DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This office action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed on 06/09/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-21 are pending. Claims 1, 4 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn. Claims 19-21 are new claims.
The applicant’s amendment filed on 06/19/2026 were sufficient to overcome the examiner’s previous ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0070776 A1) or as being anticipated by Ishiguro et al. (US 2021/0292600 A1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New ground of rejection were set forth as discussed below using new cited prior arts as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada (WO 2023007938 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamada discloses a polishing composition comprising:
Abrasive grains (abstract, paragraph 0021-0030);
an alkylamine compound having at least one linear or branched alkyl group having 2 or more and 15 or less carbon atoms (See paragraph 0055; i.e. isopropylamine or ethylenediamine or triethylamine);
an electrical conductivity adjusting agent, wherein the electrical conductivity adjusting agent is selected from ammonium sulfate (paragraph 0092);
wherein the pH is between 1 to 6, preferable 2 to 5 (paragraph 0056, within applicant’s range of “less than 7”);
wherein a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is negative (abstract, 0006, 0020-0021; 0093, 00954).
As to claim 2, Yamada discloses the alkylamine compound is a monoalkyl amine (i.e. isopropylamine having only one alkyl group (i.e. isopropyl; See paragraph 0055).
As to claim 3, Yamada discloses the number of carbon atoms of the alkyl group is 2 or more and 7 or less (paragraph 0055; i.e. triethyl amine or isopropylamine).
As to claim 5, Yamada discloses the abrasive grains are anionically modified colloidal silica (paragraph 0022, 0030, 0032-0035; 0072; 0075, 0076; 0078-0079; i.e. abrasive grains is modified with negative functional group, wherein the abrasive grain includes colloidal silica).
As to claim 6, Yamada discloses the composition comprises a pH adjusting agent (paragraph 0056-0057).
As to claim 8, Yamada discloses the composition comprises a dispersing medium (i.e. water; See paragraph 0041; 0061).
As to claim 9, Yamada discloses the zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is -15 mV or less, preferably -18 mV, preferably -20 mV or less, including example of -40 mV or -35 mV or -30 mV or -28 mV (See paragraph 0023; within applicant’s range of “-45 mV or more and -15 mV or less”).
As to claim 19, Yamada discloses the electrical conductivity adjusting agent is selected from the group consisting of ammonium sulfate (paragraph 0092).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 4, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2023-007938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murakami (US 2023/0055305 A1).
As to claim 4, Yamada fails to disclose wherein the alkylamine compound is at least one monoalkylamine compound selected from the group consisting of ethylamine, n-propylamine, n-butylamine, and n-pentylamine. However, Yamada clearly discloses to use monoalkylamine selected from the group consisting of methylamine, isopropylamine (paragraph 0055). Murakami discloses to use monoalkyl amine selected from ethylamine, methylamine (paragraph 0195). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Murakami by using ethylamine because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 20, Yamada discloses the electrical conductivity adjusting agent is selected from ammonium sulfate (paragraph 0092). As to claim 20, Yamada fails to disclose wherein the alkylamine compound is at least one monoalkylamine compound selected from the group consisting of ethylamine, n-propylamine, n-butylamine, and n-pentylamine. However, Yamada clearly discloses to use monoalkylamine selected from the group consisting of methylamine, isopropylamine (paragraph 0055). Murakami discloses to use monoalkyl amine selected from ethylamine, methylamine (paragraph 0195). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Murakami by using ethylamine because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
8. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2023-007938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamimura (US 2011/0244684 A1).
As to claim 10, Yamada disclose the composition is used for polishing an object containing a silicon nitride and silicon oxide (paragraph 0093). As to claim 10, Yamada fails to disclose the object comprises a low-k material. As to claim 11, Yamada fails to disclose the low-k material is SiOC (aka silicon oxycarbide) Kamimura discloses the object comprise both silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide, and low-k material such as silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) (See paragraph 0011, 0139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Kamimura by using low-k material such as SiOC because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
9. Claims 10-11, 12, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2023-007938 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tseng (US 2021/0047541 A1)
As to claim 10, Yamada discloses the composition is used for polishing an object containing a silicon nitride and silicon oxide (paragraph 0093). As to claim 10, Yamada fails to disclose the object comprises a low-k material. As to claim 11, Yamada fails to disclose the low-k material is SiOC (aka silicon oxycarbide) Tseng discloses the object comprise both silicon nitride (SiN), silicon oxide, and low-k material such as silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) (See abstract, paragraph 004-0005, 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tseng by using low-k material such as SiOC because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 12, Yamada fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a polishing removal rate of the Low-k material to a polishing removal rate of the silicon nitride is 1.0 or more and 2.0 or less. Tseng discloses to polish both low-k material (SiOC) and silicon nitride. Tseng further discloses wherein a ratio of a polishing removal rate of the Low-k material (SiOC) to a polishing removal rate of the silicon nitride is 1.0, 1.3, 1.4. 1.1, 1.7, 1.9 (See Table 1, Comparative Example 2-3, 8, 11, 15, 18; within applicant’s range of 1.0 or more and 2.0 or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tseng by having a ratio of a polishing removal rate of the Low-k material to a polishing removal rate of the silicon nitride is 1.0 or more and 2.0 or less because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 21, Yamada discloses the polishing rate of the silicon nitride is 100 Å/min or greater including example of 300 Å/min (See paragraph 0086, Table 1-2). As to claim 21, Yamada fails to disclose the polishing removal rate of the low-k material is 300 Å/min or more. Tseng discloses the polishing removal rate of low-k (SiOC) is greater than 300 Å/min such as 305 Å/min or 332 Å/min (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Tseng by having the polishing rate of low-k material is 300 Å/min or more because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights