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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-25 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the teachings of Hang and Stender are not obvious to combine because Stender is directed to a CMP polishing composition, whereas Hong is directed to an etching composition. In response, while differences exist, important similarities remain. Both Stender and Hong are directed to compositions that use chemical etching. The chemicals added to the CMP composition are there to improve the chemical etching properties. Otherwise, Stender would be directed to a mechanical polishing composition, not a chemical mechanical polishing composition.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to suppress particle generation, as taught by Hong, in the composition of Stender. In response, the motivation is that when particle generation is suppressed, process failures are minimized (Hong at [0043], [0049]). Applicant also shows a reduction in defects on TEOS (Example 2 of instant invention) when including the first-silicon containing compound. Hong teaches that this is an expected result. Applicant argues that Stender might not expect particles to be generated. The operative word here is “might.” On balance, a person having ordinary skill in the art, upon learning the teachings of Hong, would be motivated to incorporate the silicon-containing compound as cited to improve the etching properties. Stender polishes insulating material such as silicon oxide [0074] when present when polishing the barrier layer. Hong teaches etching of silicon oxide when present when etching a silicon nitride layer [0044]. There are sufficient similarities that particle generation can be a concern to minimize in order to optimize the composition for best results.
Applicant argues that it requires hindsight knowledge to incorporate a silicon compound material of an etching composition in an unrelated polishing composition. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, as explained above, there are sufficient similarities in that both Stender and Hong etch silicon oxide such that particle generation can be a concern to minimize in order to optimize the composition for best results.
Applicant’s arguments about unexpected results as to TDC are not persuasive. Hong teaches that suppressing particle formation results in minimizing process failures. Defects cause failures too. Thus, Hong teaches that including the first silicon-containing compound reduces failures, which is contrary to an unexpected result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights