Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/596,278

POLISHING COMPOSITION, POLISHING METHOD, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 05, 2024
Examiner
TRAN, BINH X
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujimi Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 911 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
938
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.2%
-0.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 911 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions 2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. 3. Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0070776 A1). As to claim 1, Lee discloses a polishing composition comprising: abrasive grains (paragraph 0010-0013); an alkylamine compound having at least one linear or branched alkyl group having 2 or more and 15 or less carbon atoms (paragraph 0057); wherein a pH is less than 7 (paragraph 0046); and a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is negative (paragraph 0011). As to claim 2, Lee discloses the alkylamine compound is a monoalklylamine compound having only one alkyl group (i.e. hexylamine, octylamine, dodecylamine; See paragraph 0057). As to claim 3, Lee discloses the number of caron atoms of the alkyl group is 2 or more and 7 or less (i.e. hexylamine (6 carbon); See paragraph 0057). As to claim 4, Lee discloses the alkylamine compound is at least one monoalkylamine compound includes n-hexylamine (paragraph 0057; Note n-hexylamine is also known as hexylamine; See evidence reference: Wikipedia, “Hexylamine” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexylamine ) As to claim 5, Lee discloses the abrasive grains are anionically modified colloidal silica (paragraph 0012-0013, 0016, 0035). As to claim 6, Lee discloses the composition further comprises a pH adjusting agent (paragraph 0047, 0105). As to claim 7, Lee discloses the composition further comprises an electrical conductivity adjusting agent (i.e. anionic polymer or cationic polymer; See abstract, 0018, 0025, 0034-0035). As to claim 8, Lee discloses the composition further comprises a dispersing medium (i.e. liquid carrier; See abstract; paragraph 0006; 0010; 0060, 0093). As to claim 9, Lee discloses the zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is -20 mV or –25 mV or -15 mV to about -50 mV (paragraph 0011, within applicant’s range of “-45 mV or more and -15 mV or less”). 7. Claims 1-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ishiguro (US 2021/0292600 A1) As to claim 1, Ishiguro discloses a polishing composition comprising: abrasive grains (paragraph 0018-0027); an alkylamine compound having at least one linear or branched alkyl group having 2 or more and 15 or less carbon atoms (Table 1-2); wherein a pH is less than 5 (abstract; paragraph 0010; within applicant’s range of “less than 7”); and a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is negative (paragraph 0018). As to claim 2, Ishiguro discloses the alkylamine compound is a monoalkylamine compound having only one alkyl group (i.e. ethylamine; See Table 2). As to claim 3, Ishiguro discloses the number of caron atoms of the alkyl group is 2 or more and 7 or less (i.e. ethylamine; See Table 2). As to claim 4, Ishiguro discloses the alkylamine compound is at least one monoalkylamine compound includes ethylamine (See Table 2). As to claim 5, Ishiguro discloses the abrasive grains are anionically modified colloidal silica (i.e. negative modified colloidal silica; See paragraph 0025-0026). As to claim 6, Ishiguro discloses the composition further comprises a pH adjusting agent (abstract, paragraph 0007; 0053-0060). As to claim 8, Ishiguro discloses the composition further comprises a dispersing medium (abstract, paragraph 0061). As to claim 9, Ishiguro discloses the zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing composition is -45 mV or more and -15 mV or less; including example of -27.8 mV (paragraph 0018, 0025, Table 1-2). As to claim 10, Ishiguro discloses the polishing composition is used for polishing an object to be polished containing low-k material (i.e. silicon oxide) and silicon nitride (paragraph 0003, 0015). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguro (US 2021/0292600 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10 above, and further in view of Mae et al. (US 2021/0079264 A1). As to claim 11, Ishiguro fails to disclose the low-k material is SiOC. However, Ishiguro clearly discloses the polishing composition is used for polishing a low-k material such as silicon oxide (paragraph 0015). Mae discloses the polishing composition is used for polishing a low-k material such as silicon oxide or SiOC (paragraph 0024-0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishiguro in view of Mae by having SiOC as low-k material because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)). 11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiguro (US 2021/0292600 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10 above, and further in view of Chien (US 2020/0332150 A1). As to claim 12, Ishiguro fails to disclose 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. However, Ishiguro clearly teaches to remove low-k material (i.e. silicon oxide) and silicon nitride (paragraph 0015). Chien teaches to remove silicon oxide and silicon nitride, wherein the silicon oxide is TEOS (See paragraph 0064-0065). Chien further discloses the silicon oxide (TEOS) removal rate is 116 Å/min or 156 Å/min or 227 Å/min or 155 Å/min or 201 Å/min and silicon nitride removal rate is 113 Å/min or 139 Å/min or 164 Å/min or 156 Å/min or 188 Å/min (See Table 3 in paragraph 0119). Any person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate a ratio of a polishing removal rate of the Low-k material to a polishing removal rate of the silicon nitride as shown below: SiO or TEO polishing rate SiN polish rate Polishing Ratio of SiO/silicon nitride 116 113 116/113 = 1.026 156 139 156/139= 1.122 227 164 227/164 = 1.384 155 156 155/156 = 0.9936 201 188 201/188 = 1.069 Therefore, Chien discloses a ratio of a polishing removal rate of the Low-k material to a polishing removal rate of the silicon nitride is 1.026, or 1.1222, or 1.384, or 1.069 (read on applicant’s limitation “more than 1 and less than 2”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishiguro in view of Chien by having a ratio of polishing removal rate of the low-k material to polishing removal rate of silicon nitride more than 1 and less than 2 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. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 05, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598933
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593665
Hard Mask Removal Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577431
DISPERSANT AND POLISHING AGENT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580160
ETCHING METHOD AND ETCHING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580162
TEMPERATURE AND BIAS CONTROL OF EDGE RING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+12.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 911 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month