DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 21-22 are pending before the Office for review.
In the response field September 23, 2026:
Claims 1 and 10 were amended.
Claims 4 and 14 were canceled.
No new matter is present.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 23, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0175942).
With regards to claims 1 and 21, Chang discloses a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the chemical mechanical polishing slurry comprising deionized water (Paragraphs [0015], [0029], [0035]), abrasive particles (Paragraphs [0026]-[0029]) and an oxidizing agent comprise at least one of sodium perborate (Paragraph [0032]).
Chang does not explicitly disclose an aqueous solution including a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent, the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent being configured to control both a static etch rate of a metal layer and a removal rate of the metal layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 10°C to 75°C and wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide.
Chang discloses an oxidizing agent that facilitates conversion of copper on the wafer surface to hydrated copper compounds wherein the oxidizer can be sodium perborate (Paragraph [0032]) wherein the static etch rate at a polishing temperature of room temperature is controlled based on the formulation including variations in oxidizing agent amounts (See Page 7) which renders obvious an aqueous solution including a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent, the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent being configured to control both a static etch rate of a metal layer and a removal rate of the metal layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 100C to 75°C, wherein the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent comprises at least one of Sodium Perborate; wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide..
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Chang to include the sodium perborate as taught by the general disclosure because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the sodium perborate as rendered obvious by the general disclosure of Chang. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Chang renders obvious wherein the abrasive particles comprise at least one of silica, alumina, ceria, titania, zirconia, magnesia, germania, and mangania. (Paragraphs [0026]-[0029]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Chang renders obvious wherein a concentration of the abrasive particles is 5ppm to 4000 ppm (Paragraph [0026]) which renders obvious 1 wt% to 10 wt% in the aqueous solution. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Chang renders obvious wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a pH adjusting agent (Paragraph [0030]).
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Chang render obvious wherein the pH adjusting agent comprises at least one of potassium hydroxide (KOH), ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), tetramethylamine (TMA), tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH), and tetraethylamine (TEA). (Paragraph [0030])
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Chang render obvious wherein the pH of the aqueous solution is 3.5 to 6.6 (Claim 10, Table 13) which renders obvious 1 to 8. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0175942), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7 and 21, in further view of SINGH et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0002641).
With regards to claims 8-9, the modified teachings of Chang renders obvious the limitations of claim 1.
However the modified teachings of Chang do not explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a catalyst and wherein the catalyst comprises at least one of ferric nitrate, potassium ferricyanide, iron chloride, iron sulfate, iron fluoride, iron bromide, copper chloride, copper fluoride, and copper bromide.
Singh discloses a metal polishing composition comprising at least one oxidizer wherein the oxidizer can be used in combination wherein the oxidizing agent include ferric nitrate and sodium perborate (Paragraphs [0030]) which renders obvious a catalyst and wherein the catalyst comprises at least one of ferric nitrate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified composition of Chang to include the ferric nitrate catalyst as taught by Singh because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the ferric nitrate as rendered obvious by Singh. MPEP 2143D
Claims 10, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0251547).
With regards to claims 10 and 22, Park discloses a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the chemical mechanical polishing slurry consisting essentially of: deionized water (Paragraph [0038]); abrasive particles (Paragraphs [0038]-[0039]); an oxidizing agent (Paragraphs [0041]); a pH adjusting agent (Paragraph [0052]); and an aqueous solution including a catalyst (Paragraph [0042]), wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a catalyst, including at least one of potassium ferricyanide, iron chloride (Paragraph [0042]).
Park does not explicitly disclose a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent configured to control both a static etch rate and a removal rate of a tungsten layer in a chemical mechanical polishing when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 10°C to 75°C and wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide.
However Park discloses wherein the oxidizer oxidizes the surface of the polishing target tungsten such that the metallic material forms a metal oxide which has a lower strength than the metal and facilitates polishing of the surface wherein the oxidizer may be a compound other than hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph [0041]) therefore rendering obvious including a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent, the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent being configured to control both a static etch rate of a metal layer and a removal rate of the metal layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 100C to 75°C and wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide. In addition the composition of Park renders obvious Applicant's claimed composition and would exhibit the same properties including desired static etch rate of metal layer and removal rates of metals. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. MPEP 2112.01(II)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Park to include configured temperature sensitive oxidizing agent as rendered obvious by Park because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired chemical mechanical polishing slurry using the oxidizing agent as rendered obvious by Park. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent comprises sodium persulfate (Paragraph [0041]), and a concentration of the sodium persulfate is from about 5 wt% to about 10 wt% (Paragraph [0041]) which renders obvious0.5 wt% to 5 wt% in the aqueous solution. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THOMAS et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0139050).
With regards to claims 10 and 22, Thomas discloses a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the chemical mechanical polishing slurry consisting essentially of: deionized water (Paragraph [0019]); abrasive particles (Paragraph [0016]); a pH adjusting agent (Paragraph [0019]); and an aqueous solution including a catalyst, wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a catalyst, including at least one of potassium ferricyanide, iron chloride (Paragraphs [0010]-[0014]).
Thomas does not explicitly disclose a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent configured to control both a static etch rate and a removal rate of a tungsten layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 100C to 75°C and wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide.
However Thomas discloses a strong primary oxidizer and a secondary oxidizer wherein polishing solution has a static etch rate which is dependent the type of polishing solution and the particular secondary oxidizer used wherein the iron containing oxidizer is preferred (Paragraphs [0010]-[0015]) which renders obvious a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent configured to control both a static etch rate and a removal rate of a tungsten layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 100C to 75°C and wherein the chemical polishing slurry does not include hydrogen peroxide. In addition the composition of Thomas renders obvious Applicant's claimed composition and would exhibit the same properties including desired static etch rate of metal layer and removal rates of metals. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. MPEP 2112.01(II)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Thomas to include configured temperature sensitive oxidizing agent as rendered obvious by Thomas because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired chemical mechanical polishing slurry using the oxidizing agent as rendered obvious by Thomas. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Thomas renders obvious wherein the abrasive particles comprise silica (Paragraph [0016]), and a concentration of the silica is from 0-25 wt% (Paragraph [0016]) which renders obvious 1 wt% to 10 wt% in the aqueous solution. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Thomas renders obvious wherein the pH adjusting agent comprises at least one of potassium hydroxide (KOH), ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), tetramethylamine (TMA), tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) and tetraethylamine (TEA), and the aqueous solution has a pH of 6 or less (Paragraph [0019]) which renders obvious a pH of 1 to 8. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8 of Applicant’s response, filed September 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5-13 and 21-22 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CHANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0175942), SINGH et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0002641), PARK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0251547) and THOMAS et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0139050).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 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 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights