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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
(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 1-2, 4-6, 8, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US-20050176250-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi teaches a slurry composition (Paragraph [0010] teaches a polishing fluid) comprising:
an organic abrasive material (Paragraph [0018] composition includes a composite material that includes a polyoxo acid a and a non-ionic surfactant. Paragraph [0059] the micelle particles formed act as polishing particles),
wherein the organic abrasive material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof (Paragraph [0058] micelle particles form from the polyoxo acid and water-soluble polymer or nonionic surfactant).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Takahashi further 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 [0058] micelle particles form from the polyoxo acid and water-soluble polymer or nonionic surfactant. Paragraph [0046] the water-soluble polymer can be a polyethylene glycol. Paragraph [0051] the nonionic surfactant can be a polyethylene glycol).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches wherein the two or more building blocks have the chemical structure of the polyethylene glycol, and wherein the polyethylene glycol comprises a hydrophobic group (Paragraph [0051] the polyethylene glycol type nonionic surfactant includes a hydrophobic group).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches wherein the polyethylene glycol further comprises an ethylene glycol group, and wherein the polyethylene glycol has a molecular weight ratio of the ethylene glycol group and the hydrophobic group of about 1:2 to about 1:8 (ethylene glycol group: hydrophobic group) (Paragraph [0053] teaches that a nonionic surfactant can be polyoxyethylene lauryl ether. The claimed "ethylene glycol group" could be considered to be a single mole of ethylene glycol which is (C2H4O), which has a molecular weight of 44.1, and the hydrophobic group can be considered the lauryl group which is C12H25 with a molecular weight of 169.3. With this interpretation, the molecular weight ratio would be 1:3.8).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches wherein the hydrophobic group comprises an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an alkynyl group, an aromatic group, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0053] teaches that a nonionic surfactant can be polyoxyethylene lauryl ether, where lauryl is an alkyl group).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches wherein the two or more building blocks have the chemical structure of the polyethylene glycol, and wherein the two or more building blocks self-assemble to form a micelle structure (Paragraph [0058] micelle particles form from the polyoxo acid and water-soluble polymer or nonionic surfactant. Paragraph [0046] the water-soluble polymer can be a polyethylene glycol. Paragraph [0051] the nonionic surfactant can be a polyethylene glycol).
Regarding Claim 12, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches 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 [0039] in some embodiments the polishing fluid substantially does not contain abrasive grains).
Regarding Claim 13, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches wherein the slurry composition is configured for metal polishing (Paragraph [0036] polishing fluid taught is suitable for polishing a metal film).
Regarding Claim 15, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Takahashi further 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 [0062] composition can include an oxidant).
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 (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).
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 as claimed by the instant invention (see the rejection of claim 3 below), 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, and wherein the macrocyclic molecule 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 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).
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 as claimed by the instant invention (see the rejection of claim 3 below), examiner takes the position that Takegoshi anticipates the instant claim. 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 is included at 0.121-6% by mass).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 11, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Takahashi fails to teach wherein the supramolecular compound has a particle size of less than or equal to about 100 nm.
However, Takahashi further teaches the particle size of the micelles formed is in the range of 10nm to 1µm (Paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a particle size at a level within the disclosed range of 10nm to 1µm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than or equal to 100nm. 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, Takahashi teaches a slurry composition (Paragraph [0010] teaches a polishing fluid) comprising:
an organic abrasive material (Paragraph [0018] composition includes a composite material that includes a polyoxo acid a and a non-ionic surfactant. Paragraph [0059] the micelle particles formed act as polishing particles),
wherein the organic abrasive material includes a supramolecular compound, an analog thereof, or a derivative thereof (Paragraph [0058] micelle particles form from the polyoxo acid and water-soluble polymer or nonionic surfactant), and
wherein the slurry composition is devoid of an inorganic abrasive material (Paragraph [0039] in some embodiments polishing fluid substantially does not contain abrasive grains).
Takahashi fails to teach that the composition contains about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% of the organic abrasive material based on a total amount of the slurry composition.
However, Takahashi further teaches that the polyoxo acid is included at 0.1-30% by weight (Paragraph [0045] and that the nonionic surfactant is included at 0.1-50% by weight (Paragraph [0055]). As outlined above, these two components form the micelle particles which are equivalent to the claimed organic abrasive material and therefore, the total amount of the claimed organic abrasive material could be considered to be 0.2-80% by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of polyoxo acid and nonionic surfactant at levels within the disclosed ranges, such that the total amount was 0.2-80% of the composition by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.1 wt% to about 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied to claims 1, 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Chien et al. (US-20190085205-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4 as outlined above. Takahashi further teaches that the nonionic surfactant can be a polyoxyethylene ether of alkylphenols (Paragraph [0053]).
However, Takahashi fails to teach any specific molecule for such a surfactant and therefore fails to teach wherein the polyethylene glycol has a structure of Chemical Formula 1 wherein: R1 is a substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl group, and n is an integer of 1 to 100.
Chien teaches a chemical mechanical polishing composition (Paragraph [0004]). Chien teaches that the composition includes a surfactant (Paragraph [0005]). Chien teaches that one suitable surfactant is t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol, which is sold under the product name Triton X-100 (Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Takahashi by selecting as the nonionic surfactant, and specifically the polyoxyethylene ether of alkylphenols, t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (specifically Triton X-100) as taught by Chien. With this modification all of the instant limitations would be met as Triton X-100 has the same structure as the claimed Chemical Formula 1, with an R1 that is a C8 alkyl group, and an n that is 9-10 (See Reference Document “Triton X-100 – Sigman-Aldrich”).
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one nonionic surfactant, and specifically a polyoxyethylene ether of alkylphenols, for another such compound. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US-20050005525-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Takahashi fails to teach wherein the slurry composition has a pH of about 2 to about 11.
Li teaches an abrasive composition (Paragraph [0001]) that includes organic abrasive particles (Paragraph [0022]) that comprise multiple molecules held together by intermolecular forces (Paragraph [0032]). Li teaches that the composition pH is preferably 4-10 (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Takahashi by selecting a pH within the range taught by Li.
This modification would have been obvious as it can be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the obvious result of supplying a suitable pH for a slurry composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 17, Takahashi teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as outlined above.
Takahashi fails to teach wherein the slurry composition has a pH of about 2 to about 5.
Li teaches an abrasive composition (Paragraph [0001]) that includes organic abrasive particles (Paragraph [0022]) that comprise multiple molecules held together by intermolecular forces (Paragraph [0032]). Li teaches that the composition pH can be 1-13 (Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Takahashi by selecting a pH within the range taught by Li.
This modification would have been obvious as it can be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the obvious result of supplying a suitable pH for a slurry composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
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 1-13, 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).
Claims 14 and 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 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).
Conclusion
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