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 1-2 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 doesn’t have a clear preamble and a claim body. There are no positive steps for a selection method for abrasive grains. An example for claim 1 would be: a preamble of “a selection method for abrasive grains comprising:” follows by a claim body including steps for selecting the abrasive grains.
Claim 2 is rejected for depending rejected claim 1.
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) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (WO2022070923A1).
With respect to claim 1 and 2, Kubota describes a for providing a CMP slurry comprising selecting cerium oxide abrasive grains wherein the abrasive grains having a position lifetime of 0.3650 ns or less and “the position lifetime required for the positron emitted from 22 Na to annihilate with the electron, and is used as a probe for ultrafine voids such as lattice defects and free volumes on the order of sub-nanometer to nanometer. can. That is, the shorter the positron lifetime, the higher the density of the particles” (page 2) or claimed abrasive grains are selected on the basis of a short-life component value of a positron lifetime measured by a positron annihilation method.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kishimoto et al. (JP 2006116617A).
With respect to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-15 Kishimoto teaches a method for producing cerium oxide abrasive grains including providing a cerium hydroxide as cerium source and a step of heat-treating the precipitate from cerium hydroxide at temperature at 800 degrees C and the cerium oxide is selected to produce a dispersion including water (page 4). The heating temperature is within claimed invention for processing firing temperature of the cerium source between 600-900 degrees C as described in the specification in paragraphs 18, and 19. Paragraph 19 of the application’s specification describes “as the firing temperature of the cerium source when a raw material (raw material for obtaining abrasive grains) containing cerium is obtained is higher, there is a tendency that the positron Lifetime is smaller (shorter)”; therefore, it is expected that the cerium oxide abrasive grains from Kishimoto’s method would have a short-life component value of a positron lifetime as measured by a positron annihilation method is 190 ps or less, 100-190ps, 180ps or less, or 165ps or less.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yin (CN106915761A).
With respect to claims 1-4, 13-15 Yin teaches a method for producing cerium oxide abrasive grains including providing a crystalline state carbonic acid cerium precursor as cerium source and a step of roasting the cerium precursor at temperature at a temperature in the range of 500-900 degrees C and the cerium oxide is selected to produce a CMP polishing liquid, which would contain water (abs., claims 1, 10, 11). The heating temperature is within claimed invention for processing firing temperature of the cerium source between 600-900 degrees C as described in the specification in paragraphs 18, and 19. Paragraph 19 of the application’s specification describes “as the firing temperature of the cerium source when a raw material (raw material for obtaining abrasive grains) containing cerium is obtained is higher, there is a tendency that the positron Lifetime is smaller (shorter)” therefore, it is expected that the cerium oxide abrasive grains from Yin’s method would have a short-life component value of a positron lifetime as measured by a positron annihilation method is 190 ps or less, 100-190ps, 180ps or less, or 165ps or less.
With respect to claims 9-12, Yin further teaches using the polishing liquid to polish a STI structure (a semiconductor structure) comprising TEOS or silicon oxide (abs., page 4).
With respect to claims 16-18, the polishing fluid slurry contains 0.5 wt% of cerium oxide abrasive grains and a pH at 5 (page 4).
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) 3, 4, 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (WO2022070923A1).
With respect to claims 3, 4, 13-15 Kubota describes a for providing a CMP slurry comprising selecting cerium oxide abrasive grains wherein the abrasive grains having a position lifetime of 0.3650 ns or less or 365ps or less and “the position lifetime required for the positron emitted from 22 Na to annihilate with the electron, and is used as a probe for ultrafine voids such as lattice defects and free volumes on the order of sub-nanometer to nanometer. can. That is, the shorter the positron lifetime, the higher the density of the particles” (page 2) or claimed a short-life component value of a positron lifetime measured by a positron annihilation method.
Unlike claimed invention, Kubota doesn’t describe the positron lifetime value is 190ps or less, 100 to 190ps, 180ps or less, 165ps or less. However, his teaching of 365 ps or less would include those under 190ps and he describes that “the shorter the positron lifetime, the higher the density of the particles (page 2). 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 range, depending on a desired density of the particles, to provide a CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 7, the cerium oxide is derived from cerium hydroxide and the polishing composition includes water (abs.).
With respect to claim 8, Kubota further teaches liquid a, which contains the abrasive grains and water mixing with liquid b which would contain other additives and water as he describes “the content of abrasive grains in the slurry according to the present embodiment can be adjusted by diluting or concentrating the slurry. For example, the dispersion liquid A having an abrasive grain content of 5.0% by mass is diluted 2-fold (mixed with the same amount of pure water as the dispersion liquid A) and then heated (for example, heated at 40 ° C. for 14 hours). The dispersion liquid A and the dispersion liquid B can give the same parameter Y to the dispersion liquid B prepared by mixing pure water and adjusting the content of the abrasive grains to 5.0% by mass. The ratio of the content of other additives (components other than the abrasive grains and water, for example, compound X) to the content of the abrasive grains in the dispersion is the same as that of the slurry.” (page 6).
With respect to claims 9-12 Kubota describes polishing a silicon oxide surface using the polishing composition in the manufacturing of a semiconductor component (abs.; page 2).
With respect to claim 16-20, the pH is from 1 to 12 and abrasive grains content is from 0.01 to 10 wt% (page 3, 5). 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 rangea, to provide a pH and the abrasive grains for the CMP composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of PubChem (1,2,3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-,cerium(3+) salt (1:1)).
With respect to claim 5, Kubota doesn’t describe the cerium oxide derived from a cerium complex of trimesic acid. However, cerium complex of trimesic acid such as 1,2,3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-,cerium(3+) salt (1:1) is a known compound as shown here by PubChem. Therefore, in the absent of an expected results, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any known cerium source including any cerium complex of trimesic acid in order to make cerium oxide.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kishimoto et al. (JP2006116617A).
With respect to claim 6, Kubota doesn’t describe the cerium oxide derived from a cerium hydroxide. However, making cerium oxide abrasives from cerium hydroxide compound is known as shown here by Kishimoto (page 2). Therefore, in the absent of an expected results, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any known cerium source including cerium hydroxide in order to make cerium oxide for the polishing composition.
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
7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights