DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the formula “-SO-3-M+” (superscript on number “3”) appears to be a typo for “ -SO3-M+ ” (subscript on number “3”) . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. (WO 2021/095412 A1), English translation via Yamada et al. (US 2022/0389280 A1).
Note: All paragraphs [number] cited below are based on Yamada et al. (US 2022/0389280 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamada discloses a composition for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
(A) abrasive grains (paragraph [0026]);
(B) a liquid medium (paragraph [0044]-[0045]);
(C) an oxidizing agent (paragraph [0048]-[0049] and
(D) a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, (paragraph [0067]-[0068])
wherein an absolute value of a zeta potential of (A) in the composition for chemical mechanical polishing is 10 mV or more (paragraph [0036]:
and the content of oxidizing agent is between 0.1 to 5 % by mass, preferably 0.3 to 4% by mass (paragraph [0051]; and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is between 0.001 to 0.1% by mass (paragraph [0069]).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 0.1% and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.001%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to the mass% nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.1% / 0.001% = 100 (within applicant’s claimed range of 100 to 200).
As to claim 4, Yamada discloses the abrasive (A) has a functional group represented by General Formula -COO-M+, wherein M+ represents a monovalent cation (paragraph [0026]-[0029].
As to claim 5, Yamada discloses the zeta potential of (A) in the composition for chemical mechanical polishing is -10 mV or less (paragraph [0036])
As to claim 8, Yamada discloses the composition has a pH of 2 or more and 5 or less (paragraph [0072]-[0073], within applicant’s claimed range of “1 or more and 6 or less”).
As to claim 9, Yamada discloses the abrasive (A) content is 0.1% by mass or more, preferably 0.5 by mass, or 1% by mass or 10% by mass or more (paragraph [0037], within applicant’s claimed range of 0.005 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less).
As to claim 10, Yamada discloses component (D) has an azole structure (paragraph [0067]-[0068]).
As to claim 11, Yamada discloses a polishing method, comprising a step of polishing a semiconductor substrate by using the composition for chemical mechanical polishing as claimed in claim 1 (See paragraph[0082]-[0095]).
6. Claims 1-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Granstrom (US 2022/0315800 A1).
As to claim 1, Granstrom discloses a composition for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
(A) abrasive grains (paragraph [0081]-[0086]);
(B) a liquid medium (i.e. water paragraph [0019]-[0020]; [0097]-[0098]);
(C) an oxidizing agent (paragraph [0101], [0104] and
(D) a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, (paragraph [0102]);
wherein an absolute value of a zeta potential of (A) in the composition for chemical mechanical polishing is 10 mV or more (paragraph [0086])
and the content of oxidizing agent is between 0.1 mass% to 10 mass%, preferably 0.25 mass% to 3 mass% (paragraph [0104]; and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is between 0.0005 mass% to 0.25 mass%, preferably 0.05 mass% to 0.1 mass% (paragraph [0102]).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 10 mass % and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.05 mass%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 10 % / 0.05% = 200 (within applicant’s claimed range of 100 to 200).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 0.1 mass % and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.0005 mass%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.1 % / 0.0005% = 200 (within applicant’s claimed range of 100 to 200).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 0.25 mass % and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.0025 mass%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.25 % / 0.0025% = 100 (within applicant’s claimed range of 100 to 200).
As to claim 2, Granstrom discloses the abrasive (A) has a sulfonic acid functional group (paragraph [0084]-[0085]). It is well known in the art that sulfonic acid has a formula structure of -SO3-M+ where M+ represents a monovalent cations (Note: H+ is M+; See evidences Wikipedia, “Sulfonic Acid” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonic_acid ).
As to claim 3, Granstrom discloses the zeta potential of (A) in the composition is -10 mV or less (paragraph [0086]).
As to claim 4, Granstrom discloses the abrasive (A) has a carboxylic acid functional group (paragraph [0084]-[0085]). It is well known in the art that carboxylic acid has a formula structure of -COO-M+ where M+ represents a monovalent cations (Note: H+ is M+; See evidence Wikipedia, “Carboxylic Acid” via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboxylic_acid ).
As to claim 5, Granstrom discloses the zeta potential of (A) in the composition is -10 mV or less (paragraph [0086]).
As to claim 8, Granstrom discloses the composition has a pH of 3 to 7, or 4 to 6 (paragraph [0076], within applicant’s claimed range of “1 or more and 6 or less”).
As to claim 9, Granstrom discloses the abrasive (A) content is 0.0.1 mass% or more, or 0.05 mass% or more, or 0.25 mass% or more or 5 mass% or more (paragraph [0088], within applicant’s claimed range of 0.005 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less).
As to claim 10, Granstrom discloses component (D) has an azole structure (paragraph [0102]).
As to claim 11, Granstrom discloses a polishing method, comprising a step of polishing a semiconductor substrate by using the composition for chemical mechanical polishing as claimed in claim 1 (See paragraph[0006], [0021], [0134]-[0135]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2021/117428 A1), English translation via Nishimura et al. (US 2023/0002640 A1), in view of Kamimura et al (US 2022/0098444 A1).
Note: All paragraphs [number] in Nishimura cited below are based on US 2023/0002640.
As to claim 1, Nishimura discloses a composition for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
(A) abrasive grains (paragraph [0008], [0010]-[0020], [0034]-[0068]);
(B) a liquid medium (paragraph [0069]-[0070]);
(C) an oxidizing agent (paragraph [0075]-[0078] and
(D) a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound, (paragraph [0081]-[0083]
wherein an absolute value of a zeta potential of (A) in the composition for chemical mechanical polishing is 10 mV or more (paragraph [0014], [0017], [0020], [0036]:
and the content of oxidizing agent is at 5 mass% or 4 mass% (paragraph [0076]-[00078]);
As to claim 1, Nishimura fails to disclose the ratio of mass% of (C) to mass% of D equals to 100 to 200. However, Nishimura clearly teaches to use component (C) at 0.1 mass%, or 5 mass% or 4 mass%. Nishimura fails to discloses the mass% of component (D). Kamimura teaches to use component (D) (i.e. nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound) at the amount of 0.001 mass% or 0.01 mass% (See paragraph 0183-0185).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 0.1 mass % and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.001 mass%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.1 % / 0.001% = 100 (within applicant’s claimed range of 100 to 200).
When the content of oxidizing agent is 4 mass % and the content of nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 0.01 mass%, then
the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is 4 % / 0.01% = 400.
Therefore, the combination of Nishimura and Kamimura teaches the mass% ratio of oxidizing agent to nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound is between 100 to 400 (overlapping applicant’s range of 100 to 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nishimura in view of Kamimura by having the mass% ratio of component (C) to component (D) between 100 to 200 because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As to claim 2, Nishimura discloses component (A) has a functional group represented by formula (1) as follow:
-SO3-M+ (1)
Where M+ represents a monovalent cation (See paragraph [0044]-[0045]).
As to claim 3, Nishimura discloses the zeta potential of (A) in the composition is -10 mV or less (paragraph [0014], [0017], [0047]).
As to claim 4, Nishimura discloses component (A) has a functional group represented by formula (2) as follow:
-COO-M+ (2)
Where M+ represents a monovalent cation (See paragraph [0049]-[0051]).
As to claim 5, Nishimura discloses the zeta potential of (A) in the composition is -10 mV or less (paragraph [0014], [0017], [0047]).
As to claim 6, Nishimura discloses component (A) has a functional group represented by formula (3) and (4) as follow:
-NR1R2 (3)
-N+R1R2R3M- (4)
wherein in General Formula (3) and General Formula (4), R1, R2, and R3 each independently represent a hydrogen atom, or a substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbon group, and M- represents an anion (See paragraph [0055]-[0058]).
As to claim 7, Nishimura discloses wherein the zeta potential of (A) in the composition for chemical mechanical polishing is +10 mV or more (paragraph [0020], [0036], [0067]).
As to claim 8, Nishimura discloses the composition has a pH of 1 or more and 6 or less (paragraph [0021], [0040]).
As to claim 9, Nishimura discloses a content of (A) is 0.1 mass% or more and 10 mass% or less, including example of 0.1 mass%, or 0.5 mass%, or 5 mass%, or 10 mass% (paragraph [0048], [0054], within applicant’s claimed range of 0.005 mass% or more and 15 mass% or less.
As to claim 10, Nishimura discloses wherein (D) has an azole structure (See paragraph [0082]).
As to claim 11, Nishimura discloses a polishing method, comprising a step of polishing a semiconductor substrate by using the composition for chemical mechanical polishing as claimed in claim 1 (See abstract, paragraph [0024]).
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2021/095412 A1), English translation via Yamada et al. (US 2022/0389280 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2014069260 A).
As to claim 12, Yamada fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing silver. However, Yamada clearly discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten (abstract). Suzuki discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten or silver (paragraph [0014], [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamada in view of Suzuki by using a semiconductor substrate contain silver because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granstrom (US 2022/0315800 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2014069260 A).
As to claim 12, Granstrom fails to disclose the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing silver. However, Granstrom clearly discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten (paragraph [0003], [0136]). Suzuki discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten or silver (paragraph [0014], [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Granstrom in view of Suzuki by using a semiconductor substrate contain silver because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (WO 2021/117428 A1), English translation via Nishimura et al. (US 2023/0002640 A1), in view of Kamimura et al (US 2022/0098444 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2014069260 A).
As to claim 12, Nishimura and Kamimura fail to disclose the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing silver. However, Nishimura clearly discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten (paragraph 0097). Suzuki discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a portion containing metal such as tungsten or silver (paragraph [0014], [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nishimura and Kamimura in view of Suzuki by using a semiconductor substrate contain silver because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights