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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. In the same reply claim 3 was canceled and claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 were amended. Claim 10 is withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. (US 2011/0117821 A1) in view of Takemoto et al. (WO 2017/002433 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimoto teaches an additive for chemical mechanical polishing comprising a polymer (P) (Nishimoto teaches that a chemical mechanical polishing aqueous dispersion may further include a water-soluble polymer (E); Nishimoto, paragraph [0088]).
Nishimoto teaches that the polymer (P) has a structural unit (A) derived from a vinyl monomer having a group represented by -(LO)n-R (Nishimoto teaches that water-soluble polymer (E) may be a copolymer with two or more monomers and that the monomers may include a monomer having a polyethylene oxide chain; Nishimoto, paragraph [0090]. Nishimoto further teaches polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate and polypropylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate as monomers, and teaches that the ethylene oxide side-chain length is not particularly limited; Nishimoto, paragraph [0093]. The instant specification identifies polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate and monomethoxy polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate as examples of vinyl monomers having the -(LO)n-R group; instant specification, paragraph [0019]. Accordingly, Nishimoto’s polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate and polypropylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate correspond to vinyl monomers having the claimed -(LO)n-R group).
Nishimoto teaches that L represents an alkylene group having a carbon number of 4 or less, n represents an integer of 3 or more and 150 or less, and R represents a hydrogen atom or a monovalent hydrocarbon group having a carbon number of 1 or more and 4 or less (Nishimoto’s polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate includes repeating oxyethylene units, where L is ethylene having a carbon number of 2, and R is H; Nishimoto’s polypropylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate includes repeating oxypropylene units, where L is propylene having a carbon number of 3, and R is H; Nishimoto, paragraph [0093]. The instant specification describes -(LO)n-R as a group in which L represents an alkylene group, n represents the number of oxyalkylene repeating units, and R represents a hydrogen atom or hydrocarbon group; instant specification, paragraph [0047]. Nishimoto further teaches that the ethylene oxide side-chain length is not particularly limited, which encompasses oxyalkylene repeat numbers within the claimed range of n = 3 to 150; Nishimoto, paragraph [0093]).
Nishimoto teaches that the polymer (P) has a structural unit (B) derived from an amide group-containing vinyl monomer, except for the vinyl monomer having the group represented by -(LO)n-R (Nishimoto teaches amide group-containing monomers including (meth)acrylamide, N-methylolacrylamide, N-2-hydroxyethylacrylamide, acryloylmorpholine, dimethylaminopropylacrylamide, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, N-isopropylacrylamide, N-vinylacetamide, and N-vinylformamide; Nishimoto, paragraph [0091]).
Nishimoto teaches wherein a total amount of structural units derived from a monomer having at least one functional group selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid group, a phosphoric acid group, a phosphonic acid group, a sulfuric acid group, a sulfonic acid group, and salts thereof is 0 to 0.6 mass%, with respect to a total amount of the structural units of the polymer (P) (Nishimoto teaches that water-soluble polymer (E) may be a copolymer with two or more monomers selected from listed monomer types, including non-acid monomers having a polyethylene oxide chain and amide group-containing monomers; Nishimoto, paragraphs [0090]-[0091]. Although Nishimoto also lists carboxyl group-containing monomers as optional monomers, Nishimoto does not require use of such acid-functional monomers in the selected copolymer; Nishimoto, paragraph [0092]. Selecting Nishimoto’s polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate or polypropylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate monomer together with Nishimoto’s amide group-containing monomer, without selecting an acid-functional monomer, results in 0 mass% acid/salt-functional monomer-derived structural units, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 0.6 mass%).
Nishimoto does not expressly teach wherein a polydispersity index of the polymer (P) is 2.0 or less.
Takemoto teaches wherein a polydispersity index of the polymer is 2.0 or less (Takemoto teaches a polishing wetting agent comprising a water-soluble polymer whose degree of dispersion, expressed as weight-average molecular weight (Mw) / number-average molecular weight (Mn), is 2.0 or less; Takemoto, paragraphs [0009] and [0015]). Takemoto teaches that the PDI is preferably 1.8 or less, more preferably 1.5 or less, and even more preferably 1.3 or less (Takemoto, paragraph [0022]). Takemoto further teaches that when the PDI is 2.0 or less, the polymer provides a good balance between adsorption during polishing, wettability after polishing, and abrasive dispersion stability, thereby allowing uniform wafer polishing and suppressing scratches, surface roughness, and surface contamination caused by aggregated abrasive grains (Takemoto, paragraph [0022]). Takemoto also teaches that the low-PDI water-soluble polymer has high uniformity in adsorption force and adsorption rate to abrasive particles such as silica and to a wafer surface, thereby allowing uniform polishing and suppressing scratches and surface contamination caused by abrasive aggregates (Takemoto, paragraphs [0036] and [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the additive of Nishimoto such that the water-soluble polymer has a polydispersity index of 2.0 or less, as taught by Takemoto, because Takemoto teaches that low-PDI polishing water-soluble polymers provide uniform adsorption to abrasive particles and wafer surfaces, improve wettability and abrasive dispersion stability, and suppress scratches, surface roughness, and surface contamination. Since Nishimoto and Takemoto both teach polishing compositions using water-soluble polymers, applying Takemoto’s known low-PDI polymer technique to Nishimoto’s water-soluble polymer would have predictably improved polishing uniformity and defect suppression. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D).
Regarding claim 2, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches wherein a number average molecular weight (Mn) of the polymer (P) is 1,000 to 100,000 (Takemoto teaches polishing water-soluble polymer examples having Mn values within the claimed range, including Polymer A with Mn 25,500, Polymer B with Mn 65,000, Polymer I with Mn 13,300, and Polymer O with Mn 4,200; Takemoto, paragraphs [0049], [0050], [0057], and [0065]). Selecting an Mn within the claimed range for the modified Nishimoto polymer would have been obvious because Takemoto teaches workable polishing water-soluble polymers having Mn values within the claimed range, and Takemoto teaches that molecular weight affects adsorption/desorption to the wafer and abrasive dispersibility. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above. Nishimoto also teaches wherein the structural unit (B) is derived from a (meth)acrylic acid amide type monomer (Nishimoto teaches amide group-containing monomers including (meth)acrylamide, N,N-dimethylacrylamide, N-isopropylacrylamide, and acryloylmorpholine; Nishimoto, paragraph [0091]. The instant specification identifies (meth)acrylamide derivatives as examples of amide group-containing vinyl monomers for structural unit (B); instant specification, paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above. Nishimoto also teaches wherein the structural unit (B) is derived from a monomer having an SP value of 17 to 25 (J/cm3)0.5 as calculated by a Fedors’ estimation method (Nishimoto teaches N-isopropylacrylamide as an amide group-containing monomer for structural unit (B); Nishimoto, paragraph [0091]. The instant specification identifies N-isopropylacrylamide (NIPAM) as an amide group-containing vinyl monomer and identifies NIPAM as having an SP value of 21.63 (J/cm3)0.5, which falls within the claimed range of 17 to 25 (J/cm3)0.5; instant specification, paragraph [0050] and Tables 6, 8, 9, and 10). Because Nishimoto teaches the same monomer identified in the instant specification as having the claimed SP value, the SP value is a property of the selected monomer. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 11, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches wherein the dispersity (PDI) of the polymer (P) is 1.3 or less (Takemoto teaches that the PDI is preferably 1.3 or less; Takemoto, paragraph [0022]. Takemoto further provides working examples of polishing water-soluble polymers having PDI values at or below 1.3; Takemoto, paragraphs [0049]-[0065]). Selecting Takemoto’s preferred PDI of 1.3 or less would have been obvious for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 1 above.
Claims 6,7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. in view of Takemoto et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Babu et al. (US 2013/0122705 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above, does not expressly teach wherein the polymer (P) is a block polymer.
Babu teaches wherein the polymer (P) is a block polymer (Babu teaches a block copolymer, including a block A-block B diblock copolymer; Babu, paragraph [0118]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto such that the polymer (P) is a block polymer, as taught by Babu, because Babu teaches block-copolymer polymers for chemical mechanical polishing compositions. Therefore, using Babu’s known block-polymer architecture for the modified Nishimoto water-soluble polymer would have been the use of a known polymer architecture in a similar CMP additive composition, with predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D).
Regarding claim 7, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto, as applied to claim 1 above, does not expressly teach wherein the polymer (P) contains a polymer block A and a polymer block B, the polymer block A has the structural unit (A), and the polymer block B has the structural unit (B).
Babu teaches wherein the polymer (P) contains a polymer block A and a polymer block B (Babu teaches a block A-block B diblock copolymer, where part A constitutes block A and macromolecular chain B constitutes block B; Babu, paragraph [0118]). Babu further teaches that the block portions may be defined by the monomers from which they are derived, and that part A and part B are different polymers derived from different monomers (Babu, paragraph [0119]). Babu also teaches that the macromolecular chain A or macromolecular chain B may include neutral monomer units, including polyethylene and/or polypropylene oxide (meth)acrylates and acrylamide or methacrylamide (Babu, paragraphs [0128]-[0132]). Accordingly, Babu teaches arranging PEG/polypropylene oxide (meth)acrylate-type structural units and amide-type structural units in a block A/block B polymer architecture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto such that the polymer (P) contains a polymer block A and a polymer block B, the polymer block A has the structural unit (A), and the polymer block B has the structural unit (B), as taught by Babu, because Babu teaches a known block A/block B polymer architecture for CMP polymers and teaches that the block portions may be derived from different monomers, including PEG/polypropylene oxide (meth)acrylates and amide-type monomers. Therefore, arranging Nishimoto’s selected structural unit (A) in one polymer block and Nishimoto’s selected structural unit (B) in another polymer block would have been the use of Babu’s known block-polymer architecture in a similar CMP additive composition, with predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D).
Regarding claim 8, the modified additive of Nishimoto in view of Takemoto and Babu, as applied to claim 7 above, does not expressly teach wherein a ratio (A/B) of the polymer block A to the polymer block B in the polymer (P) is 50/50 to 99.9/0.1 in mass ratio.
Babu teaches that the relative molecular weights of block A and block B may vary over broad ranges (Babu teaches that block B may have a molecular weight of 500 to 49,000 g/mol and block A may have a molecular weight of 250 to 20,000 g/mol; Babu, paragraph [0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a ratio (A/B) of the polymer block A to the polymer block B within the claimed range because Babu teaches that the relative sizes of block A and block B may vary, and the relative block ratio is a result-effective variable affecting the properties of the block copolymer. Selecting a workable relative block ratio would have been routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto et al. (US 2011/0117821 A1) in view of Takemoto et al. (WO 2017/002433 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nishimoto in view of Takemoto teaches an additive according to claim 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Nishimoto teaches a polishing liquid composition for chemical mechanical polishing comprising the additive (Nishimoto teaches a chemical mechanical polishing aqueous dispersion comprising water-soluble polymer (E); Nishimoto, paragraph [0088]).
Takemoto teaches the polishing liquid composition further comprises silica (Takemoto teaches a polishing liquid composition comprising a polishing wetting agent, water, abrasive particles, and an alkali compound; Takemoto, paragraph [0037]. Takemoto further teaches colloidal silica as the abrasive particles; Takemoto, paragraph [0038]). Because claim 9 recites “cerium oxide and/or silica,” Takemoto’s colloidal silica satisfies the claimed alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Takemoto’s colloidal silica abrasive particles in Nishimoto’s chemical mechanical polishing aqueous dispersion because Takemoto teaches colloidal silica as a known abrasive for a polishing liquid composition containing a water-soluble polishing polymer. Combining the modified Nishimoto additive with Takemoto’s known silica abrasive would have predictably provided abrasive polishing action in the chemical mechanical polishing composition. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(A).
Claim 9 recites that the polishing liquid composition is “for chemical mechanical polishing used for surface planarization of at least one of an insulating layer and a wiring layer.” This language states the intended use of the claimed composition and does not further distinguish the composition absent a structural or compositional difference. Nishimoto’s chemical mechanical polishing aqueous dispersion and Takemoto’s polishing liquid composition are capable of being used for chemical mechanical polishing and surface planarization. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive of allowance.
Applicant argues that Babu and Motonari would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the additive of claim 1, including because Motonari paragraph [0081] allegedly relates to organic abrasive particles rather than the polymer for inclusion in the polishing dispersion, because Babu and Motonari allegedly do not teach the specific combination of structural unit (A) and structural unit (B), and because Babu and Motonari allegedly do not teach the claimed low acid-functional-group content.
The prior rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 over Babu in view of Motonari is withdrawn The present rejection relies on Nishimoto and Takemoto for claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to the prior Babu/Motonari combination are moot with respect to the present rejection.
To the extent Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the specific combination of structural unit (A) and structural unit (B), the present rejection relies on Nishimoto’s teaching of a water-soluble polymer that may be a copolymer of two or more monomers, including monomers having a polyethylene oxide chain and amide group-containing monomers, as discussed above. To the extent Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the claimed acid-functional-group content, the present rejection relies on selecting Nishimoto’s non-acid monomers, resulting in 0 mass% acid/salt-functional monomer-derived structural units, which falls within the claimed range of 0 to 0.6 mass%.
Applicant further argues that new claim 11 requires a dispersity (PDI) of 1.3 or less, which is lower than Babu’s PDI value. This argument is not persuasive with respect to the present rejection because the present rejection relies on Takemoto, not Babu, for the claimed PDI. As discussed above, Takemoto teaches that the PDI is preferably 1.3 or less and provides working examples of polishing water-soluble polymers having PDI values at or below 1.3.
To the extent Babu is applied in the present Office action, Babu is relied upon for the additional block-polymer limitations of dependent claims 6-8, not for the structural unit (A), structural unit (B), acid-functional-group content, or PDI limitations of claim 1.
Applicant also requests rejoinder of withdrawn claim 10 upon allowance of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11. Because claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 are not in condition for allowance, rejoinder of claim 10 is not presently required. Claim 10 remains withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights