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
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/26.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2008/0254628 to Boggs et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Boggs et al. teaches a polishing composition comprising: at least one abrasive (Paragraph 52-54); at least one pH adjuster selected from the group consisting of an acid, a base, or a mixture thereof (Paragraphs 15, 60, 64, 72, 73); at least one guanamine compound (Paragraph 58) such as 2,4-diamino-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazine, wherein the guanamine compound comprises a structure of formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
218
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I) or a salt thereof, wherein R is a group that comprises an optionally substituted aliphatic (e.g., optionally substituted alkyl), optionally substituted aromatic (e.g., optionally substituted aryl), or optionally substituted heterocyclic (e.g., optionally substituted triazinyl), or optionally substituted aromatic-aliphatic (e.g., optionally substituted arylalkyl); and water (Paragraph 13, 59, 64, 72).
Regarding Claim 2, Boggs et al. teaches (implicit) at least one abrasive is selected from the group consisting of cationic abrasives, substantially neutral abrasives, and anionic abrasives.
Regarding Claim 3, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 8 and 54) the at least one abrasive is selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, ceria, zirconia, co-formed products of alumina, silica, titania, ceria, or zirconia, coated abrasives, surface modified abrasives, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 4, Boggs et al. teaches (Table 1) the at least one abrasive is in an amount of from about 0.05 wt% to about 50 wt% of the composition.
Regarding Claim 5, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 73) the 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, amino acetic acid, phenoxyacetic acid, bicine, diglycolic acid, glyceric acid, tricine, alanine, histidine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, methionine, phenylalanine, cysteine, selenocysteine, glycine, proline, serine, threonine, asparagine, glutamine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, arginine, histidine, lysine, tyrosine, tryptophan, benzoic acid, 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid, 4-amino-3-hydroxy-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid, 8-hydroxyquinoline-5-sulfonic acid, aminomethanesulfonic acid, benzenesulfonic acid, hydroxylamine O-sulfonic acid, methanesulfonic acid, m-xylene-4-sulfonic acid, poly(4-styrenesulfonic acid), polyanetholesulfonic acid, p-toluenesulfonic acid, trifluoromethane-sulfonic acid, ethyl phosphoric acid, cyanoethyl phosphoric acid, phenyl phosphoric acid, vinyl phosphoric acid, poly(vinylphosphonic acid), 1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid, nitrilotri(methylphosphonic acid), diethylenetriaminepentakis (methylphosphonic acid), N,N,N′,N′-ethylenediaminetetrakis(methylene phosphonic acid), n-hexylphosphonic acid, benzylphosphonic acid, phenylphosphonic acid, salts thereof, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 6, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 60) the base is selected from the group consisting inorganic bases, organic bases, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 7, Boggs et al. teaches (Example 3) the pH adjuster is in an amount of from about 0.001% to about 10% by weight of the composition.
Regarding Claim 8, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 58) R in formula (I) is a substituted or unsubstituted C1-C20 alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C20 alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group.
Regarding Claim 9, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 58) the guanamine compound is selected from the group consisting of butyroguanamine, acetoguanamine, benzoguanamine, caprinoguanamine, adipoguanamine, stearoguanamine, 2,4-diamine-6-nonyl-1,3,5-triazine, 2,4-diamino-6-undecyl-1,3,5-triazine, 3,9-bis[2-(3,5-diamino-2,4,6-triazaphenyl)ethyl]-2,4,8,10-tetraoxaspiro[5.5]undecane, 2,4-diamino-6-butylamino-1,3,5-triazine, 2,4-diamino-6-(4-methylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine, 2,4-diamino-6-[2-(2-methyl-1-imidazolyl)ethyl]-1,3,5-triazine, 2,4-diamino-6-[2-(2-undecyl-1-imidazolyl)ethyl]-1,3,5-triazine, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 13, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraphs 57 and 62) at least one amino acid or poly(amino acid), wherein the amino acid is chemically distinct from the pH adjuster (Paragraph 73).
Regarding Claim 14, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 62) the amino acid or poly(amino acid) is in an amount of from about 0.001% to about 1% by weight of the composition.
Regarding Claim 17, Boggs et al. teaches (Paragraph 73) the polishing composition has a pH of from about 2 to about 7.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2008/0254628 to Boggs et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Boggs et al. but does not expressly teach an amount of guanamine compound is from about 0.1 ppm to about 1000 ppm, but teaches (Paragraph 62) the guanamine compound is in an amount of from about 0.01-10 wt%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an amount of guanamine compound from about 0.1 ppm to about 1000 ppm of the composition by routine experimentation in order to optimize the polishing with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 7,303,993 to Kelley et al. teaches an aqueous composition useful for CMP of a semiconductor wafer containing a metal comprising oxidizer, inhibitor for a nonferrous metal, complexing agent for the nonferrous metal, modified cellulose, 0.001 to 10% by weight copolymer blends of a first copolymer and a second copolymer and balance water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights