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 1-2,4-7, and 10-13 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2022/0135840 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20230047001 A) and further in view of Kamimura (US 2022/0254624 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a polishing composition comprising: an anionic silica abrasive (teaching a silica-based abrasive and teaching an anionic abrasive having acid groups such as sulfonic acid groups; paragraph [0016]); a first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor (teaching a first amine compound that significantly reduces or minimizes corrosion or etching of molybdenum; paragraphs [0021], [0055]-[0056]); a second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor (teaching a second amine compound which, in combination with the first amine compound, provides relatively low molybdenum corrosion/static etch rate; paragraphs [0023]-[0025], [0057]-[0058]); an oxidizer (paragraphs [0032], [0035]-[0036]); and water (paragraph [0029]). Cheng further teaches the polishing composition selectively removes molybdenum while providing excellent corrosion resistance and low molybdenum static etch rate (paragraph [0006]).
Cheng does not expressly teach wherein the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is a basic amino acid.
Kim teaches positively charged amino acids, including arginine, histidine, and lysine, are excellent corrosion inhibitors for molybdenum and provide favorable molybdenum removal rate to molybdenum static etching rate performance (paragraph [0167]).
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 polishing composition of Cheng to include Kim’s positively charged amino acids as the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor because Kim teaches arginine, histidine, and lysine are excellent corrosion inhibitors for molybdenum. Applying Kim’s known corrosion-inhibiting amino acids to Cheng’s molybdenum polishing composition would have been use of a known technique to improve a similar composition in the same way. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(C).
Modified Cheng in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is a phosphate-containing polyethylene surfactant.
Kamimura teaches phosphoric acid ester-based surfactants including polyoxyalkylene ether phosphoric acid esters and salts thereof (paragraphs [0136]-[0137]). Kamimura further teaches the alkylene group of the polyoxyalkylene ether phosphoric acid ester is preferably ethylene and specifically teaches polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphoric acid ester (paragraphs [0139]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Cheng in view of Kim to include Kamimura’s phosphate-containing polyoxyethylene ether surfactant as the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor because Cheng teaches polishing compositions may include surfactants, including polyoxyethylene ether surfactants and phosphate-containing anionic surfactants (paragraphs [0039], [0041], [0043]), and Kamimura teaches specific phosphate-containing polyoxyethylene ether surfactants useful for corrosion prevention in semiconductor substrate processing. Applying Kamimura’s known corrosion-control surfactant to Cheng’s polishing composition would have been use of a known technique to improve a similar semiconductor-processing composition in the same way. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(C).
Regarding claim 2, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kamimura further teaches the polishing composition comprises, as the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor, a phosphate-containing polyethylene surfactant of Formula (I) or a salt thereof (teaching phosphoric acid ester-based surfactants including polyoxyalkylene ether phosphoric acid ester and salts thereof; teaching salts including sodium salts and potassium salts; teaching the alkylene group is preferably ethylene and the number of repeats of the oxyalkylene group is preferably 1 to 12; and specifically teaching polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphoric acid ester, wherein tridecyl corresponds to a C13 alkyl R group; paragraphs [0136]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches the polishing composition comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of arginine, histidine, and lysine as the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor (teaching positively charged amino acids such as arginine, histidine, and lysine are excellent corrosion inhibitors for molybdenum; paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Kim continues to teach the polishing composition comprises arginine as the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor (identifying arginine as a positively charged amino acid that is an excellent corrosion inhibitor for molybdenum; paragraph [0167]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Cheng does not expressly teach that the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is present in an amount ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt%.
Cheng teaches corrosion-control components are present in amounts from about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (teaching the first amine compound is present from about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt%; paragraph [0022]) and from about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (teaching the second amine compound is present from about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt%; paragraph [0025]).
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 about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% because Cheng teaches overlapping ranges for corrosion-control components, and 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 7, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is present at a concentration of about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (teaching amino acids may be present in the polishing composition in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt%, and further teaching positively charged amino acids including arginine, histidine, and lysine as corrosion inhibitors for molybdenum; paragraphs [0078]-[0079], [0167]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Cheng does not expressly teach the amount of the oxidizer ranges from about 0.1 wt% to about 1 wt%.
Cheng teaches the oxidizing agent can be present from at least about 0.05 wt% to at most about 10 wt%, including embodiments having at least about 0.1 wt% and at most about 1 wt% (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
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 Cheng teaches overlapping ranges for oxidizer concentration, and 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 Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Cheng further teaches the polishing composition has a pH ranging from about 2 to about 11, including acidic ranges from at least about 2 to at most about 4 (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, Cheng teaches wherein the pH ranges from about 2 to about 4.
Regarding claim 12, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kim further teaches the polishing composition has a molybdenum removal rate: molybdenum static etching rate selectivity of greater than 10 (teaching the Mo RR/Mo SER ratio is preferably 20 or higher, more preferably 23 or higher, and even more preferably 25 or higher; and further teaching the ratio of Mo polishing rate to Mo static etching rate may be at least about 10, at least about 20, at least about 25, or higher) (paragraphs [0024], [0090]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Cheng further teaches the composition comprises a chloride ion concentration of less than about 1 ppm (teaching the polishing composition may be substantially free of salts including halide salts, wherein the halide salts include alkali metal halides and ammonium halides and may be chlorides; and teaching the composition may have at most about 1 ppm of one or more of such ingredients or may be completely free of such ingredients) (paragraph [0047]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. in view of Kim et al. and Kamimura et al., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tada et al. (US 2019/0071588 A1).
Modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
The modified Cheng does not expressly teach wherein R is (C2-C25)alkenyl.
Tada teaches wherein R is (C2-C25)alkenyl (teaching an anionic surfactant containing a phosphoric group or a salt thereof, including sodium polyoxyethylene oleyl ether phosphate, wherein oleyl corresponds to a C18 alkenyl group) (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the polishing composition of Cheng in view of Kim and Kamimura to use Tada’s sodium polyoxyethylene oleyl ether phosphate because Tada teaches phosphate esters reduce dishing in metal polishing compositions (paragraph [0061]) and teaches polyoxyethylene oleyl phosphate as a suitable phosphate ester (paragraph [0064]). Applying Tada’s known phosphate surfactant to the modified Cheng polishing composition would have been use of a known technique to improve a similar semiconductor polishing composition in the same way. See MPEP § 2141 III(C).
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. in view of Kim et al. and Kamimura et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 2023/0002641 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Cheng does not teach the oxidizer comprises iodic acid or a salt thereof
Singh teaches the oxidizer comprises iodic acid or a salt thereof (teaching oxidizing agents including iodic acid, iodates, ammonium iodate, potassium iodate, and tetramethylammonium iodate) (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the polishing composition of Cheng in view of Kim and Kamimura to use Singh’s iodic acid or iodate oxidizer because Singh teaches iodic acid and iodate oxidizers as known oxidizing agents in CMP compositions for polishing molybdenum-containing surfaces. Applying Singh’s known oxidizer to the modified Cheng molybdenum polishing composition would have been use of a known technique to improve a similar molybdenum polishing composition in the same way. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(C).
Regarding claim 9, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Modified Cheng does not teach the oxidizer comprises potassium iodate
Singh further teaches the oxidizer comprises potassium iodate (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Singh’s potassium iodate as the iodate oxidizer in the modified Cheng polishing composition because Singh teaches potassium iodate as a known iodate oxidizer for CMP compositions. Selecting a known species from Singh’s disclosed group of iodate oxidizers would have predictably provided an oxidizing agent for molybdenum polishing. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(E).
Regarding claim 14, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Cheng further teaches the anionic silica abrasive is surface-modified with sulfonic acid groups (teaching the abrasive may be a silica-based abrasive and that an anionic abrasive may include acid groups, such as sulfonic acid groups; paragraph [0016]). Modified Cheng further teaches the polishing composition has a pH from about 2 to about 4 (paragraph [0028]).
Modified Cheng does not teach the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is selected from polyoxyethylene oleyl ether phosphate, polyoxyethylene phenyl ether phosphate, and polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphate, and a potassium salt thereof, and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt%.
Kamimura teaches the first molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is a phosphate-containing polyethylene surfactant selected from polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphate and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (teaching polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphoric acid ester as a phosphoric acid ester-based surfactant; and teaching surfactant content preferably 0.01 to 10.0 mass%, which overlaps the claimed range; paragraphs [0140], [0163]).
It would have been obvious to select the claimed concentration range because Kamimura teaches an overlapping range for the surfactant concentration, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Modified Cheng in view of Kamimura does not teach the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is a basic amino acid selected from arginine, histidine, and lysine and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt%.
Kim teaches the second molybdenum static etching rate suppressor is a basic amino acid selected from arginine, histidine, and lysine and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (paragraphs [0078]-[0079], [0167]).
It would have been obvious to include Kim’s positively charged amino acids at the claimed concentration because Kim teaches that such amino acids function as excellent corrosion inhibitors for molybdenum and teaches amino acid concentrations overlapping the claimed range. Applying Kim’s known corrosion-inhibiting amino acids in the claimed amount to the modified Cheng polishing composition would have been use of a known technique to improve a similar composition in the same way, and selecting the claimed concentration from Kim’s overlapping range would have been prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(C), and MPEP § 2144.05.
Modified Cheng in view of Kim and Kamimura does not teach the oxidizer is iodic acid or a salt thereof and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.1 wt% to about 1 wt%.
Singh teaches the oxidizer is iodic acid or a salt thereof and is present at a concentration ranging from about 0.1 wt% to about 1 wt% (teaching iodic acid and iodate oxidizers, including potassium iodate, and teaching oxidizer concentration ranges that overlap the claimed range; paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to include Singh’s iodic acid or iodate oxidizer in the claimed amount because Singh teaches iodic acid and iodate oxidizers as known oxidizing agents for CMP compositions used on molybdenum-containing surfaces and teaches an oxidizer concentration range overlapping the claimed range. Applying Singh’s known oxidizer and selecting a concentration from Singh’s overlapping range would have predictably provided oxidation functionality for molybdenum polishing. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(C), and MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, modified Cheng teaches the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Modified Cheng does not teach the oxidizer is potassium iodate.
Singh further teaches the oxidizer is potassium iodate (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Singh’s potassium iodate as the iodate oxidizer in the modified Cheng polishing composition because Singh teaches potassium iodate as a known iodate oxidizer for CMP compositions, and selecting a known species from Singh’s disclosed group of iodate oxidizers would have predictably provided an oxidizing agent for molybdenum polishing. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(E).
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