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, as to the point that Jhang et al fail to teach the composition comprises the specified oxidizing agent and also fail to disclose the pH of about 6 or less, 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 Jhang et al fail to teach the titanium oxide abrasive is substantially pure rutile.
In response, examiner states that Jhang et al disclose that in certain preferred embodiments, the titanium oxide particles may be substantially pure rutile [0021] and also see the rejection.
Applicants further argue that Jhang et al describe a polishing composition for polishing ruthenium, where as Chien dealing with polishing composition for polishing TiN and SiN; and the composition having pH or less than 6 and so, they are not related art and examiner have not provided a proper motivation to combine the teaching of pH lower than 6 into the teaching of Jhang et al as Jhang et al appears to teach higher pH is desirable to reduce pad staining.
In response, examiner states that Chien discloses the polishing composition is useful for polishing any substrate including TiN, SiN, metals and the metals can comprise, consist essentially of, or consist of any suitable metal, many of which are known in the art, such as, for example, copper, tantalum, tungsten, titanium, platinum, ruthenium, iridium, aluminum, nickel, or combinations thereof [0083]. Therefore, both the Jhang et al and Chien are in the same field of endeavor and additionally, the invention is directed to a product not a process of using such product and since the composition taught by Jhang et al and Chien having all the components like the inventive ones and expected to have the similar intended use of such.
Therefore, a modified rejection follows:
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) 1-7,10-12 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhang et al (US 2022/0033683) in view of Chien et al (US 2019/0085205).
Regarding claim 1, Jhang et al disclose a polishing composition comprises a water based liquid carrier; titanium oxide particles dispersed in the liquid carrier, the titanium oxide particles including rutile and anatase; and a pH in a range from about 7 to about 10 [0010]; and in a preferred embodiment, the titanium oxide particles may be substantially pure rutile [0021].
Jhang et al disclose that the liquid carrier comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of water, more preferably deionized water [0013].
Jhang et al disclose that the polishing composition may further include an oxidizing agent [0031] but fail to teach the specified oxidizing agent as listed in the claim 1.
Unlike the instant invention, Jhang et al may not disclose the entire pH range of the polishing composition is about 6 or less.
However, the claimed pH range of about 6 or less is obvious over the pH range of about 7 taught by Jhang et al because they are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Chien et al disclose a polishing composition having a pH of less than 7, For example, the polishing composition can have a pH of about 6.5 or less, e.g., about 6 or less, about 5.5 or less, about 5 or less, about 4.5 or less, or about 4 or less. Alternately, or in addition, the polishing composition can have a pH of about 1.0 or more, e.g., about 1.5 or more, about 2.0 or more, about 2.5 or more, about 3.0 or more, or about 3.5 or more [0051]; and aforesaid ranges overlaps the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Chien et al also disclose maintaining such pH is beneficial for stable polishing performance [0053].
In the same field of endeavor, Chien et al disclose a polishing composition comprises suitable oxidizing agents are known in the art and include, for example, peroxides, permanganates. Still other illustrative oxidizers include non-per compounds (e.g., bromates, chlorates, iodates, iodic acid, and cerium (IV) compounds such as ammonium cerium nitrate) [0059].
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 Chien et al's teaching of using any oxidizer without any limitation into the teaching of Jhang et al because all of them are functionally equivalent of each other and also maintaining stable polishing performance by maintaining a stable acidic pH as suggested by Chien et al [0053].
Additionally, it would have been a simple substitution of known materials for predictable results.
Regarding claims 2-3, Chien et al disclose a polishing composition having a pH of less than 7, For example, the polishing composition can have a pH of about 6.5 or less, e.g., about 6 or less, about 5.5 or less, about 5 or less, about 4.5 or less, or about 4 or less. Alternately, or in addition, the polishing composition can have a pH of about 1.0 or more, e.g., about 1.5 or more, about 2.0 or more, about 2.5 or more, about 3.0 or more, or about 3.5 or more [0051]; and aforesaid ranges overlaps the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 4-5, Jhang et al disclose that the polishing composition may include about 0.01 wt. % or more of the titanium oxide particles at point of use (e.g., about 0.02 wt. % or more, about 0.05 wt. % or more, or about 0.1 wt. % or more); polishing composition may also include about 5 wt. % or less of the titanium oxide particles at point of use (e.g., about 2 wt. % or less, about 1 wt. % or less, or about 0.5 wt. % or less [0024]; and aforesaid range overlaps the claimed ranges in the claims 4-5 and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-7, Jhang et al disclose that the polishing composition the titanium oxide particles may have an average particle size in a range from about 10 nm to about 300 nm (e.g., from about 20 nm to about 250 nm, from about 40 nm to about 200 nm, or from about 50 nm to about 150 nm) [0023].
Regarding claim 11, Chien et al disclose suitable oxidizing agents are known in the art and include, for example, peroxides, permanganates. Still other illustrative oxidizers include non-per compounds (e.g., bromates, chlorates, iodates, iodic acid, and cerium (IV) compounds such as ammonium cerium nitrate) [0059]; and aforesaid permanganates broadly encompasses the potassium permanganate as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Jhang et al disclose that the amount of peroxide (oxidizing agent) in the composition may be from about 0.1 wt. % to about 10 wt. % [0031]; and aforesaid range overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 wt% and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, nowhere in the disclosure, Jhang et al teach the polishing composition comprises a ferric ion and therefore, it meets the limitation of the composition comprises substantially no ferric ion.
Regarding claim 16-17, Chien et al disclose the polishing composition further comprises stabilizers, including organic acid and preferred organic acids include acetic acid, phthalic acid, citric acid, adipic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, aspartic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, pimelic acid, suberic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, maleic acid, glutaconic acid [0066].
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 Chien et al's teaching of introducing organic acid as a stabilizer into the teaching of Jhang et al for the benefit of stabilizing the polishing composition as suggested by Chien et al.
Regarding claims 18-19, Jhang et al disclose that the polishing composition may include substantially any suitable pH adjusting agents or buffering systems.; and suitable buffering agents may include phosphates, sulfates, acetates, malonates, oxalates, borates, ammonium salts, propionates, mixtures thereof, and the like [0025].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jhang et al (US 2022/0033683) and Chien et al (US 2019/0085205) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott (US 2005/0059085).
Modified Jhang et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose the composition further comprises a ferric ion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Scott discloses a polishing composition (abstract; [0005]), wherein the composition comprises certain compound may perform more than one function. For example, some compounds can function both as a chelating and an oxidizing agent (e.g., certain ferric nitrates and the like) [0051].
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 Scott's teaching of introducing a chelating agent as a ferric ion into the teaching of modified Jhang et al for the chelating function of the composition as suggested by Scott.
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