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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble should recite “the polishing composition of claim []” for proper antecedent basis. The term “polishing” should be included in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stender et al (US 2018/0002571 A1) in view of Hong et al (US 2015/0348799 A1).
Stender discloses a polishing composition, comprising:
at least one abrasive (such as alumina, silica, titania, zirconia, [0029]);
and water [0027].
Stender fails to disclose that the composition comprises at least one first Si-containing compound, the at least one Si-containing compound comprising an acidic group, an ester thereof, or a salt thereof, wherein the at least one first Si-containing compound is not covalently bonded to the at least one abrasive.
Hong teaches that in compositions for etching semiconductor substrates (see abstract) that it is useful to include a first Si-containing compound, such as (2-diethylphosphatoethyl)triethoxysilane [0020]. The advantage of including the Si-containing compound is to suppress particle generation during etching [0043]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Si-containing compound such as (2-diethylphosphatoethyl)triethoxysilane in the composition of Stender because Hong teaches it is useful to suppress particle generation during etching, which is expected to improve the life of the etchant and increase the yield of the final product.
As to claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 3, Stender discloses that the abrasive is in an amount of from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight of the composition [0034], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 4, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 5, Hong teaches that the at least one first Si-containing compound is in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 15% by weight of the composition [0037], which overlaps with the cited range. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cited amount in the composition of Stender because Hong teaches that an amount with overlapping ranges is useful for etching and the composition can be optimized for best results of particle suppression.
As to claims 6-7, Stender discloses that the composition may comprise at least one second Si-containing compound, such as potassium silicate [0035], which is different from the at least one first Si-containing compound.
As to claim 8, Stender discloses that the at least one second Si-containing compound is in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 10% by weight of the composition [0036], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claims 9-10, Stender discloses that the composition comprises at least one organic acid such as lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, malonic acid, or oxalic acid [0058].
As to claim 11, Stender discloses that the organic acid is in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 3% by weight of the composition [0060], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claims 12-13, Stender discloses that the composition comprises at least one low-k removal rate inhibitor such as a nonionic surfactant of ethoxylated alcohols [0048], which is an alcohol alkoxylate as cited in claim 14; and at least one azole-containing corrosion inhibitor [0044].
As to claim 15, Stender discloses that the at least one low-k removal rate inhibitor is in an amount of from about 0.0001% to about 1% by weight of the composition [0053], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 16, Stender discloses that the at least one azole-containing corrosion inhibitor such as benzotriazole [0044].
As to claim 17, Stender discloses that he at least one azole-containing corrosion inhibitor is in an amount of from about 0.001% to about 1% by weight of the composition [0045], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claims 18-21, Stender discloses that the composition further comprises at least one pH adjuster such as an inorganic base of ammonium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, a quaternary ammonium hydroxide such as tetraethylammonium hydroxide [0055].
As to claim 22, Stender discloses that the at least one pH adjuster is in an amount of from about 0.0001% to about 5% by weight of the composition [0056], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 23, Stender discloses that the composition has a pH from about 2 to about 12. [0057], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 24, Stender discloses a method of polishing a substrate, comprising the steps of: applying the polishing composition of claim 1 to a surface of a substrate [0073]; and bringing a pad into contact with the surface of the substrate and moving the pad in relation to the substrate [0073].
As to claim 25, Stender discloses mixing the polishing composition prior to use [0065] in order to form a polishing composition ready for polishing; wherein the modified polishing composition of Stender comprises an abrasive and the at least one Si-containing compound comprises an acidic group, an ester thereof, or a salt thereof (see rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix as cited in the modified method of Stender because Stender teaches that it is useful to mix prior to use, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a composition ready for polishing.
Because the same steps are conducted as claimed, the same result of stabilization is expected. Further, the preamble is treated as a statement of intended use, and is given little patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun (US 2008/0135520) is cited to show a composition with nonionic surfactant [0012], silicon-containing compound [0011], and a wide pH range [0014].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713