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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/24/2026. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending in the current office action. Claims 1, 3, and 16 have been amended by the applicant. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 18-20 remain withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “the organic abrasive material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof”. In view of Paragraphs [0002] and [0058], examiner is interpreting the terms “an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof” as being in reference to the “supramolecular compound”, such that the claimed “organic abrasive material” must include a supramolecular compound, an analog of a supramolecular compound, or a derivative of a supramolecular compound.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “wherein the slurry composition is configured to suppress scratch defects”. This limitation does not use the term “means” or step” and therefore there is a presumption that 112(f) does not apply. Further, Examiner takes the position that the use of the term "the slurry composition" provides adequate structure, particularly in the form of the preceding limitations on the slurry composition, to perform the claimed structural features (“to suppress scratch defects”). For the above reasons, claims 1 and 16 are being interpretated as not invoking 112(f).
Status of the Rejection
The rejection of claim 12 is obviated by the Applicant’s cancellation.
Some 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Some 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Takegoshi et al. (US-20120270400-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takegoshi teaches a slurry composition (Paragraph [0030] slurry for CMP taught) comprising:
an organic material, wherein the organic material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof, wherein the supramolecular compound comprises cucurbituril, calixarene, pillararenes, crown ether, or porphyrin (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof),
wherein the slurry composition is configured to suppress scratch defects (Examiner takes the position that this limitation may be considered a recitation of an end result of an intended use of the claimed composition. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations, including the end results of such an intended use. Examiner further notes that the term “defects” interpreted with plain meaning refers to something undesired, and every formulated slurry composition could be considered to be “configured” to generate a desired result and suppress defects. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Takegoshi expressly teaches that the composition is formulated to reduce polishing flaws, Paragraph [0059]), and
wherein a content of an inorganic abrasive material in the slurry composition is less than about 0.1 wt% based on a total amount of the slurry composition (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a polishing abrasive grain. Paragraph [0054] polishing grain can be an organic compound or polymer compound and therefore the composition can have no "inorganic abrasive material" thereby meeting the instant limitation).
Takegoshi teaches, as outlined above, the inclusion of an organic material within the slurry composition, however Takegoshi does not explicitly teach that this organic material is an “abrasive organic material” as claimed. However, examiner takes the position that an organic material being abrasive would be an inherent property of that chemical. Any material or chemical compound either is or is not “abrasive” inherently, regardless if this property has been fully recognized. See MPEP 2112(I) and (II). Since Takegoshi teaches the use of the same chemicals claimed as suitable as components within the supramolecular compound, examiner takes the position that Takegoshi anticipates the instant claim. See MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II).
Regarding Claim 2, Takegoshi teaches wherein the supramolecular compound has a self-assembled structure that is formed from two or more building blocks, wherein the two or more building blocks have a chemical structure of a macrocyclic molecule or a polyethylene glycol (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds that are macrocyclic. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof).
Regarding Claim 3, Takegoshi teaches wherein the two or more building blocks have the chemical structure of the macrocyclic molecule (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds that are macrocyclic).
Regarding Claim 9, Takegoshi teaches wherein the two or more building blocks have the chemical structure of the macrocyclic molecule, and wherein the macrocyclic molecule comprises a molecule that has a structure different from the macrocyclic molecule, and the molecule is non-covalently bound to the macrocyclic molecule (Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof).
Regarding Claim 10, Takegoshi teaches wherein the molecule that is non-covalently bound to the macrocyclic molecule is an amine molecule (Paragraphs [0047-0050] the polymer compound can comprise an acrylamide group and/or be an amine salt).
Regarding Claim 13, Takegoshi teaches wherein the slurry composition is configured for metal polishing (Paragraph [0080] the composition can be used to polish aluminum, copper, titanium, tungsten, or tantalum films).
Regarding Claim 15, Takegoshi teaches the composition further comprises an oxidizing agent, a catalyst, an inhibitor, a chelator, a polishing booster, a stabilizer, a surfactant, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0063] the composition can include an oxidant or a complexing agent. Paragraph [0060] composition can include a dispersant to improve dispersion stability).
Regarding Claim 16, Takegoshi teaches a slurry composition (Paragraph [0030] slurry for CMP taught) comprising:
an organic material, wherein the organic material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof),
wherein the slurry composition is devoid of an inorganic abrasive material (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a polishing abrasive grain. Paragraph [0-054] polishing grain can be an organic compound or polymer compound and therefore the composition can have no "inorganic abrasive material" thereby meeting the instant limitation),
wherein the supramolecular compound comprises cucurbituril, calixarene, pillararenes, crown ether, or porphyrin (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof), and
wherein the slurry composition is configured to suppress scratch defects (Examiner takes the position that this limitation may be considered a recitation of an end result of an intended use of the claimed composition. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations, including the end results of such an intended use. Examiner further notes that the term “defects” interpreted with plain meaning refers to something undesired, and every formulated slurry composition could be considered to be “configured” to generate a desired result and prevent undesired results (suppress defects). However, for purposes of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Takegoshi expressly teaches that the composition is formulated to reduce polishing flaws, Paragraph [0059]).
Takegoshi teaches, as outlined above, the inclusion of an organic material within the slurry composition, however Takegoshi does not explicitly teach that this organic material is an “abrasive organic material” as claimed. However, examiner takes the position that an organic material being abrasive would be an inherent property of that chemical. Any material or chemical compound either is or is not “abrasive” inherently, regardless if this property has been fully recognized. See MPEP 2112(I) and (II). Since Takegoshi teaches the use of the same chemicals claimed as suitable as components within the supramolecular compound, examiner takes the position that Takegoshi anticipates the instant limitation. See MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II).
Takegoshi further teaches that the slurry composition comprises about 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the organic abrasive material (Paragraph [0041] water-soluble clathrate compound is included at 0.001-3% by mass. Paragraph [0044] polymer is included at 0.12-3% by mass. Therefore, the organic abrasive material can be considered to be included at 0.121-6% by mass).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takegoshi.
Regarding Claim 14, Takegoshi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Takegoshi fails to teach wherein the slurry composition has a pH of about 2 to about 11.
However, Takegoshi teaches that the composition pH is preferably 3-12.5 (Paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pH within the disclosed range of 3-12.5, including at values that overlap with the claimed range of about 2 to about 11. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, (Note: claim 16 is being rejected in an alternative form here using a broader interpretation of what is included as the “organic abrasive material” within the cited prior art) Takegoshi teaches a slurry composition (Paragraph [0030] slurry for CMP taught) comprising:
an organic material, wherein the organic material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof),
wherein the slurry composition is devoid of an inorganic abrasive material (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a polishing abrasive grain. Paragraph [0054] polishing grain can be an organic compound or polymer compound and therefore the composition can have no "inorganic abrasive material" thereby meeting the instant limitation),
wherein the supramolecular compound comprises cucurbituril, calixarene, pillararenes, crown ether, or porphyrin (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a water-soluble clathrate compound. Paragraph [0033] the water-soluble clathrate compound can be a crown ether, porphyrin, or calixarene, which are organic compounds. Paragraph [0064] a composite forms from the water-soluble clathrate compound and a polymer compound, which can be considered a supramolecular compound or analog thereof), and
wherein the slurry composition is configured to suppress scratch defects (Examiner takes the position that this limitation may be considered a recitation of an end result of an intended use of the claimed composition. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations, including the end results of such an intended use. Examiner further notes that the term “defects” interpreted with plain meaning refers to something undesired, and every formulated slurry composition could be considered to be “configured” to generate a desired result and prevent undesired results (suppress defects). However, for purposes of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Takegoshi expressly teaches that the composition is formulated to reduce polishing flaws, Paragraph [0059]).
Takegoshi teaches, as outlined above, the inclusion of an organic material within the slurry composition, however Takegoshi does not explicitly teach that this organic material is an “abrasive organic material” as claimed. However, examiner takes the position that an organic material being abrasive would be an inherent property of that chemical. Any material or chemical compound either is or is not “abrasive” inherently, regardless if this property has been fully recognized. See MPEP 2112(I) and (II). Since Takegoshi teaches the use of the same chemicals claimed as suitable as components within the supramolecular compound, examiner takes the position that Takegoshi anticipates the instant limitation. See MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II).
Takegoshi fails to explicitly teach that the slurry composition comprises about 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the organic abrasive material.
However, Takegoshi teaches that organic abrasive material can be included at 0.221-36% by mass (Paragraph [0041] water-soluble clathrate compound is included at 0.001-3% by mass. Paragraph [0044] polymer is included at 0.12-3% by mass. Paragraph [0059] the polishing abrasive grain, which can be an organic abrasive material as outlined above, in included at 0.1-30% by mass. Therefore, the organic abrasive material can be considered to be included at 0.221-36% by mass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated organic abrasive material at a level within the disclosed range of 0.221-36 wt%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.1-10 wt%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 17, Takegoshi teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as outlined above.
Takegoshi fails to teach wherein the slurry composition has a pH of about 2 to about 5.
However, Takegoshi teaches that the composition pH is preferably 3-12.5 (Paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pH within the disclosed range of 3-12.5, including at values that overlap with the claimed range of about 2 to about 5. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claims 4 or 11 with particular attention to the limitation “wherein the two or more building blocks have the chemical structure of the polyethylene glycol, and wherein the polyethylene glycol comprises a hydrophobic group” of claim 4 and “herein the supramolecular compound has a particle size of less than or equal to about 100 nm”.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Takegoshi.
Takegoshi fails to teach any particle size limitations on the supramolecular compounds withing the composition and fails to teach that polyethylene glycol is one of the building blocks of the supramolecular compound.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections relying upon Takahashi in regards to the amended claims are persuasive and all rejections relying upon Takahashi as the primary reference have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 2-3, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections relying upon Takegoshi have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takegoshi is not configured to suppress scratch defects due to the use of “large amounts of inorganic abrasive materials that cause such defects”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner takes the position that the limitation “configured to suppress scratch defects” may be considered a recitation of an end result of an intended use of the claimed composition. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations, including the end results of such an intended use. Examiner further notes that the term “defects” interpreted with plain meaning refers to something undesired, and every formulated slurry composition could be considered to be “configured” to generate a desired result and prevent undesired results (suppress defects).
Additionally, on further consideration of the cited prior art, examiner notes that Takegoshi does not require that the slurry composition include inorganic abrasive materials. While Takegoshi teaches that the composition includes abrasive grains (Paragraph [0030] composition includes a polishing abrasive grain), Takegoshi further teaches that this abrasive grain may be an organic compound (Paragraph [0054] polishing grain can be an organic compound or polymer compound). Therefore, the cited prior art teaches all of the claimed structural limitations. Examiner further notes that Takegoshi further teaches that the composition taught suppresses polishing flaws (Paragraph [0059] “From the aspects of the polishing rate and suppression of the polishing flaw, the content of the aforementioned polishing abrasive grain (c) is most preferably 0.5 mass %-15 mass %.”), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include scratches. Examiner takes the position that based on the above, the cited prior meets all of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights