition for various materials wherein anionic surfactants such as poly oxyethylene alkyl phosphate or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3); alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3) (pages 12, 16, 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add those anionic surfactants in light of WO ‘744 because WO ‘744 teaches that those “surfactants imparts hydrophilicity to the surface to be polished after polishing, thereby improving the cleaning efficiency of the surface to be polished” (page 12).
With respect to claim 15, WO ‘220, as described above, fail to teach a silanol group density of 2.0/nm2 or more. Negishi teaches method for making colloidal silica abrasive for polishing composition for semiconductor wafers (para 2) and a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more (para 50). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more in light of Negishi because he teaches that “a lower limit of the density of silanol groups falling within these ranges further suppresses the formation of scratches on a polished object” (para 50).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW ‘235 and Singh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2022210744A1, referred as WO ‘744 and Negishi et al. (US 2022/0144649).
With respect to claim 15, TW ‘235, as described above, doesn’t teach the composition includes anionic surfactant compounds having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3), or an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3). WO ‘744 teaches a polishing composition for various materials wherein anionic surfactants such as poly oxyethylene alkyl phosphate or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having an oxyalkylene structure and a phosphoric acid moiety (OPO3); alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or claimed first molybdenum static etch rate suppressor having a diphenyl ether structure, two or more sulfonic acid moiety (-SO3) (pages 12, 16, 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add those anionic surfactants in light of WO ‘744 because WO ‘744 teaches that those “surfactants imparts hydrophilicity to the surface to be polished after polishing, thereby improving the cleaning efficiency of the surface to be polished” (page 12).
TW ‘235, as described above, fail to teach the abrasive has a silanol group density of 2.0/nm2 or more. Negishi teaches method for making colloidal silica abrasive for polishing composition for semiconductor wafers (para 2) and a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more (para 50). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a silanol group density is preferably 2.0/nm2 or more in light of Negishi because he teaches that “a lower limit of the density of silanol groups falling within these ranges further suppresses the formation of scratches on a polished object” (para 50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
1/6/2026