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 5, 9, 10, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Inconsistent terminology. Cerium oxide was introduced in claim 1 and for claims 5, 9, 10, and 13 was changed to ceria oxide. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “using any one of the chemical mechanical polishing solution as claimed in claim 1” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “any one of” refers to. Claim 1 recites a chemical mechanical polishing solution, and claim 14 does not identify multiple chemical mechanical polishing solutions from which “any one” is selected. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claimed method are unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,5, 8-9 and 11 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 (CMP) solution comprising cerium oxide particles (teaching a CMP polishing slurry using cerium dioxide as abrasive particles; paragraphs [0010]-[0011]); an anionic compound (teaching polyacrylic acid as an organic dispersing agent; paragraph [0012]); a cationic compound (teaching L-arginine as a complexing agent; paragraph [0013]); and a pH regulator (teaching KOH or sulfuric acid as a pH adjusting agent; paragraph [0016]).
Yin does not expressly teach an inhibitor, the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound, and the CMP solution has a selectivity ratio for polishing insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100 in the claimed context.
However, Yin further teaches that the organic dispersing agent may be selected from one or more of polyacrylic acid, polyethylene glycol, and polyvinylpyrrolidone, wherein polyethylene glycol and polyvinylpyrrolidone are nonionic polymer compounds (paragraph [0012]). Wherein polyethylene glycol is an inhibitor according to applicants filed specification page 3.
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 composition of Yin to include an inhibitor, the inhibitor is a nonionic polymer compound because Yin teaches it as an alternative dispensing agent and 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 the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art, see MPEP 2144.06.
The examiner notes that the limitations of claim 1 of a selectivity ratio for polishing insulating film/polycrystalline silicon higher than 100 recites the intended use of the CMP 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 to further limit the claim. Words that only 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 use does not change the structure of the components in the composition. The removal rate of an insulating film would depend on the particular material being removed and since the claim recites a generic insulating film the removal rate reads as the intended use. Further Reiss teaches that nonionic polymers, including polyethylene glycol, assists in reducing the removal rate of polysilicon by forming a lubricating film that reduces contact of the abrasive particles and other components of the polishing composition with the polysilicon surface, while allowing useful removal rates for silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride; paragraph [0016]. Therefore, it appears that the modified composition of Yin would perform at least as effectively within the disclosed selectivity ratio as the composition of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Yin further teaches that the anionic compounds are selected from anionic polymers (teaching polyacrylic acid as an organic dispersing agent, wherein polyacrylic acid is an anionic polymer; paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Yin further teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the anionic compound to cerium oxide particles is 0.01-2 (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, and 0.5/5 = 0.1, which is within the claimed range; paragraphs [0011]-[0012]). Selecting a ratio within the claimed range would have been obvious because Yin teaches component concentration ranges that include a ratio within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Yin further teaches that the cationic compound is selected from arginine (teaching L-arginine as a complexing agent; paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, Yin teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to 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, and 0.1/5 = 0.02, which is within the claimed range; paragraphs [0011], [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicant’s claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 for the mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to cerium oxide particles because Yin teaches overlapping concentration ranges for the cerium oxide abrasive and the complexing agent, which include a cationic compound/cerium oxide particle ratio overlapping the claimed range, such as 0.1/5 = 0.02. 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, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Yin further teaches that the inhibitor is selected from polyethylene glycol (as discussed above).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (CN104726028A) and further in view of Reiss et al. (US20130244433A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Reiss teaches that a molecular weight of the inhibitor is 1000-100,000 (teaching PEG having a molecular weight of 8,000. The nonionic polymer can have any suitable molecular weight. If the molecular weight of the nonionic polymer is too low, then no advantage is obtained with the use of the nonionic polymer. Alternatively, if the molecular weight of the nonionic polymer is too high, the removal rate of the silicon oxide can be reduced to impractically low levels; paragraph [0017]-[0019] and [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 applicant’s claimed range of 1000-100,000 because Reiss teaches PEG having a molecular weight of 8,000 as a nonionic polymer used in a ceria-containing CMP composition to reduce polysilicon removal while maintaining useful silicon oxide removal, and 8,000 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, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 1. Reiss teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the inhibitor to the cerium oxide particles is 0.1-2 (teaching Composition 1A including 842 ppm PEG 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 applicant’s claimed range because Reiss teaches a working ceria-containing CMP composition including PEG 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. and further in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US 2004/0223898 A1).
Modified Yin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Yin 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, and further teaching that the particles are suitable as an abrasive for CMP of silica-containing substrates, including STI and ILD polishing. the particles of the present invention are suitable for CMP (Chemical Mechanical Polishing). In particular, the particles are suitable as an abrasive used in a process of isolating elements of semiconductor device that is generally called STI (Shallow Trench Isolation) because it can accurately polish an object to be polished without damage to silicon nitride film used as a protective film paragraphs [0011], 30-32, 69 [0129]-[0130]).
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 modified Yin to include the cerium oxide sol particles taught by Ota because Ota teaches that such cerium-oxide-containing sol particles are suitable CMP abrasives for silica-containing substrates, including STI and ILD 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 and prevent damage of underlying layers. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. and further in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Enomoto et al. (US 2013/0125476 A1).
Modified Yin teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as set forth above.
Modified Yin 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 ammonium acrylate salt as a constituent unit; paragraphs [0016]-[0017],[0039]). It is hence an object of the invention to decrease scratches and polish at high speed by reducing the content ratio of coarse grains. For this purpose, the invention provides a cerium oxide slurry, a cerium oxide polishing slurry, and a method of polishing a substrate by using the same, improved in the disperse state of cerium oxide particles by controlling the weight of cerium oxide particles and the weight of dispersant to an optimum ratio (para. 5-13).
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 modified Yin 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 which decrease scratches and polish at high speed, 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 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. and further in view of Reiss et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brosnan et al. (US20210115298A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Modified Yin does not expressly teach that the cationic compound is a polyquaternium.
Brosnan teaches that the cationic compound is a polyquaternium (teaching low charge density cationic polymers including polyquaternium-28 and polyquaternium-7 for use in polishing compositions) (Brosnan, paragraph [0066]). By combining ceria abrasive particles and a cationic polymer significantly improved silicon oxide removal rates can be achieved and may therefore improve throughput and save time and money (para. 3-9 and 62-72)
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 modified Yin 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 to improve silicon oxide removal rates, 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 7, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 6. Brosnan further teaches that the polyquaternium is selected from polyquaternium-7 and polyquaternium-28 (teaching Polyquaternium-28 and Polyquaternium-7 as cationic polymers used in polishing compositions; paragraphs [0066], [0139]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yin teaches the composition of claim 9 as set forth above. Brosnan further teaches that a mass percentage ratio of the cationic compound to 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). Selecting a cationic compound/cerium oxide particle ratio within the claimed range would have been obvious because Brosnan teaches a working composition having a ratio within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim(s) 14 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 14, the modified composition of Yin teaches the polishing composition of claim 1, as discussed above. Yin further teaches using the chemical mechanical polishing slurry to polish TEOS, wherein TEOS is a silicon oxide insulating film (paragraphs [0030]-[0035]). Therefore, modified Yin teaches polishing insulating films using any one of the chemical mechanical polishing solution as claimed in claim 1.
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