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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, as to the point that the applied prior art fails to teach the composition is free of inorganic abrasive particles, 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.
Remarks
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liang et al (US 2024/0034958).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Liang et al disclose a polisher rinse composition (resemble as the claimed CPM slurry composition) comprises: a pH adjuster [0022], [0023], deionized water [0024], a chelating agent comprises phenylalanine, proline, glutamine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, arginine, lysine, tyrosine, etc. [0027]; aforesaid “chelating agent of tyrosine or phenylalanine” reads on the claimed “organic booster” that comprising a hydrophobic amino acid; and the composition is substantially free of abrasive particles. As used herein, an ingredient that is “substantially free” from a composition refers to an ingredient that is not intentionally added into the cleaning composition; and in some embodiments, the composition described herein can be completely free of abrasive particles [0041].
Additionally, a composition claim covers what the composition is not what the composition does. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The discovery of a new property or use of a previously known composition, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition."); and "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Liang et al disclose that the composition has a pH of from about 7 to about 14 ([0039], claim 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Liang et al discloses that the hydrophobic amino acid comprises phenylalanine, proline, glutamine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, arginine, lysine, tyrosine, etc. [0027].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Liang et al discloses that the substrate to be treated with the composition comprises copper [0044].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al (US 2009/0087989) in view of Penta et al (US 2012/0190200).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kamimura et al disclose a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) used for chemical mechanical polishing during planarization of a semiconductor integrated circuit, the polishing liquid/composition being substantially free of solid abrasive grains [0017],[0018] and [0029]; the composition comprise a pH adjustor [0043]; and the also comprises an amino acid, examples of the amino acid includes L-leucine, L-phenyl alanine, L-tyrosine, 3,5-diiodo-L-tyrosine, L-tryptophan, etc. [0047]; and aforesaid “amino acids” reads on the claimed “organic booster” that comprising a hydrophobic amino acid.
Kamimura et al disclose that the object to be polished being a silicon substrate for a semiconductor integrated circuit or the like [0054] or a silicon wafer having a copper film [0179].
Kamimura et al disclose that the composition also comprises water [0135].
Kamimura et al may not explicitly disclose the water being a deionized water (DIW).
However, deionized water would be commonly used in the semiconductor industries.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Penta et al disclose a chemical mechanical planarization method uses a chemical mechanical planarization composition that includes a pH adjusting material, absent an abrasive material [0009];
Penta et al also disclose that an abrasive free chemical mechanical planarization composition in accordance with the embodiments and an abrasive free chemical mechanical planarization method in accordance with the embodiments may also provide superior performance within the context of eliminating contaminants, mobile ions, various defects, scratches and structural damage (i.e., such as but not limited to dishing) of planarized features that may be caused by abrasives [0034].
Penta et al disclose a CMP composition comprises deionized water [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Penta et al's teaching of use of deionized water into the teaching of Kamimura et al for achieving superior performance by reducing ionic contaminations as suggested by Penta et al [0034]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been easily use the water as deionized water because its influence on a semiconductor substrate is smaller in a semiconductor substrate manufacturing process.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Kamimura et al disclose that the pH of the polishing liquid is preferably from 2 to 10 [0097].
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Kamimura et al discloses that the content of the organic acid in 1 L of the polishing liquid used for polishing is preferably from 0.0005 mol to 0.5 mol [0048], which appears to be overlapping the claimed range of 10 ppm to 20000 ppm; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Kamimura et al discloses above that the composition comprises an amino acid; and examples of the amino acid includes L-leucine, L-phenyl alanine, L-tyrosine, 3,5-diiodo-L-tyrosine, L-tryptophan, etc. [0047].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Kamimura et al discloses that the object to be polished being a silicon substrate for a semiconductor integrated circuit or the like [0054] or a silicon wafer having a copper film [0179]. Additionally, to etch a protrusion of a copper film is purely an intended use of the claimed composition and the CMP composition taught by Kamimura et al in view of Penta et al because it has all the components as the claimed composition and which is capable of performing such etching as an intended use of such composition. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 13-14, regarding the protrusion of a copper film, the protrusion height and the static etch rate could have been achieved by the CMP composition taught by Kamimura et al in view of Penta et al because it has all the components as the claimed composition and which is capable of performing such etching as an intended use of such composition. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Additionally, a composition claim covers what the composition is not what the composition does. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The discovery of a new property or use of a previously known composition, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition."); and "the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art's functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
