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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 8/24/26 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
Claims 2, 7 recite the limitation "the silica particles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 1.
Claim 7 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 7 cites a broader limitation of “the silica particles are selected from the group consisting of colloidal silica, high purity silica and fumed silica, while its independent claim 1 cites an abrasive comprising fumed silica particles. 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It appears the limitation “wherein the silica particles are fumed silica particles” in claim 2 referring to the limitation “an abrasive comprising fumed silica particles” in claim 1. In claim 2, it is suggested to change to “wherein the fumed silica particles that are not…”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2021/067151A1) and further in view of KR102261822B1 (referred below as KR ‘822).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 6-8 Li teaches a CMP composition comprising: fumed silica and hydrated aluminum silicate and mixture thereof (para 10), the aluminum silicate provides claimed second chemical additive comprising a silicate; amino acids or claimed first chemical additive of claim 1 including glutamine (glutamic acid); alanine, aspartic acid, glycine, serine and mixture thereof (par 13); an oxidizing agent including hydrogen peroxide (para 18); water (para 24); corrosion inhibitor (para 16); a pH from 2-12, for example 7.20 to 7.30 (para 26, 82). Unlike claimed invention, Li doesn’t teach the polishing has a POU conductivity at 1mS/cm to 10mS/cm. KR ‘822 teaches a similar CMP composition for a semiconductor structure including copper and silicon oxide films wherein he teaches the conductivity is from 4mS/cm to 10mS/cm (page 1, 5). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the point of use conductivity at a range of 1mS/cm to 10mS/cm, in light of KR ‘822 because KR ‘822 describes “when the conductivity is within the above range, the oxidation-reduction reaction of the surface of the copper film may be optimized, and it may be more advantageous to improve the polishing rate of the silicon oxide film” (page 5).
With respect to claim 2, Li teaches fumed silica that doesn’t have any modification to the particles (para 10) and uses colloidal silica without any modification to the surface in example 1 (page 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that silica particles including fumed silica without surface treated or modified by any chemical species and not covalently bonded with negatively or positively charged species would provide a CMP composition for the copper with expected results.
With respect to claim 3, Li teaches the abrasives including the fumed silica is from 0.0001 to 2.5 wt% (para 10), which overlaps claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 9, Li teaches the CMP composition further includes non-ionic, cationic, anionic or zwitterionic surfactants (para 58).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stender et al. (US 2018/0002571A1) in view of KR102261822B1 (referred below as KR ‘822) and Chang et al. (US 2010/0255681).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 6-8 Stender teaches a CMP composition comprising: water (para 65); oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide (para 41, 42); corrosion inhibitor (para 44); surfactant (para 47); inorganic silicate including potassium silicate, ammonium silicate, tetramethylammonium silicate (para 35); chelating agent including glycine, histidine, lysine, tryptophan, aspartic acid, glutamic acid (para 58); abrasives including silica (para 32); pH adjusting agent to adjust the pH from about 9 to about 11.5 (para 25).
Unlike claimed invention, Stender doesn’t teach the composition has a POU conductivity at 1mS/cm to 10mS/cm. KR ‘822 teaches a similar CMP composition for a semiconductor damascene structure including copper and silicon oxide films wherein he teaches the conductivity is from 4mS/cm to 10mS/cm (page 1, 5). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the point of use conductivity at a range of 1mS/cm to 10mS/cm, in light of KR ‘822 because it describes a composition for a similar damascene structure having metal such as copper and dielectric materials (page 5) as that of Stender (para 35) and KR ‘822 teaches “when the conductivity is within the above range, the oxidation-reduction reaction of the surface of the copper film may be optimized, and it may be more advantageous to improve the polishing rate of the silicon oxide film” (page 5).
Unlike claimed invention, Stender doesn’t teach the abrasive comprising fumed silica particles. However, he teaches using high purity colloidal silica and/or silica particles (para 32). Abrasives such as fumed silica and colloidal silica are known to one skilled in the art for polishing damascene structure comprising copper and dielectric material including silicon oxide as shown here by Chang (para 36-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use either fumed silica or colloidal silica because both have been successfully used to provide a CMP composition for polishing of materials including copper and dielectric materials with expected results.
With respect to claim 2, Stender teaches using high purity colloidal silica and/or silica (para 32) and Chang teaches fumed silica without having any modification to the abrasive (para 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use fumed silica without having any modification to the abrasive such as claimed “silica particles are fumed silica particles that are not surface treated or modified by any chemical species, and wherein the fumed silica particles are not covalent bonded with either a negatively or a positively charged species” to provide a CMP composition for polishing of materials including copper and dielectric materials with expected results.
With respect to claims 3 and 5, Stender teaches the abrasive concentration is from 0.1-20 wt%, or 3-15 wt% (para 34) and the chelating agent including histidine is from 0.01 to 3 wt% or 0.4 to 1.5 wt% (para 58, 60). These ranges overlap claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 9, Stender teaches the composition further include non-ionic, cationic, and anionic surfactant (para 48-50).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and KR ‘822 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2010/0255681).
With respect to claim 5, Li, as described above, doesn’t teach the organic acid including L-histidine at an amount from about 0.001 to about 1.0 wt%. Chang teaches a similar CMP composition for the same structure having copper, barrier and silicon oxide dielectric layer as that of Li’s structure (para 79) wherein the composition comprises 10ppm (or 0.001 wt%) to 500 ppm (or 0.05wt%) of complexing agent including histidine (para 36-38, 58, 59). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide L-histidine in a range of about 0.001 to about 1 wt% in light of Chang because Chang shows that this concentration of the histidine has been successfully used in providing a CMP composition for fabrication of a damascene structure with expected results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
9/14/2026
Prosecution Insights