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) 1-15, as to the point that none of the applied prior art disclose the polishing composition comprises the quaternary ammonium cationic monomer (DADMAC or TNAC) (at page 3 in the argument section), 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.
Applicants also argue that Woo (KR 10-20180071631) teaches additive of amine -based compound (triethylenetetramine) or cationic polymers, such as Mirapol [0036] and [0038] and so, the additives having different structures than the additives of the present application (page 4).
In response, Woo discloses cationic polymer comprises poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (poly DADMAC) is below, which easily reads on the claimed formula 1 (see the rejection); and such encompasses the claimed monomer diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC) as representing chemical formula 2 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 includes the quaternary ammonium cationic monomer of chemical formula 2, which is already included in the claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2022/0235247) in view of Otsuka et al (US 2020/0369917).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson et al disclose a polishing composition comprises silica abrasive particles, an acid (abstract; [0004]), wherein the silica particles are colloidal silica particles [0015]; and the polishing composition further comprises a nitrogen-containing compound selected from a zwitterionic homopolymer, a monomeric ammonium salt, and a combination thereof and non-limiting examples of suitable monomeric ammonium salts include diallyldimethylammonium chloride (DADMAC [0023] and representing by the formula below that easily reads on the claimed quaternary ammonium cationic monomer of chemical formula 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
269
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Unlike the instant invention, Johnson et al fail to disclose the colloidal silica have cationic surface charges.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Otsuka et al disclose a polishing composition comprises abrasive particles being colloidal silica [0040] and the zeta potential of the abrasive grain in the polishing liquid is preferably positive, more preferably +4 mV or more, further preferably +6 mV or more, particularly preferably +8 mV or more, and extremely preferably +10 mV or more, from the viewpoint of easily polishing silicon nitride and polysilicon non-selectively with respect to silicon dioxide [0043]; and aforesaid colloidal silica having positive zeta potential reads on the claimed silica particles have cationic surface charges.
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 Otsuka et al's teaching of using cationic colloidal silica particles as the abrasive particles into the teaching of Johnson et al for easily polishing silicon nitride and polysilicon non-selectively with respect to silicon dioxide as suggested by Otsuka et al.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson et al disclose the silica can be any suitable form of suitable. For example, the colloidal silica; and where colloidal is defined as having an average particle size between about 1 nm and about 1000 nm [0011]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 10 nm to 200 nm and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson et al disclose the polishing composition comprises about 1 wt. % or more of silica, e.g., about 1.2 wt. % or more, about 1.4 wt. % or more, about 1.6 wt. % or more, about 1.8 wt. % or more, about 2 wt. % or more, about 2.2 wt. % or more, or about 2.4 wt. % or more [0013]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 0.0001 wt % to 10 wt% and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2022/0235247) in view of Otsuka et al (US 2020/0369917) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woo et al (KR 20180071631 (A).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, modified Johnson et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail the quaternary ammonium cationic monomer compound as of the instant claims 4 and 5.
However, Woo et al disclose that the cationic polymer includes poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) (see claim 5), and the compound is the same as the compound of chemical formula 1 in claims 4 and 5 wherein, R1 to R4 are a C1 alkyl group; and X is halogen (Cl-). Chemical structure of poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) is below, which easily reads on the claimed formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
303
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6,
With respect to claim 7, Woo et al disclose that the amount of a silicon oxide polishing regulator of the cationic polymer in the polishing slurry composition is 0.0001-0.1 wt% (see claims 1, 4 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson et al teach the polishing composition comprises organic acid ([0018] and abstract); and the polishing composition can comprise about 1 mM or more of the organic acid, e.g., about 2 mM or more, or about 3 mM or more, or about 4 mM or more, or about 5 mM or more [0019].
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Woo et al also disclose the polishing slurry composition further comprises an acidic material, an inorganic acid (nitric acid, sulfuric acid and the like) (see claim 8; [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordi
nary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the content of the acidic material with undue experimentation from the disclosure of Woo et al.
With respect to claim 9, Woo et al disclose that the acidic material includes nitric acid, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, iodic acid, hydrochloric acid and the like (see claim 8).
With respect to claim 10, Woo et al disclose that the acidic material includes adipic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, phthalic acid, lactic acid and the like (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, Woo et al may not disclose the composition comprises two or more acidic materials with the claimed mass ratio.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of claimed invention was made to select any combination of the acidic material, including sulfuric or nitric acid (as inorganic acid) and citric acid (as organic acid) as pH adjustor taught by Woo et al because it has been held that “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP 2144.06.
Additionally, without showing any criticality of the claimed mass ratio of the acidic component would have been optimized for predictable result. Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
With respect to claim 12, Woo et al disclose that the polishing slurry composition further comprises a basic material, and the basic material includes ammonia, ammonium methyl propanol, tetramethylammonium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide and the like (see claim 8).
With respect to claim 13, Woo et al disclose that the pH of the composition can be 2-6 [0016]; and Johnson et al disclose the polishing composition has a pH of about 2 to about 4 [0007].
Regarding claim 14, could be optimized by a person skilled in the art through repeated experimentation from the feature disclosed in the modified Johnson et al above, because the polishing or removal speed for polycrystalline silicon film would have been purely intended use of such and would have been capable of such as the modified teaching above is similar in nature and expected to have the same results.
Regarding claim 15, the polishing selectivity of as claimed could be optimized by a person skilled in the art through repeated experimentation from the features disclosed in modified Johnson et al, wherein the pH of the slurry composition for polishing is about 2 to about 4 ([0032] in Johnson et al).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2022/0235247) in view of Otsuka et al (US 2020/0369917) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woo et al (KR 20180071631 (A) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 2021/0115301).
Modified Johnson et al disclose above for the claims 1 and 4 but fail to disclose the quaternary ammonium cationic monomer further comprises a compound representing by chemical formula 1 as the context of claim 6.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chang et al disclose a polishing composition [0005], wherein, the composition comprises further include a non-polymeric cationic compound (in addition to the cationic polymer). Suitable cationic compounds include 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl methacrylamide, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl acrylamide, lysine, 3-methacrylamidopropyl-trimethyl-ammonium, 3-acrylamidopropyl-trimethyl-ammonium, diallyldimethylammonium, 2-(acryloyloxy)-N,N,N-trimethylethanaminium, methacryloyloxyethyltrimethylammonium, N,N-dimethylaminoethyl acrylate benzyl, N,N-dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate benzyl, and combinations thereof [0071],[0072],[0073]; an daforesaid at least 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate appears to reads on the compound representing the chemical formula 1 with the requirement of the claim 6, where R8 to R9 is hydrogen, as the chemical structure is follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
193
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Chang et al's teaching of using the non-polymeric compound into the teaching of modified Johonson et al because at least DADMAC and 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate are functionally equivalent as suggested by Chang et al.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights