DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 21, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on January 21, 2-26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 208/0355213).
With regards to claim 1, Park discloses a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the chemical mechanical polishing slurry comprising: deionized water (Paragraph [0025]) and abrasive particles (Paragraph [0015]).
Park 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.
However Park discloses wherein the composition comprises a second polishing regulator; the polishing regulator may include at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium persulfate (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]); wherein the polishing temperature is 25°C and the static etch rate of the metal layer is configured to be low with a high removal rate when polishing a metal layer (Paragraphs [0036], [0058], [0078], [0082]) rendering obvious an aqueous solution including a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator), 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. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP2144.05
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 embodiment of Park to include the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator) as disclosed by Park because the reference of Park teaches that the inclusion of the compound provide for a sufficient polishing rate while stabilizing the dispersion (Paragraph [0036]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictable the desired polishing using the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator) as renders obvious by Park. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the abrasive particles comprise at least one of silica, ceria, titania, zirconia, magnesia, germania, and mangania. (Paragraph [0017]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein a concentration of the abrasive particles is 1 to 6 wt% (Paragraph [0019]) falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 wt% to 10 wt% in the aqueous solution.
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent comprises at least one of sodium persulfate (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]).
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a pH adjusting agent (Paragraphs [0043]-[0044]).
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the pH adjusting agent comprises at least one of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH). (Paragraph [0044]).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the pH may be adjusted to any range of pH that prevents corrosion of the polishing target or the polishing apparatus and facilitates oxidation of the metal layer to be polished (Paragraph [0042]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention optimize the pH of the competition to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a 1 to 8 in order to prevents corrosion of the polishing target or the polishing apparatus and facilitates oxidation of the metal layer to be polished as taught by the modified teachings of Park. (Paragraph [0042], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A))
With regards to claim 8 and 9, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the aqueous solution further comprises a catalyst (Paragraphs [0037]-[0040] discloses third polishing regulator) wherein the catalyst comprises at least one of ferric nitrate, iron chloride, iron fluoride, iron bromide and iron sulfate (Paragraph [0039])
With regards to claim 10, Park discloses a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the chemical mechanical polishing slurry comprising: deionized water (Paragraph [0025]) and abrasive particles (Paragraph [0015]); a pH adjusting agent (Paragraph [0043]-[0044]) and an aqueous solution including a catalyst (Paragraph [0037]-[0040] third polishing regulator).
Park 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 tungsten 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.
However Park discloses wherein the composition comprises a second polishing regulator; the polishing regulator may include at least one selected from the group consisting of sodium persulfate (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]); wherein the polishing temperature is 25°C and the static etch rate of the tungsten layer is configured to be low with a high removal rate when polishing a metal layer (Paragraphs [0036], [0058], [0078], [0082]) rendering obvious an aqueous solution including a temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator), the temperature-sensitive oxidizing agent being configured to control both a static etch rate of a metal layer and a removal rate of the tungsten layer in a chemical mechanical polishing process when a polishing temperature of the chemical mechanical polishing process is 10°C to 75°C. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I)
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 embodiment of Park to include the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator) as disclosed by Park because the reference of Park teaches that the inclusion of the compound provide for a sufficient polishing rate while stabilizing the dispersion (Paragraph [0036]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictable the desired polishing using the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent (second polishing regulator) as renders obvious by Park. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the abrasive particles comprise silica and wherein a concentration of the abrasive particles is 1 to 6 wt% (Paragraph [0019]) falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 1 wt% to 10 wt% in the aqueous solution.
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the temperature sensitive oxidizing agent comprises at least one of sodium persulfate (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]) wherein a concentration of the sodium persulfate is between about 1wt% to 5 wt% (Paragraph [0035]) which falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% in the aqueous solution.
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the pH adjusting agent comprises at least one of potassium hydroxide (KOH) and tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH) (Paragraph [0044]) and wherein the pH may be adjusted to any range of pH that prevents corrosion of the polishing target or the polishing apparatus and facilitates oxidation of the metal layer to be polished (Paragraph [0042]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention optimize the pH of the competition to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a 1 to 8 in order to prevents corrosion of the polishing target or the polishing apparatus and facilitates oxidation of the metal layer to be polished as taught by the modified teachings of Park. (Paragraph [0042], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A))
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Park renders obvious wherein the catalyst comprises a ferric nitrate (Paragraph [0039]) and a concentration of ferric nitrate is 1 wt% to 5 wt% (Paragraph [0040]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of 1 wt% to 2 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I)
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