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 .
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Claim 1 recites a silicon polishing method for polishing a silicon wafer with a composition and polishing abrasive pad without recites any positive steps for carrying out the method. Furthermore, claim 1 doesn’t have a clear preamble and claim body. It is suggested to have a claim reciting a preamble followed with claim body including polishing step(s). For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as, “a silicon polishing method comprising: polishing a silicon wafer by using an abrasive-grain polishing pad that contains polishing grains while supplying a silicon polishing composition that does not contain the polishing abrasive grains, wherein the silicon polishing composition contains an organic amine and water and has a pH of 10.6 to 12.8.”
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 1.
Similar to claim 1 above, claim 8 doesn’t have a clear preamble and claim body. It is recommended to be rewritten in a claim format as that of suggested claim 1 above.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for depending on rejected claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Itai et al. (US 2015/0093900A1).
With respect to claims 8, 12, 13 Itai describes a polishing method comprising: polishing a silicon wafer using a polishing composition comprising water, an organic amine of piperazine, and a pH most preferably at 10.8 to 11 (abs.; para 12, 21, 22).
With respect to the limitation of “a silicon polishing composition, which is to be supplied onto an abrasive-grain polishing pad containing polishing abrasive grains when a silicon wafer is polished by using the abrasive-grain polishing pad”, it is an intended use of the composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The composition of Itai contains the same components; therefore, it would be able to use in the manner as that of claim 8.
With respect to claim 11, the piperazine concentration includes most preferably at 0.01 to 0.04 mol/L (para 21), for example C4, the piperazine hydrochloride hydrate concentration is 0.8 wt% (table 1). which is closely overlapping and within claimed 0.025 to 0.1 mol/L. With the aqueous solution contains mostly water at water density of 1, the piperazine hydrochloride hydrate molar mass at 159.06g/mol, the molarity mol/l = 10 x (0.8% x solution density)/159.06 molar mass (g/mol) = 0.05 mol/l, which is within claimed range of 0.025 to 0.100.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US 2006/0042501A1).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 Miyazaki describes a polishing method comprising: polishing a silicon wafer using an abrasive grain fixed polishing pad 16, while supplying a silicon polishing composition 25 that does not contain polishing abrasive grains. The polishing composition contains water, amine such as piperazine, ethylenediamine, diethylenetriamine and pH of 10-13, for example 10.6, 11.3, 11.5, 11.6, or 11.7 (para 35, 39, 50; fig. 1; table 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 7, the abrasives include silica (para 38, 59).
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) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
With respect to claims 2 and 9, Miyazaki describes the composition further includes alkalis comprising hydroxides of alkali metals and ammonia, such as KOH and ammonium hydroxide (claim 2; para 17, 44). Unlike claimed invention, he doesn’t describe the ammonium hydroxide concentration is less than 2.82 mol/l or the KOH concentration is less than 0.93 mol/l. However, he describes the inorganic alkali such as hydroxide of alkali metal of NaOH is at 0.04 wt% (para 61; table 1). With the aqueous solution contains mostly wafer at water density of 1, the NaOH molar mass at 40g/mol, the molarity mol/l = 10 x (0.04% x solution density)/NaOH molar mass (g/mol) = 0.01 mol/l NaOH. Therefore, with the example of using 0.01 mol/l of alkali metal hydroxide of NaOH, which is less than 2.82 mol/l or 0.93 mol/l, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to use similar concentration of other hydroxides such as KOH or ammonium hydroxide as long as it facilitates to maintain a high pH value of the polishing liquid for a long time (para 46) to provide a polishing composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mae (US 2021/0292599A1).
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Itai doesn’t teach the inorganic alkaline pH adjusting agent such as KOH (table 1) has a concentration less than 0.93 mol/l or between 0.03 to 0.1 mol/l. However, the amount of pH adjusting agent used would depend on the pH of the composition. Also such amount of KOH has been successfully used for the same purposes of adjusting a pH of a polishing composition as shown here by Mae (para 49, table 3). A 0.2 mass % of KOH is approximately 0.036 mol/l in aqueous solution of mostly water (10 x (0.2 x solution density of 1)/KOH molar mass of 56.11g/mol). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use appropriate amount of KOH including in a range of 0.03 to 0.1 mol/l or less than 0.93mol/l as long as it provides a desired pH for the CMP composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai et al. (US 2015/0093900A1), and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2006/0042501A1).
With respect to claims 1, 5-7, Itai describes a polishing method comprising: polishing a silicon wafer using a polishing composition comprising water, an organic amine of piperazine, and a pH most preferably at 10.8 to 11 (abs.; para 12, 21, 22).
Unlike claimed invention, Itai doesn’t teach using an abrasive-grain (silica) polishing pad and the polishing composition contains no abrasive grains. Miyazaki teaches a same polishing method for a silicon wafer using an abrasive-grain (silica) polishing pad (abs.; para 34, 38, 39). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use an abrasive-grain polishing pad and a polishing composition contains no abrasives in light of Miyazaki because he teaches that by using an abrasive-grain polishing pad, the polishing liquid does not contain loose abrasive, most of abrasive grains are consumed while contributing to polishing, liquid waste can be utilized again efficiently by filtration and lower running cost (para 8).
With respect to claim 4, the piperazine concentration includes most preferably at 0.01 to 0.04 mol/L (para 21), which is closely overlapping and within claimed 0.025 to 0.1 mol/L. For example C4, the piperazine hydrochloride hydrate concentration is 0.8 wt% (table 1). With the aqueous solution contains mostly water at water density of 1, the piperazine hydrochloride hydrate molar mass at 159.06g/mol, the molarity mol/l = 10 x (0.8% x solution density)/159.06 molar mass (g/mol) = 0.05 mol/l, which is within claimed range of 0.025 to 0.100.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itai and Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mae (US 2021/0292599A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Itai doesn’t teach the inorganic alkaline pH adjusting agent such as KOH (table 1) has a concentration less than 0.93 mol/l or between 0.03 to 0.1 mol/l. However, the amount of pH adjusting agent used would depend on the pH of the composition. Also such amount of KOH has been successfully used for the same purposes of adjusting a pH of a polishing composition as shown here by Mae (para 49, table 3). A 0.2 mass % of KOH is approximately 0.036 mol/l in aqueous solution of mostly water (10 x (0.2 x solution density of 1)/KOH molar mass of 56.11g/mol). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use appropriate amount of KOH including in a range of 0.03 to 0.1 mol/l or less than 0.93mol/l as long as it provides a desired pH for the CMP composition 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
7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights