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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the CMP slurry" and “the pH adjuster” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of the examination, it is assumed that claim 14 depends on the 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) 1-7 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (US 2022/0135840).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng et al disclose a polishing composition comprises abrasive particles, at least one organic acid, at least one first amine compound at least one second amine compound, and the remaining percent by weight (e.g., from about 30% to about 99.99% by weight) of an aqueous solvent (e.g., deionized water) [0011]; at least one (e.g., two or three) pH adjustor [0026].
Cheng et al disclose that the polishing composition further comprises at least one optional additive selected from the group consisting of an azole compound, an oxidizer, a chelating agent, a surfactant, a corrosion inhibitor, and a water-soluble polymer [0032], wherein the azole compound includes benzotriazole, tetrazole, imidazole, etc. [0033], which corresponds to the claimed “heterocyclic compound”; and wherein the chelating agent comprises tartaric acid [0037], which corresponds to the claimed “antioxidant”; and the water-soluble polymer comprises polyvinyl alcohol [0045], which corresponds to the claimed “surface protective agent”. The polishing composition also comprises an oxidizing agent, is not particularly limited, but specific examples thereof include ammonium persulfate, potassium persulfate, hydrogen peroxide, ferric nitrate, diammonium cerium nitrate, iron sulfate, hypochlorous acid, ozone, potassium periodate, and peracetic acid [0035]; and aforesaid “ferric nitrate” corresponds to the claimed “nitrogen compound”.
Note: The preamble " a CMP slurry composition for polishing a copper barrier layer" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. Claims directed to a product must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997) [MPEP 2114]. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Since the product (composition) of the prior art teaches all of the components or ingredients of the claim, the product is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng et al disclose that the abrasive is a silica-based abrasive, such as one selected from the group consisting of colloidal silica [0016]; and the abrasive described herein can have a mean particle size of from at least about 1 nm (e.g., at least about 5 nm, at least about 10 nm, at least about 20 nm [0017], so they are nanoscale silica particles dispersed in a solvent [0029].
Regarding claim 3, Cheng et al disclose that the abrasive is in an amount of from at least about 1.2%, at least about 1.5%, at least about 1.8%, or at least about 2%) by weight to at most about 50% (e.g., at most about 45%, at most about 40%, at most about 35%, at most about 30%, at most about 25%, at most about 20%, at most about 15% [0018].
Regarding claim 4, Cheng et al disclose that the abrasive described herein can have a mean particle size of from at least about at least about 50 nm, at least about 60 nm, at least about 80 nm, or at least about 100 nm) to at most about 1000 nm [0017].
Regarding claim 5, Cheng et al disclose that the azole compound includes benzotriazole, tetrazole, imidazole, etc. [0033].
Regarding claim 6, Cheng et al disclose that the polishing composition also comprises an oxidizing agent, is not particularly limited, but specific examples thereof include ammonium persulfate, potassium persulfate, hydrogen peroxide, ferric nitrate (in other words iron nitrate)[0035].
Regarding claim 7, Cheng et al disclose that the oxidizing agent t(ferric nitrate) can be from at least about 0.05% (e.g., at least about 0.1%, at least about 0.2%, at least about 0.3%, at least about 0.4%, at least about 0.5%, at least about 0.6%, at least about 0.7%, at least about 0.8%, at least about 0.9%, at least about 1%, at least about 1.5%, or at least about 2%) by weight to at most about 10% [0036].
Regarding claim 9, Cheng et al disclose that the at least one organic acid or a salt thereof is in an amount of from at least about 0.001% (e.g., at least about 0.003%, at least about 0.005%, at least about 0.01%, at least about 0.03%, at least about 0.05%, at least about 0.1%, at least about 0.3%, at least about 0.5%, at least about 1%, at least about 1.3%, or at least about 1.5%) by weight to at most about 10% (e.g., at least about 9%, at least about 8%, at least about 7%, at least about 6%, at least about 5%, at least about 4%, at least about 3% [0020].
Regarding claim 10, Cheng et al disclose that the polishing composition comprises a water-soluble polymer including polyvinyl alcohol [0045], which corresponds to the claimed “surface protective agent”.
Regarding claim 11, Cheng et al disclose that the water-soluble polymer can be from at least about 0.01% (e.g., at least about 0.02%, at least about 0.03%, at least about 0.04%, at least about 0.05%, at least about 0.06%, at least about 0.07%, at least about 0.08%, at least about 0.09%, or at least about 0.1%) by weight to at most about 1% (e.g., at most about 0.8%, at most about 0.6%, at most about 0.5%, at most about 0.4% by weight [0046].
Regarding claim 12, Cheng et al disclose that the composition comprises the chelating agent comprises tartaric acid [0037], which corresponds to the claimed “antioxidant”.
Regarding claim 13, Cheng et al disclose that the chelating agent (corresponding to the antioxidant) can be from at least about 0.001% (e.g., at least about 0.002%, at least about 0.003%, at least about 0.004%, at least about 0.005%, at least about 0.006%, at least about 0.007%, at least about 0.008%, at least about 0.009%, or at least about 0.01%) by weight to at most about 10% (e.g., at most about 8%, at most about 6%, at most about 5%, at most about 4%, at most about 2%, at most about 1%, at most about 0.8%, at most about 0.6%, or at most about 0.5%) by weight of the polishing compositions [0038].
Regarding claim 14, Cheng et al disclose that the pH adjusting agent may include acid (nitric acid) or base sodium hydroxide (NaOH), etc. [0026].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al (US 2022/0135840) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Cheng et al disclose that the polishing compositions described herein include at least one (e.g., two or three) organic acid or a salt of the organic acid. In one or more embodiments, the organic acid (or salts thereof) can be selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid includes one or more (e.g., two, three, or four) carboxylic acid groups, such as a dicarboxylic acid or a tricarboxylic acid. In some embodiments, the organic acid or salts thereof can be an amino acid including a carboxylic acid group. In one or more embodiments, the organic acid is selected from the group consisting of gluconic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, glycolic acid, malonic acid, formic acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, peracetic acid, succinic acid, lactic acid, amino acetic acid, etc. and mixture thereof [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of claimed invention was made to select any combination of the organic acid, including a carboxylic acid and an amino acid as taught by Cheng et al, because it has been held that "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 15, Cheng et al disclose that the pH of the composition can have a pH ranging from at least about 2 to at most about 11 [0028], which overlaps the claimed range of 9-12; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16-17, Cheng et al disclose the removal rate for molybdenum can be from at least about 500 Å/min (e.g., at least about 750 Å/min, at least about 1000 Å/min, at least about 1250 Å/min, at least about 1500 Å/min, at least about 1750 Å/min, or at least about 2000 Å/min) to at most about 10000 Å/min. In one or more embodiments, the removal rates and ratios described above can be applicable when measuring removal rates for polishing either blanket wafers or patterned wafers (e.g., wafers including conductive layers, barrier layers, and/or dielectric layers) [0048].
Additionally, the polishing target film and the polishing selectivity is purely an intended use of the product and that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. Claims directed to a product must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997) [MPEP 2114]. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al (US 2006/0175298) disclose a polishing compositions and methods for removing barrier materials from a substrate surface, the composition comprises nitrogen -containing compound, pH adjustor to have pH of about 3-11, organic acid and solvent [0101], [0116], corrosion inhibitor (benzotriazole (BTA) [0124], suitable abrasive of colloidal silica having particle size of about 1 nm and about 1,000 nm [0132]; oxidizing agent of nitrate salts (such as cerium nitrate, iron nitrate, ammonium nitrate) [0142]; organic acid of citric acid, tartaric acid, etc.[0153] and the balance or remainder of the bulk polishing composition described above is a solvent, such as a polar solvent, including water, preferably deionized water [0173].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
