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 of Group II, a method, in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 6, 8, and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "component (A)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 will be examined as if Claim 5 read: “The polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the polishing liquid comprises component (A), wherein component (A) is a polyglycerol.”
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "component (B)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8 and 9 will be examined as if Claim 7 read: “The polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the polishing liquid comprises component (B), wherein component (B) is a compound having two or more nitrogen atoms to which a hydroxyalkyl group is bonded.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US-20170210958-A1) in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shinoda teaches a polishing method comprising a step of polishing a surface to be polished of a member to be polished containing glass by using a polishing liquid (Paragraph [0174] method of polishing a substrate, where a surface of the substrate is polished. Paragraph [0189] substrate can include glass. Paragraph [0004] an insulating material, such as BPSG, HDP-SiO.sub.2 and p-TEOS can be on the substrate and polished), wherein a pH of the polishing liquid is 3.0 or more (Paragraph [0157] pH of the polishing liquid is preferably 3.0 or more).
Shinoda fails to explicitly teach that the member contains undoped silicate glass.
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Shinoda by selecting as the insulating material an undoped silicate glass, as taught by Minamitani.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the insulating material taught by Shinoda with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the pH is 3.0 to 8.0 (Paragraph [0157] pH of the polishing liquid is preferably 3.0 or more. Paragraph [0042] pH of the polishing liquid is preferably less than 8.0).
Shinoda fails to explicitly teach wherein the pH is 3.5 to 8.0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pH at a level within the disclosed range of 3.0 to 8.0, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 3.5 to 8.0. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the polishing liquid comprises abrasive grains (Paragraphs [0021-0022] polishing liquid comprises abrasive grains).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the abrasive grains contain a cerium-based compound (Paragraphs [0021-0022] polishing liquid comprises cerium oxide particles as the abrasive grains).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the polishing liquid comprises (A) a polyglycerol (Paragraphs [0154-0155] composition can include a surfactant, that can be polyoxypropylene glyceryl ether, polyethylene glycol, methoxypolyethylene glycol, or polyoxyethylene glycerol borate fatty acid ester, which could be considered polyglycerol).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the polishing liquid comprises a 4-pyrone-based compound represented by General Formula (1) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
179
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[in the formula, X13 are each independently a hydrogen atom or a monovalent substituent.] (Paragraphs [0096-0097] polishing liquid comprises a "first additive" which is a 4-pyrone-based compound represented by taught "Chemical Formula 4" which is identical to the claimed "Chemical Formula 1").
Regarding Claim 11, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the 4- pyrone-based compound includes at least one selected from the group consisting of 3-hydroxy-2- methyl-4-pyrone, 5-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-4-pyrone, and 2-ethyl-3 -hydroxy-4-pyrone (Paragraph [0103] taught "first additive" can be 3-hydroxy-2- methyl-4-pyrone , 5-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-4-pyrone , or 2-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-pyrone).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein a content of the 4-pyrone-based compound is 0.001 to 5% by mass (Paragraph [0105] content of the "first additive" is 0.001-5% by mass).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the polishing liquid comprises a saturated monocarboxylic acid (Paragraph [0045] polishing liquid comprises a saturated monocarboxylic acid).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches a method for manufacturing a component, comprising: obtaining a component by using a polished member polished by the polishing method according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0189] substrate obtained from polishing can be an electronic component).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor component, comprising: obtaining a semiconductor component by using a polished member polished by the polishing method according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0189] substrate obtained from polishing can be an electronic component and can include a semiconductor element).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein an average particle diameter of the abrasive grains is 125 nm or more (Paragraph [0078] average particle diameter of the abrasive grains is "much more preferably 130nm or more").
Regarding Claim 18, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 3 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein a content of the abrasive grains is 0.01 to 4% by mass (Paragraph [0093] content of the abrasive grain is "preferably 0.05 mass % or more" and " particularly preferably 3 mass % or less").
Regarding Claim 19, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein a content of the 4-pyrone-based compound is 0.001 to 0.8% by mass (Paragraph [0105] content of the "first additive" is "preferably 0.001 mass %" and "particularly preferably 0.50 mass % or less).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Shinoda further teaches wherein the polishing liquid comprises an acid component, and a content of the acid component is 0.001 to 0.4% by mass (Paragraphs [0148-0150] composition includes saturated monocarboxylic acid as "fourth additive" which is included at "preferably 0.001 mass % or more" and "very preferably 0.1 mass % or less").
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda in view of Minamitani, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Hanano et al. (US-20120315763-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as outlined above.
Shinoda fails to teach wherein a content of the component (A) is 0.00 1 to 10% by mass.
Hanano teaches a polishing liquid and method of polishing (Paragraph [0001]). Hanano teaches that the polishing liquid comprises a nonionic surfactant (Paragraph [0014]) that can be a polyglycol containing surfactant (Paragraphs [0044-0048]) and that a nonionic surfactant is included in the polishing liquid at 0.05-0.5% by mass (Paragraph [0072]). Hanano teaches that the polishing liquid can be used on a substrate where a silicon oxide film or glass is present (Paragraph [0089]). Hanano teaches that the polishing liquid can have a pH between 1.5 and 9.0 (Paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Shinoda by selecting the amount of polyglycerol within the composition to be within the range taught by Hanano.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because one skilled in the art would have had to select some amount to include this component, and Hanano teaches a similar composition that can be used in similar applications. This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have provided a suitable amount of polyglycerol within the composition for use within a polishing method. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Minamitani, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US-20200071566-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Shinoda fails to teach wherein the polishing liquid comprises (B) a compound having two or more nitrogen atoms to which a hydroxyalkyl group is bonded.
Park teaches a slurry composition for a polishing process (Paragraph [0002]). Park teaches that the composition comprises an amine compound (Paragraph [0022]), which can be N,N,N′N′-tetrakis(2-hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine (Paragraph [0036]). Park teaches that the amine compound inhibits dishing (Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Shinoda by further including within the polishing liquid be N,N,N′N′-tetrakis(2-hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine, as taught by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Park teaches that such amine compounds help improve polishing results by inhibiting dishing (Paragraph [0038]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a polishing liquid that would have been suitable for the following polishing steps within the method. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as outlined above. Park further teaches wherein the component (B) includes an ethylenedinitrilotetrapropanol (Park teaches including the amine compound N,N,N′N′-tetrakis(2-hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine, which is another name for ethylenedinitrilotetrapropanol).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Shinoda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as outlined above. Park further teaches wherein a content of the component (B) is 0.001 to 5% by mass (Paragraph [0037] the amine compound can be included in the composition at 0.001-1% by mass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Shinoda by including N,N,N′N′-tetrakis(2-hydroxypropyl) ethylenediamine, within the range taught by Park.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because one would have had to select an amount to include the amine compound taught by Park and Park teaches that such amine compounds help improve polishing results by inhibiting dishing (Paragraph [0038]), and teaches that this range is suitable for achieving those improved polishing results. Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a polishing liquid that would have been suitable for the following polishing steps within the method. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 17-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 18-19 of copending Application No. 18857352 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 6 and 8 of ‘352
Instant Claim 5 is obvious in view of Claims 18 and 19 of ‘352
Instant Claim 17 is obvious in view of Claim 4 of ‘352
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 5 of ‘352
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-9 of copending Application No. 18861450 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 7, 8 and 9 of ‘450
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 6 of ‘450
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6, and 9 of copending Application No. 18860045 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 6 and 9 of ‘045
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘045
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 14-15, and 17 of copending Application No. 18857078 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 12 and 14-15 of ‘078
Instant Claim 17 is obvious in view of Claim 17 of ‘078
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7, and 19 of copending Application No. 18856989 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1 and 5-7 of ‘989
Instant Claim 17 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘989
Instant Claim 5 is obvious in view of Claim 19 of ‘989
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, and 12-14 of copending Application No. 18859751 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1 and 12-14 of ‘751
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘751
Instant Claim 5 is obvious in view of Claim 9 of ‘751
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 16-17 of copending Application No. 18857665 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 14, and 16-17 of ‘665
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-12, and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 12, and 16-17 of copending Application No. 18857736 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4, 10 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 6, and 16-17 of ‘736
Instant Claim 7 is obvious in view of Claim 12 of ‘736
Instant Claim 11 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘736
Instant Claim 12 is obvious in view of Claim 3 of ‘736
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 10, and 14-17 of copending Application No. 18861003 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 10, and 14-17 of ‘003
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘003
Instant Claims 7 and 8 are obvious in view of Claim 5 of ‘003
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 15-16, and 18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 15-19 of copending Application No. 18856974 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15-16 are obvious in view of Claims 1 and 15-19 of ‘974
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 11 of ‘974
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 15-16, and 18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 18857335 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 5-6, and 15 of ‘335
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 17 of ‘335
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 12-13 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 14-17 of copending Application No. 18294889 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-4, 7, 10 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 14, and 15-17 of ‘889
Instant Claims 7-8 are obvious in view of Claim 5 of ‘889
Instant Claim 9 is obvious in view of Claim 6 of ‘889
Instant Claim 12 is obvious in view of Claim 3 of ‘889
Instant Claim 13 is obvious in view of Claim 7 of ‘889
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-7, and 9 of copending Application No. 18264534 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1, 2-3, and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 of ‘534
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 5 of ‘534
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12709699 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-3, 5, and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1 and 9-10 of ‘699
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 6 of ‘699
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12565599 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 8, and 10-12 of ‘599
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12522748 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 12, and 15-17 of ‘748
Instant Claim 5 is obvious in view of Claim 5 of ‘748
Instant Claim 6 is obvious in view of Claim 11 of ‘748
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12247140 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 5-6, and 15 of ‘140
Instant Claim 17 is obvious in view of Claim 9 of ‘140
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 12 of ‘140
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12098300 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 2, and 14-17 of ‘300
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 8 of ‘300
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 13 of ‘300
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11999875 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 10-11, and 16-17 of ‘875
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 6 of ‘875
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 7 of ‘875
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11767448 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-3 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1, 12, and 22-27 of ‘448
Instant Claim 4 is obvious in view of Claim 2 of ‘448
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1-4, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11702569 in view of Minamitani et al. (US-20230023523-A1).
Instant Claims 1-4 and 15 are obvious in view of Claims 1 and 7-8 of ‘569
Instant Claim 18 is obvious in view of Claim 3 of ‘569
Minamitani teaches semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Teaches that silicon oxide, which can be an undoped silicate glass, can be used as an insulating material (Paragraph [0229]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claims by selecting an undoped silicate glass as the silicon oxide, as taught by Minamitani. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the silicon oxide material with undoped silicate glass taught by Minamitani since undoped silicate glass is known as an insulating material suitable for use in semiconductor devices and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights