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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 is missing a period mark. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 20, 23, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In claims 2 and 27, the use of parentheses to describe the halide is confusing. Please delete the parentheses and consider listing the halides individually.
In claim 20, lines 5-8, the terms
“removal selectivity of W vs SiN”
“removal selectivity of W vs SiO2”
“removal selectivity of W vs TiN” and
“removal rate of TiN” lack proper antecedent basis. The term “a” can be included. However, SiN, TiN and silicon dioxide are not required as part of the method. The claim should recite
- - when the surface comprises silicon nitride, a removal selectivity of W vs silicon nitride is ≥ 100 - - ,
- - when the surface comprises silicon oxide, a removal selectivity of W vs silicon oxide is ≥ 60 - -, and
- - when the surface comprises titanium nitride, a removal selectivity of W vs titanium nitride is ≥ 90 and a removal rate of TiN is suppressed by the triazole-based or triazolium-based polymer or copolymer - -
In claim 20, “silicon oxide” and the chemical formula “SiO2” are both cited. It is unclear whether the silicon oxide must be as silicon dioxide compared to other ratios of oxygen to silicon.
In claim 20, line 7, the term “suppresses” is interpreted as a composition that suppresses a removal rate of TiN by including the triazole-based or triazolium-based polymer or copolymer compared to a composition that does not include the triazole-based or triazolium-based polymer or copolymer. Any other intended significance must be clearly pointed out by applicant.
As to claim 23, the same rejections hold for the language that is a duplicate from claim 20.
In claim 27, please define in the claim “Me” to provide clarity to the claim.
As to claim 30, it is unclear how the polymerization technique further limits the polymer or copolymer that is formed. A product is defined by its structure, not by the method of making it.
In claim 30, proper Markush language lists the members of a group with the word “and” rather than “or.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Luebke et al (US 9,969,823 B1).
As to claim 25, Luebke discloses a triazolium-based polymer (col.4, lines 1-47), wherein the triazolium-based polymer:
is formed by at least one monomer having at least one triazolium group and comprising a structure of “D” (col.4, lines 1-14);
wherein:
P1 is a polymerizable group (R3, col.4, lines 45-46);
Sp1 is a spacer group or a single bond (as part of the polymerizable group R3);
R1 is hydrogen;
R2 is hydrogen (col.4, line 15, and other options (ii)-(vi), col.4, lines 16-44);
R3 is an aliphatic group (R2, (iii), col.4, lines 17-20); and
X- is an anionic counterion (col.4, lines 47-54).
As to claim 27, Luebke discloses that the polymerizable group is a vinyl group (col.4, line 46), and the spacer group is a single bond (as part of the vinyl group).
As to claim 30, Luebke discloses heating at 70 °C for 24 hours (col.10, line 5). It is unclear how the polymerization technique further limits the structure of the polymer. Thus, any technique meets the claim limitation because the same product results.
Claims 25, 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Zhang et al (Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2016).
As to claim 25, Zhang discloses a triazolium-based polymer (abstract, page 1125, section “Results and Discussion”), wherein the triazolium-based polymer:
is formed by at least one monomer having at least one triazolium group and comprising a structure of “B” (page 1125, Scheme 1);
wherein:
P1 is a polymerizable group (vinyl group, Scheme 1);
Sp1 is a spacer group or a single bond (as part of the polymerizable group);
R1 is hydrogen (Scheme 1);
R2 is hydrogen (Scheme 1);
R3 is an aliphatic group (methyl, R=CH3, Scheme 1); and
X- is an anionic counterion (PF6-, Scheme 1).
As to claim 27, Zhang discloses that the polymerizable group is a vinyl group (Scheme 1), and the spacer group is a single bond (as part of the vinyl group).
As to claim 30, Zhang discloses free radical polymerization (page 1125, second column, second paragraph). It is unclear how the polymerization technique further limits the structure of the polymer. Thus, any technique meets the claim limitation because the same product results.
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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Macromol. Rapid Commun. 2016), as applied to claim 25, and further in view of Luebke et al (US 9,969,823 B1).
As to claim 32, Zhang discloses poly(vinyl-4-ethyl-1,2,4-triazol-4-ium) with iodide or PF6- as the counterion (scheme 1). Zhang teaches that the thermal properties depend on cations or anions, and the thermal stability can be tuned by changing the types of cations or anions (paragraph linking pp 1126-27). Zhang also teaches that the anions can be changed to alter solubility (paragraph linking pp 1127-28).
The discussion of Luebke from above is repeated here. Luebke teaches that the anions in similar polytriazoliums can be iodide, but also can be bromide (col.4, line 50). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use bromide instead of iodide in the composition of Zhang because Luebke teaches it is a useful alternative ion to iodide, and because Zhang teaches that changing the counterion can be used to optimize thermal properties and solubility properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is objected to, but allowable over the prior art.
Claims 2, 20 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 9-10, 15-17, 19, 22, 33-36 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a chemical mechanical planarization composition comprising an additive comprising a triazole-based or triazolium-based polymer copolymer having a monomer from the structures of A-D, or a polymer of structures F-K, as in the context of claim 1.
The closest prior art Grumbine et al (US 6,136,711) and Luebke et al (US 9,969,823 B1) disclose elements of claim 1, but there is no motivation to combine them to arrive at the invention as cited in claim 1.
Grumbine teaches a tungsten chemical mechanical planarization composition comprising:
an activator (col.6, lines 26-42);
an oxidizing agent (col.5, lines 18-24);
water (col.3, line 38); and optionally
a corrosion inhibitor (col.5, lines 41-45);
a stabilizer (col.9, lines 15-28).
Grumbine fails to disclose the cited triazole or triazolium polymer or copolymer. Luebke teaches a triazolium-based polymer (col.4, lines 1-47), wherein the triazolium-based polymer:
is formed by at least one monomer having at least one triazolium group and comprising a structure of “D” (col.4, lines 1-14); wherein: P1 is a polymerizable group (R3, col.4, lines 45-46); Sp1 is a spacer group or a single bond (as part of the polymerizable group R3); R1 is hydrogen; R2 is hydrogen (col.4, line 15, and other options (ii)-(vi), col.4, lines 16-44); R3 is an aliphatic group (R2, (iii), col.4, lines 17-20); and X- is an anionic counterion (col.4, lines 47-54).
However, Grumbine fails to recognize that the triazole or triazolium polymer or copolymer should be added to the chemical mechanical planarization composition. Luebke fails to recognize that the triazole or triazolium polymer or copolymer would be useful to include in a chemical mechanical planarization composition. Therefore, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Grumbine and Luebke to arrive at the claimed invention, as in the context of claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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