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 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, 5, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN104726028A) and further evidenced by Reiss et al. (US20130244433A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yin teaches a chemical mechanical polishing solution comprising: cerium oxide particles (teaching a polishing fluid comprising water and cerium oxide abrasive, wherein the cerium oxide abrasive concentration is 0.1%-5% by mass; paragraphs [0010]-[0011]); an anionic compound selected from anionic polymers (teaching an organic dispersant selected from polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, and polyvinylpyrrolidone, wherein polyacrylic acid is preferred; paragraph [0012]); a cationic compound selected from arginine (teaching a complexing agent selected from L-arginine, aminoacetic acid, citric acid, and acetic acid; paragraph [0013]); and a pH regulator (teaching that the polishing solution further contains a pH adjuster; paragraph [0016]).
Yin further teaches using the cerium oxide polishing slurry for polishing silicon dioxide/TEOS films (teaching that the cerium dioxide abrasive slurry provides a high polishing rate for silicon dioxide/TEOS, and further teaching polishing TEOS wafers using the polishing slurries; paragraphs [0009], [0031], [0033]-[0035]).
Yin does not expressly teach an inhibitor, wherein the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “the CMP solution has a selectivity ratio for polishing insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100” recites an intended use or result of the chemical mechanical polishing composition. If the words recite a purpose, those words must result in a structural or manipulative difference in the invention recited in the body of the claim in order to further limit the claim. Words that merely state an intended use, or words that have no effect on the body of the claim if removed, do not further limit the claim. The recited selectivity ratio does not change the structure of the recited components of the composition. Further, the removal rate of the insulating film would depend on the particular material being removed, and claim 1 recites a generic “insulating film” without limiting the insulating film to a particular material. Accordingly, the recited selectivity ratio is treated as an intended use/result of the claimed composition.
Reiss teaches an inhibitor, wherein the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound (teaching a chemical-mechanical polishing composition comprising one or more nonionic polymers selected from polyalkylene glycols, polyethylene oxide/polypropylene oxide copolymers, polyacrylamide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and mixtures thereof; paragraph [0016]).
Reiss further teaches that the nonionic polymer assists in reducing the removal rate of polysilicon by adsorbing onto the polysilicon portion of the substrate and forming a lubricating film that reduces contact between the abrasive particles and the polysilicon surface (paragraph [0016]). Reiss further teaches that the presence of the nonionic polymer allows useful removal rates for silicon oxide while reducing removal rates for polysilicon (paragraph [0016]).
To the extent the recited selectivity ratio is given patentable weight, Reiss also teaches a selectivity ratio for polishing an insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100 (teaching ceria-containing CMP compositions for polishing TEOS and polysilicon, wherein Table 1 reports TEOS/polySi selectivity ratios higher than 100, including at least Composition 1A having TEOS removal rate of 3121 and polySi removal rate of 31, Composition 1B having TEOS removal rate of 2515 and polySi removal rate of 16, and Composition 1F having TEOS removal rate of 2052 and polySi removal rate of 2; paragraphs [0090]-[0093], Table 1).
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 chemical mechanical polishing solution of Yin to include the nonionic polymer inhibitor taught by Reiss because Reiss teaches that nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride removal, thereby improving oxide/polySi selectivity. Yin already teaches a cerium oxide CMP polishing slurry for polishing silicon dioxide/TEOS films, and Reiss teaches using nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions to reduce polysilicon removal in the same general CMP context. Therefore, including the nonionic polymer inhibitor of Reiss in the cerium oxide CMP polishing solution of Yin would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of reducing polysilicon removal while maintaining silicon oxide removal. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Further, because Reiss teaches that the nonionic polymer reduces polysilicon removal while allowing useful silicon oxide removal, the modified composition of Yin would have been expected to perform within the disclosed selectivity relationship when used for polishing silicon oxide/TEOS and polysilicon materials.
Regarding claim 5, Yin teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the anionic compound to the cerium oxide particles is 0.01 to 2 (teaching the cerium oxide abrasive concentration is 0.1%-5% by mass and the organic dispersant concentration is 0.001%-0.5% by mass, wherein the organic dispersant may be polyacrylic acid; paragraphs [0011]-[0012]). Yin’s disclosed concentration ranges correspond to ratios that overlap the claimed range, including 0.5/5 = 0.1, which is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to the cerium oxide particles because Yin teaches concentration ranges for the cerium oxide abrasive and complexing agent that overlap the claimed ratio range, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Yin teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to the cerium oxide particles is 0.01 to 0.5 (teaching the cerium oxide abrasive concentration is 0.1%-5% by mass and the complexing agent concentration is 0.1%-1% by mass, wherein the complexing agent may be L-arginine; paragraphs [0011], [0013]). Yin’s disclosed concentration ranges correspond to ratios that overlap the claimed range, including 0.1/5 = 0.02, which is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to the cerium oxide particles because Yin teaches concentration ranges for the cerium oxide abrasive and complexing agent that overlap the claimed ratio range, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Reiss further teaches that the inhibitor is selected from polyethylene glycol and derivatives of polyethylene glycol, or polyethylene oxide and derivatives of polyethylene oxide (teaching nonionic polymers including polyalkylene glycols and polyethylene oxide/polypropylene oxide copolymers, wherein the nonionic polymer assists in reducing the removal rate of polysilicon; paragraph [0016]). Reiss further teaches polyethylene glycol having an average molecular weight of about 8,000 g/mol as a suitable nonionic polymer and teaches polyethylene oxide/polypropylene oxide copolymers as suitable nonionic polymers in the ceria-containing CMP composition (paragraphs [0020], [0022]-[0026], [0091]).
Regarding claim 12, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Reiss teaches that a molecular weight of the inhibitor is 1,000 to 100,000 (teaching polyethylene glycol having an average molecular weight of about 8,000 g/mol as a suitable nonionic polymer in the ceria-containing CMP composition; paragraphs [0020], [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an inhibitor molecular weight within the claimed range of 1,000 to 100,000 because Reiss teaches polyethylene glycol having a molecular weight of about 8,000 g/mol as a suitable nonionic polymer in a ceria-containing CMP composition, and 8,000 g/mol lies within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed range overlaps or encompasses a value disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. Reiss teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the inhibitor to the cerium oxide particles is 0.1 to 2 (teaching Composition 1A including 842 ppm polyethylene glycol and 0.4 wt.% wet-process ceria, wherein 842 ppm corresponds to 0.0842 wt.% and 0.0842/0.4 = 0.2105, which is within the claimed range; paragraphs [0091]-[0092], Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed mass percentage ratio of the inhibitor to the cerium oxide particles because Reiss teaches a working ceria-containing CMP composition including polyethylene glycol as the nonionic polymer inhibitor and wet-process ceria abrasive in amounts that provide an inhibitor/cerium oxide particle ratio within the claimed range, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US 2004/0223898 A1).
Regarding claim 2,Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yin as modified by Reiss does not expressly teach that the cerium oxide particles are in sol-gel form.
Ota teaches cerium oxide particles in sol form corresponding to the claimed sol-gel form under the broadest reasonable interpretation (teaching a sol in which particles are dispersed in a medium, wherein the particles comprise crystalline cerium oxide as a main component; paragraph [0011]). Ota further teaches that the cerium oxide sol particles are suitable as an abrasive for CMP of silica-containing substrates, including interlayer dielectric polishing and shallow trench isolation polishing (paragraphs [0030]-[0032]).
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 CMP solution of Yin as modified by Reiss to include the cerium oxide sol particles taught by Ota because Ota teaches such cerium-oxide-containing sol particles are suitable CMP abrasives for silica-containing substrates, including interlayer dielectric polishing and shallow trench isolation polishing, and applying a known cerium oxide abrasive form to a known cerium oxide CMP polishing solution would have predictably provided cerium oxide abrasive particles suitable for polishing insulating films. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enomoto et al. (US 2013/0125476 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yin as modified by Reiss does not expressly teach that the anionic polymer is selected from ammonium polyacrylate.
Enomoto teaches that the anionic polymer is selected from ammonium polyacrylate (teaching a cerium oxide slurry including a dispersant, wherein the dispersant is a salt of poly(meth)acrylic acid, and further teaching ammonium salt polyacrylate/ammonium polyacrylate salt as a polymer dispersant having an ammonium acrylate salt as a constituent unit; paragraphs [0016]-[0017], [0039]).
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 CMP solution of Yin as modified by Reiss to include the ammonium polyacrylate salt taught by Enomoto because Enomoto teaches ammonium polyacrylate salt as a suitable polymer dispersant for a cerium oxide slurry, and using a known anionic polymer dispersant for dispersing cerium oxide particles in a cerium oxide CMP polishing solution would have predictably provided stable dispersion of the cerium oxide particles for CMP polishing. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Brosnan et al. (US 2021/0115298 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above.
Yin as modified by Reiss does not expressly teach that the cationic compound is a polyquaternium selected from polyquaternium-2, polyquaternium-6, polyquaternium-7, polyquaternium-28, or polyquaternium-37.
Brosnan teaches that the cationic compound is a polyquaternium selected from polyquaternium-7 and polyquaternium-28 (teaching cationic polymers including polyquaternium-7 and polyquaternium-28 for use in polishing compositions; paragraphs [0066], [0139]).
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 CMP solution of Yin as modified by Reiss to include the polyquaternium cationic compound taught by Brosnan because Brosnan teaches polyquaternium cationic polymers as suitable cationic polymer additives in ceria-based CMP polishing compositions, and using a known cationic polymer additive in a ceria-based CMP polishing solution would have predictably provided a CMP composition suitable for polishing silicon-containing substrates. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Yin as modified by Reiss teaches the composition of claim 9 as set forth above.
As discussed with respect to claim 7 above, it would have been obvious to modify the CMP solution of Yin as modified by Reiss to include the polyquaternium cationic compound taught by Brosnan.
Brosnan further teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to the cerium oxide particles is 0.05 to 0.3 (teaching Composition 21A including 0.056 wt.% cubiform ceria and 50 ppm polyquaternium-7, wherein 50 ppm corresponds to 0.005 wt.% and 0.005/0.056 = 0.089, which is within the claimed range; paragraph [0213], Table 21A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to the cerium oxide particles because Brosnan teaches a working ceria-containing CMP composition having a cationic compound/cerium oxide particle ratio within the claimed range, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over Yin et al. (CN104726028A) and further evidenced by Reiss et al. (US20130244433A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yin teaches a method of polishing insulating films using a chemical mechanical polishing solution (teaching polishing TEOS wafers using polishing slurries, wherein TEOS is a silicon oxide insulating film; paragraphs [0031], [0033]-[0035]).
Yin further teaches the chemical mechanical polishing solution comprises cerium oxide particles (teaching a polishing fluid comprising water and cerium oxide abrasive, wherein the cerium oxide abrasive concentration is 0.1%-5% by mass; paragraphs [0010]-[0011]); an anionic compound selected from anionic polymers (teaching an organic dispersant selected from polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, and polyvinylpyrrolidone, wherein polyacrylic acid is preferred; paragraph [0012]); a cationic compound selected from arginine (teaching a complexing agent selected from L-arginine, aminoacetic acid, citric acid, and acetic acid; paragraph [0013]); and a pH regulator (teaching that the polishing solution further contains a pH adjuster; paragraph [0016]).
Yin does not expressly teach that the chemical mechanical polishing solution used in the method includes an inhibitor, wherein the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound, and wherein a selectivity ratio for polishing an insulating film/polycrystalline silicon is higher than 100.
Reiss teaches an inhibitor, wherein the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound (teaching a chemical-mechanical polishing composition comprising one or more nonionic polymers, wherein the nonionic polymer assists in reducing the removal rate of polysilicon by reducing contact between the abrasive particles and the polysilicon surface; paragraph [0016]). Reiss further teaches that the presence of the nonionic polymer allows useful removal rates for silicon oxide while reducing removal rates for polysilicon (paragraph [0016]).
Reiss also teaches a selectivity ratio for polishing an insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100 (teaching ceria-containing CMP compositions for polishing TEOS and polysilicon, wherein Table 1 reports TEOS/polySi selectivity ratios higher than 100; paragraphs [0090]-[0093], Table 1).
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 chemical mechanical polishing solution used in the method of Yin to include the nonionic polymer inhibitor taught by Reiss because Reiss teaches that nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide removal, thereby improving oxide/polySi selectivity. Yin already teaches polishing TEOS insulating films using a cerium oxide CMP polishing slurry, and Reiss teaches using nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions to reduce polysilicon removal in the same general CMP context. Therefore, using the nonionic-polymer-containing CMP solution of Yin as modified by Reiss in Yin’s method of polishing TEOS insulating films would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of polishing insulating films while reducing polysilicon removal. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed on September 3, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-14 have been amended.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5, 9, 10, and 13 overcome the objection to those claims based on the prior inconsistent use of “ceria oxide” instead of “cerium oxide.” Accordingly, the objection to claims 5, 9, 10, and 13 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 overcomes the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on the phrase “any one of the chemical mechanical polishing solution.” Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The amendments have been considered but do not overcome the prior art rejection for the reasons set forth in the maintained rejection and response to arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 3, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As amended, claim 1 broadly recites a chemical mechanical polishing solution comprising cerium oxide particles, an anionic compound selected from phosphate compounds or anionic polymers, a cationic compound selected from the recited alternatives, an inhibitor that is a nonionic polymer compound, a pH regulator, and the recited selectivity ratio. Claim 1 is not limited to the specific species, concentrations, pH, or example formulations relied upon in Applicant’s remarks.
Applicant argues that Yin does not teach or suggest an inhibitor that is a nonionic polymer compound as recited in claim 1 because Yin identifies polyethylene glycol and polyvinylpyrrolidone as organic dispersants, rather than as polysilicon polishing inhibitors. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Yin alone for the nonionic polymer inhibitor teaching. Yin is relied upon for teaching a cerium oxide CMP polishing solution including cerium oxide particles, an anionic compound, a cationic compound, and a pH regulator. Reiss is relied upon for teaching that nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide removal (Reiss, paragraph [0016]). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor whether the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Yin and Reiss.
The Examiner notes that the limitation of claim 1 that “the CMP solution has a selectivity ratio for polishing insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100” recites the intended use or result of the chemical mechanical polishing composition. If the words recite a purpose, those words must result in a structural or manipulative difference in the invention recited in the body of the claim in order to further limit the claim. Words that merely state an intended use, or words that have no effect on the body of the claim if removed, do not further limit the claim. The recited selectivity ratio does not change the components of the claimed composition. Therefore, the composition of Yin as modified by Reiss would be at least as effective for the recited intended use as the composition of claim 1 because Reiss teaches that nonionic polymers, including polyethylene glycol, assist in reducing the removal rate of polysilicon by forming a lubricating film that reduces contact between the abrasive particles and other components of the polishing composition and the polysilicon surface, while allowing useful removal rates for silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride (Reiss, paragraph [0016]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies, including forming a dense adsorption layer on the polysilicon surface and actively suppressing the polysilicon polishing rate, are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that Yin discloses an alkaline pH range, whereas the examples of the present application use a weakly acidic pH. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does not require a pH of 4.8, a weakly acidic pH, or any particular pH range. Rather, claim 1 broadly recites a “pH regulator.” Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Applicant’s arguments based on the pH of specific examples are therefore not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Reiss does not cure the deficiencies of Yin because Reiss’s exemplary compositions include additional components and operate in Reiss’s specific formulation system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor whether the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Reiss does not cure the deficiencies of Yin because Reiss’s exemplary compositions include additional components and operate in Reiss’s specific formulation system. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not require bodily incorporating the entirety of Reiss’s exemplary compositions into Yin. Reiss is relied upon for teaching that nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide removal, and for teaching TEOS/polySi selectivity higher than 100 (Reiss, paragraphs [0016], [0090]-[0093], Table 1). The fact that Reiss discloses additional optional or exemplary components does not negate the teaching for which Reiss is relied upon.
Applicant argues that Enomoto teaches ammonium polyacrylate only as a dispersant and does not teach that ammonium polyacrylate acts as a selectivity-adjustment component. This argument is not persuasive because Enomoto is not relied upon for teaching the claimed selectivity ratio. Enomoto is relied upon for teaching that ammonium polyacrylate is a known anionic polymer/dispersant in a cerium oxide polishing slurry (Enomoto, paragraphs [0016]-[0017], [0039]). Claim 4 requires that the anionic polymer is selected from ammonium polyacrylate, but claim 4 does not require that ammonium polyacrylate independently provide the claimed selectivity ratio.
Applicant argues that Brosnan’s teachings regarding polyquaternium are tied to Brosnan’s cubiform ceria abrasive particles and acidic pH. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not require bodily incorporating Brosnan’s entire preferred cubiform ceria system into Yin. Brosnan is relied upon for teaching specific polyquaternium cationic polymers, including polyquaternium-7 and polyquaternium-28, as cationic polymer additives in CMP polishing compositions, and for teaching a working ceria-containing CMP composition having a cationic compound/cerium oxide particle ratio within the range recited in claim 10 (Brosnan, paragraphs [0066], [0139], [0213], Table 21A). Claims 7 and 10 do not require cubiform ceria particles, lanthanum-doped ceria, or pH about 4. Applicant’s arguments are directed at features of Brosnan’s preferred embodiments that are not recited in the claims.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination produces unexpected results because the comparative examples of the present application allegedly show that omission of one additive causes the insulating film/polycrystalline silicon selectivity to fall below the claimed value. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because the evidence is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. The examples relied upon by Applicant are limited to particular species, amounts, and pH conditions, whereas claim 1 broadly recites classes of anionic compounds, cationic compounds, nonionic polymer inhibitors, cerium oxide particles, and a pH regulator. Claim 1 is not limited to the specific example formulations, specific pH, or specific concentrations relied upon in Applicant’s remarks. Objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination produces unexpected results because the comparative examples of the present application allegedly show that omission of one additive causes the insulating film/polycrystalline silicon selectivity to fall below the claimed value. Applicant’s arguments with regard to unexpected results, with regard to the claimed features of claim 1 related to improved insulating film/polycrystalline silicon selectivity, have been considered but are not deemed persuasive. As set forth in MPEP § 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to determine whether the results occur over the entire claimed range. See In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
The evidence relied upon by Applicant is limited to particular example formulations, including particular species, amounts, and pH conditions. Claim 1, however, broadly recites classes of anionic compounds, cationic compounds, nonionic polymer inhibitors, cerium oxide particles, and a pH regulator, and is not limited to the specific example formulations, specific pH, or specific concentrations relied upon in Applicant’s remarks. Additionally, claim 1 does not directly link each broadly recited claimed component to any particular outcome across the full scope of the claim. As a result, the unexpected results cited in the remarks filed September 3, 2026 are not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Applicant further argues that the asserted combination of references is based on hindsight and lacks a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection is supported by an articulated rationale based on the teachings of the prior art. Yin teaches a cerium oxide CMP polishing solution including an anionic compound, a cationic compound, and a pH regulator (Yin, paragraphs [0010]-[0017]). Reiss teaches that nonionic polymers in ceria-containing CMP compositions reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide removal and teaches TEOS/polySi selectivity higher than 100 (Reiss, paragraphs [0016], [0090]-[0093], Table 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to modify Yin’s cerium oxide CMP polishing solution to include the nonionic polymer inhibitor taught by Reiss in order to reduce polysilicon removal and improve oxide/polySi selectivity. The conclusion of obviousness is based on the teachings of the cited references and not on improper hindsight reconstruction.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 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
