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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an inconsistency between the data presented in table 1 and the description on page 7 of the specification of the claimed invention: table 1 shows a lower polishing rate for the silica slurry compared to the ceria slurry, whereas page 7 describes the inverse relationship. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, substitution of “a maximum sound absorption coefficient” for --the maximum sound absorption coefficient-- is deemed appropriate to overcome the issue of lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 2, the claim is rendered indefinite because “the maximum sound absorption coefficient of 0.05 or more” does not conform to the range of 0.1 or more described in parent claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the content thereof" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The same token applies to claims 7, 8, and 17-20.
As to claim 8, an equivalent ratio of the urethane-based prepolymer and the curing agent in a range of from 1:0.5 to 2 is ambiguous and mathematically confusing because the first part of the range (1:0.5) simplifies to 2, which makes the range look like “2 to 2”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2017064887 to Miyasaka et al. (hereinafter “Miyasaka”).
Miyasaka discloses a polishing pad comprising a polishing layer obtained from a composition comprising a urethane-based prepolymer, a foaming agent and a curing agent (paragraphs 13, 31, and 34). The polishing pad has a maximum sound absorption coefficient of 0.117 as measured at a frequency of 4000 Hz (figure 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
397
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 3 and 4, Miyasaka discloses that the foaming agent is a hollow particle formed by encasing a liquid low-boiling point hydrocarbon in a thermoplastic resin shell comprising vinylidene chloride and acrylonitrile (paragraphs 34 and 35).
As to claim 5, Miyasaka discloses that the hollow particle has an average particle size of 40 microns (figure 5). The polishing pad comprises 2.1 parts by weight of the hollow particle relative to 100 parts of the prepolymer.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Miyasaka discloses that the curing agent is 4,4’-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA) (figure 5).
As to claims 9-11, Miyasaka discloses that the urethane-based prepolymer is prepared by reacting 2,4-toluene diisocyanate, diethylene glycol and polytetramethylene ether glycol (figure 5; and paragraph 52).
As to claim 18, Miyasaka discloses that the polishing pad has a polishing rate of 2166 Å/min or 2265 Å/min (table 6).
As to claim 20, Miyasaka discloses that a process for preparing a semiconductor device, comprises polishing a surface of the semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad (paragraph 66).
Claims 1-6, 9, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0152776 to Yun et al. (hereinafter “Yun”).
As to claims 1, 2 and 19, Yun discloses a polishing pad for use in a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process of semiconductors, comprising a polishing layer obtained from a composition comprising a foaming agent, and a curing agent (paragraph 88).
The foaming agent comprises a solid phase foaming agent which is a thermally expanded microcapsule having an average particle size of 20 to 50 µm (paragraph 113). The thermally expanded microcapsule comprises a thermoplastic resin shell and a volatile liquid encapsulated within the thermoplastic resin shell (paragraph 111). The thermoplastic resin is a vinylidene chloride-based copolymer, an acrylonitrile-based copolymer, a methacrylonitrile-based copolymer and an acrylic-based copolymer (paragraph 111). The solid phase foaming agent is present in an amount of 0.5 to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the urethane-based prepolymer (paragraph 115).
The curing agent is MOCA (paragraph 105) with an equivalent ratio of the urethane-based prepolymer and the curing agent of from 1:0.8 to 1:1.2 (paragraph 95).
The urethane-based prepolymer is prepared by reacting an isocyanate and a polyol (paragraph 101). The isocyanate comprises TDI, phenylene diisocyanate, tolidine diisocyanate, or hexamethylene diisocyanate (paragraph 99). The polyol has a weight average molecular weight of 300 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 100). The urethane-based prepolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 500 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 102). The urethane-based prepolymer has an isocyanate end group (NCO%) of 9.1% by weight (paragraph 185).
The polishing layer has a hardness of 30 shore D to 80 shore D, a tensile strength of 15 to 70 N/mm2, and an elongation of 50 to 200% (paragraphs 166-168).
The polishing layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm, and a specific gravity of 0.6 to 0.9 g/cc (paragraphs 170 and 171).
The polishing layer comprises a plurality of pores formed from the foaming agent, with an average diameter of the pores of 19-22 µm, and a toral area of the pores of 40 to 60% based on the total area of the polishing layer (table 1, examples 1-1 to 1-4).
The polishing layer has a polishing rate of 2700 to 2850 Å/min when a silicone oxide of a silicon wafer is polished (table 1).
A process for preparing a semiconductor device, which comprises polishing a surface of a semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad (paragraphs 234-235).
Yun does not explicitly disclose (i) a maximum sound absorption coefficient of 0.1 or more as measured at a frequency of 500 Hz to 4000 Hz, (ii) the maximum sound absorption coefficient of 0.05 or more as measured at a frequency of 1000 Hz to 1500 Hz, and the maximum sound absorption coefficient of 0.1 or more as measured at a frequency of 1500 Hz to 3000 Hz, and (iii) a polishing rate of 3500 to 4500 Å/min when a silicone oxide of a silicon wafer is polished with a silica slurry.
However, it appears that the polishing pad of Yun meets all structural limitations and chemistry required by the claims.
The polishing pad for use in a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) process of semiconductors, comprises a polishing layer obtained from a composition comprising a foaming agent, and a curing agent (paragraph 88).
The foaming agent comprises a solid phase foaming agent which is a thermally expanded microcapsule having an average particle size of 20 to 50 µm (paragraph 113). The thermally expanded microcapsule comprises a thermoplastic resin shell and a volatile liquid encapsulated within the thermoplastic resin shell (paragraph 111). The thermoplastic resin is a vinylidene chloride-based copolymer, an acrylonitrile-based copolymer, a methacrylonitrile-based copolymer and an acrylic-based copolymer (paragraph 111). The solid phase foaming agent is present in an amount of 0.5 to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the urethane-based prepolymer (paragraph 115).
The curing agent is MOCA (paragraph 105) with an equivalent ratio of the urethane-based prepolymer and the curing agent of from 1:0.8 to 1:1.2 (paragraph 95).
The urethane-based prepolymer is prepared by reacting an isocyanate and a polyol (paragraph 101). The isocyanate comprises TDI, phenylene diisocyanate, tolidine diisocyanate, or hexamethylene diisocyanate (paragraph 99). The polyol has a weight average molecular weight of 300 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 100). The urethane-based prepolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 500 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 102). The urethane-based prepolymer has an isocyanate end group (NCO%) of 9.1% by weight (paragraph 185).
The polishing layer has a hardness of 30 shore D to 80 shore D, a tensile strength of 15 to 70 N/mm2, and an elongation of 50 to 200% (paragraphs 166-168).
The polishing layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm, and a specific gravity of 0.6 to 0.9 g/cc (paragraphs 170 and 171).
The polishing layer comprises a plurality of pores formed from the foaming agent, with an average diameter of the pores of 19-22 µm, and a toral area of the pores of 40 to 60% based on the total area of the polishing layer (table 1, examples 1-1 to 1-4).
The polishing layer has a polishing rate of 2700 to 2850 Å/min when a silicone oxide of a silicon wafer is polished (table 1).
A process for preparing a semiconductor device, which comprises polishing a surface of a semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad (paragraphs 234-235).
Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the elements (i)-(iii) would inherently be present as like material has like property. This is in line with In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) which holds that if the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the claimed properties or functions will be presumed to be inherent. The burden is shifted to the applicant to show unobvious differences between the claimed product and the prior art product.
As to claims 3-5, Yun discloses that the foaming agent comprises a solid phase foaming agent which is a thermally expanded microcapsule having an average particle size of 20 to 50 µm (paragraph 113). The thermally expanded microcapsule comprises a thermoplastic resin shell and a volatile liquid encapsulated within the thermoplastic resin shell (paragraph 111). The thermoplastic resin is a vinylidene chloride-based copolymer, an acrylonitrile-based copolymer, a methacrylonitrile-based copolymer and an acrylic-based copolymer (paragraph 111). The solid phase foaming agent is present in an amount of 0.5 to 3 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the urethane-based prepolymer (paragraph 115).
As to claim 6, Yun discloses that the curing agent is MOCA (paragraph 105) with an equivalent ratio of the urethane-based prepolymer and the curing agent of from 1:0.8 to 1:1.2 (paragraph 95). In particular, the equivalent ratio of the urethane-based prepolymer and the curing agent is 1:1 (paragraph 192).
As to claims 9, 10, 12 and 13, Yun discloses that the urethane-based prepolymer is prepared by reacting an isocyanate and a polyol (paragraph 101). The isocyanate comprises TDI, phenylene diisocyanate, tolidine diisocyanate, or hexamethylene diisocyanate (paragraph 99). The polyol has a weight average molecular weight of 300 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 100). The urethane-based prepolymer has a weight average molecular weight of 500 to 3000 g/mol (paragraph 102).
As to claim 14, Yun discloses that he urethane-based prepolymer has an isocyanate end group (NCO%) of 9.1% by weight (paragraph 185).
As to claim 16, Yun discloses that the polishing layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 mm, and a specific gravity of 0.6 to 0.9 g/cc (paragraphs 170 and 171).
As to claim 17, Yun discloses that the polishing layer comprises a plurality of pores formed from the foaming agent, with an average diameter of the pores of 19-22 µm, and a toral area of the pores of 40 to 60% based on the total area of the polishing layer (table 1, examples 1-1 to 1-4).
As to claim 18, Yun discloses that the polishing layer has a polishing rate of 2700 to 2850 Å/min when a silicone oxide of a silicon wafer is polished (table 1).
As to claim 20, Yun discloses that a process for preparing a semiconductor device, which comprises polishing a surface of a semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad (paragraphs 234-235).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2021/0162560 to Ahn et al. (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Yun does not explicitly disclose (i) a content of the curing agent in the polishing pad, and (ii) a polyol comprising one selected from the group consisting of polytetramethylene ether glycol, polypropylene ether glycol, ethylene glycol, 1,2-propylene glycol and combinations thereof.
Ahn, however, discloses a polyurethane polishing pad comprising obtained from a composition comprising 55-96.5 parts by weight of a urethane prepolymer, 0.5 to 5 parts by weight of a solid phase foaming agent, and 3-40 parts by weight of a curing agent, based on 100 parts by weight of the composition (paragraph 67). The urethane prepolymer is prepared by reacting TDI and polytetramethylene ether glycol (paragraph 138).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the curing agent of Yun in the polishing pad in an amount disclosed in Ahn, motivated by the desire to obtain great modulus, hardness and polishing performance of the polishing pad.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polyether polyols disclosed in Ahn for the polyol of Yun, because such is an intended use of the material and Ahn provides necessary details to practice the invention of Yun.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun.
Yun discloses that the polishing layer has a hardness of 30 shore D to 80 shore D, a tensile strength of 15 to 70 N/mm2, and an elongation of 50 to 200% (paragraphs 166-168).
The hardness, the tensile strength and the elongation encompass the claimed ranges.
In the case, where the claimed ranges overlap or touch the range disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The claim is not rendered unobvious because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Difference in the hardness, tensile strength and elongation will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that the hardness, tensile strength and elongation are critical or provide unexpected results.
Therefore, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hardness, tensile strength and elongation in the ranges instantly claimed, motivated by the desire to provide a polishing pad which excellent in polishing performance. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which holds discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights