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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
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 25 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 25 is directed to a use of the polishing composition of claim 1, and therefore fails to further limit the composition itself. 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11, 15-17, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 20200308450 A1).
As to claim 1, Shinoda discloses a polishing liquid for use in chemical mechanical polishing [Abstract], the polishing liquid comprising:
colloidal silica [para. 0013],
an organic acid having at least a phosphonic acid group or a salt thereof in a molecular structure [para. 0023; Table 1],
hypophosphorous acid [para. 0061, “pH adjusting agent”], and
water [para. 0058; Table 1].
Shinoda fails to disclose a singular example that includes hypophosphorous acid as the pH adjusting agent, but nonetheless discloses the acid as a suitable pH adjusting agent to be used in connection with the disclosed polishing composition [para. 0061], and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate for the purpose of adjusting the pH of the composition of Shinda [para. 0061], with predictable results.
As to claim 2, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the polishing liquid has a pH of 2.5 to 5.0 [para. 0060; Table 1].
As to claim 3, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein a content of the colloidal silica is 1% to 5% by mass with respect to a total mass of the polishing liquid para. 0021; Table 1].
As to claim 4, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein an average primary particle diameter of the colloidal silica is 5 to 100 nm [para. 0018], and an average secondary particle diameter of the colloidal silica is 10 to 300 nm [para. 0019].
As to claim 5, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the organic acid is 1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid [para. 0023; Table 1].
As to claim 8, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising: phosphonic acid [para. 0061, “phosphorous acid”].
As to claim 11, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising: phosphoric acid [para. 0061].
As to claim 15, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising: ammonia [para. 0061].
As to claim 16, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising: a surfactant having a sulfonic acid group or a salt thereof in a molecular structure [para. 0050-53].
As to claim 17, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 16, wherein the surfactant contains alkylbenzenesulfonic acid or a salt thereof or a derivative of alkylbenzenesulfonic acid or a salt thereof [para. 0050-53].
As to claim 22, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising: sulfuric acid [para. 0063, “persulfuric acid”; Here, persulfuric acid readily forms sulfuric acid in water].
As to claim 25, Shinoda discloses the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein, in a flattening step in a case of producing a semiconductor integrated circuit [Abstract], the polishing liquid is used for chemical mechanical polishing of an object to be polished [Abstract], which has a first layer containing silicon nitride, and a second layer containing at least one silicon-based compound selected from the group consisting of polysilicon, modified polysilicon, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, and silicon carbide oxide [para. 0009-0010].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 18-21, and 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 6-7, 9-10, and 12-14, the closest prior art of record to Shinoda discloses that hypophosphorus acid, phosphonic acid, and/or phosphoric acid may be included in the composition as pH adjustors [para. 0061], but Shinoda provides no further guidance as to their concentrations and therefore fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with other prior art, the claimed ratios in each of claims 6-14.
As to claims 18-21, the closest prior art of record to Shinoda discloses water-soluble polymers of sulfonic acid [para. 0050-57], but Shinoda, either alone or in combination with other prior art, fails to teach or suggest the claimed surfactant species of “alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or a salt thereof or a derivative of alkyl diphenyl ether disulfonic acid or a salt thereof”.
As to claims 23-24, the closest prior art of record to Shinoda discloses persulfuric acid may be included in the composition as an oxidizing agent [para. 0063], which readily forms sulfuric acid in water, but Shinoda fails to provide guidance as to the concentration in the composition, and therefore fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination with other prior art, the claimed ratios of claims 23 and 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show compositions comprising silica abrasive in combination with hypophosphorous acid and/or compounds comprising a phosphonic acid group [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights