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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizaki (US 2015/0218709A1).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Yoshizaki describes a CMP composition comprising: sulfonic acid-modified colloidal silica (para 43, 44), a complexing agent of asparagine, glutamine, arginine, canavaine, hydroxy-lysine, creatine, histidine, I-methyl-histidine, 3-methyl-histidine or claimed a molybdenum removal rate enhancer of a basic amino acid (para 37), ammonium salts having the acid component derived from nitric acid, sulfuric acid, which would include ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate or claimed TEOS removal rate enhance (para 31); water (para 24); oxidizing agent including hydrogen peroxide (para 26); and a pH from 1 to 10. Unlike claimed invention, Yoshizaki doesn’t teach a pH of less than 6. However, his pH in the range of 1-10 overlaps claimed pH of less than 6. 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 a pH of less than 6 to provide a CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 9, the amino acids are the same as that of claimed invention, including arginine, lysine, and histidine; therefore, it would have the same PI of at least 7.5.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the composition further includes nitric acid, phosphoric acid (para 18), acetic acid (para 32), phosphonic acid (para 33).
With respect to claim 16, the composition would be able to provide a ratio of molybdenum removal rate (A/min) to molybdenum etching rate (A/min) of at least 50 because it contains the same components as that of claimed invention and the ratio would also depend on the processing parameters at the time of the processing.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2022026355A1) and Tansho et al. (WO 2022070516A1).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 Wu describes a CMP composition comprising: anionic colloidal silica particles having surface treatment with a sulfur-based acid (para 17); water; amino acid selected from arginine, histidine, cysteine, lysine or claimed molybdenum removal rate enhancer (claim 1); a hydrogen peroxide oxidizer (claim 3); ammonium salts or claimed TEOS removal rate enhancer (para 29); and a pH in a range about 1-5 or 2-4 (para 7, 28).
Unlike claimed invention, Wu doesn’t teach that the sulfur-based acid to prepare the anionic colloidal silica particles is a sulfonic acid. Tansho teaches a method for preparing anionic colloidal silica particles with sulfonic acid group (page 17). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to prepare the anionic colloidal silica particles using sulfonic acid in light of Tansho because it is a sulfur-based acid that also taught by Wu. This would provide anionic colloidal silica particles for the CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 4, Wu describes the amino acid concentration is up to 1wt% (para 27).
With respect to claim 9, the amino acids are the same as that of claimed invention, including arginine, lysine, and histidine; therefore, it would have the same PI of at least 7.5.
With respect to claims 10, 11, 13 Wu teaches the abrasives have an average particle size from about 5-300nm (para 13), the amount of abrasive particles are from 0.02 wt% to 20 wt%, or 0.02-10 wt%, or 0.05-5 wt%, or 0.1-3wt% (para 14), the hydrogen peroxide is from 0.05 to 2 wt% (para 35), which overlap claimed mean particle size from 15-80nm and particle concentration range from 0.5 to 5 wt%. 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 average abrasive particle size, abrasive particle concentration, hydrogen peroxide in a range including claimed range to provide a CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claims 14, 15, Wu teaches the pH adjusting agents include nitric acid, phosphoric acid (para 29).
With respect to claims 16-19, Wu further teaches a step of polishing a substrate having a molybdenum layer using the CMP composition (claim 17). Wu further shows an example where the molybdenum removal rate (A/min) is 1079, molybdenum static eth rate is 10, which provides a ratio of removal rate/etch rate of 107. The substrate further includes the TEOS layer (para 94, 95, table 10).
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Tansho as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2017/0292039A1).
With respect to claim 6, Wu doesn’t teach that the ammonium salt or claimed TEOS removal rate enhancer is selected from ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate and the ammonium salt is from 0.05 to 1 wt%. However, these ammonium salts are known bases and used by one skilled in the art in a CMP composition as shown here by Sato at concentration from 0.01 wt% to 5 wt%, for example 0.5 wt% ammonium nitrate (para 36, 37, 51, 52, table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such known compounds at a pH in a range such as 0.05 to 1 wt% in light of Sato because Sato teaches these ammonium salts at such ranges can improve polishing rate of a polishing object and (para 37, 38) also ammonium salt is also used for adjusting pH (para 44, 51, 52) to provide a 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