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 1 recites the limitation "the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5-7, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2011/0124195A1).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a CMP composition comprising abrasive particles (para 37); a polyoxyalkylene-based surfactant including polyoxyethylene oleylamine ether (CAS. NO. 26635-92-7) and the like (para 33), which has a hydrophilic-lipophilic balance of 18 (please see Guoli Chemical for HLB of polyoxyethylene oleylamine ether (CAS. NO. 26635-92-7)); and a dishing inhibitor including N,N,N',N'-tetraethylethylenediamine; N,N'-diethyl-N,N'-diethylethylenediamine; N,N-diethyl-N',N'-dimethylethylenediamine; N,N,N',N",N"-pentamethyldiethylenetriamine (PMDETA); N,N'-dimethylethylenediamine; N,N'-diethylethylenediamine; N,N,N'-tetramethylethylenediamine, which provides claimed skew inhibitor having formula 1 (para 43). For example, N,N,N'-tetramethylethylenediamine has a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
262
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claims 5-7, the composition further includes polyacrylic acid or claimed anionic polymeric dispersant (claim 8). The abrasives includes silica, ceria, zirconia, and alumina (claim 1), which are the same abrasives as that of the claimed invention and in the composition having the substantially same pH range such as 4-8 (claim 12); therefore, the abrasives would provide a surface charge of positive in the cmp composition.
With respect to claim 9, the polyoxyethylene-based compound has the same molecular structure as that of claimed invention, which would provide a dishing inhibitor for silicon oxide film and a skew inhibitor for silicon nitride film.
With respect to claim 10, Park further teaches polishing method of silicon oxide and silicon nitride layer using the polishing composition (table 2, 4; para 36, 51, 58).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 2, Park describes the polyoxyethylene-based compound has a structure of
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where R is (C1-C30) alkyl and (a+b) is an integer of 5 to 1000 (para 30-33), which would provide and overlap claimed R5 of an alkyl having 10-30 carbon atoms, m and n of an integer from 10-30. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a polyoxyethylene-based compound for the CMP composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 4, the polyoxyethylene-based compound, for example polyoxyethylene oleylamine ether (CAS. NO. 26635-92-7), has a molecular structure having 5-1000 ethylene oxide groups (para 33), which corresponds to a molecular weight from 493.71 (core MW + 5x EO with molecular weight of 44.05g/mol) g/mol to 44,323.46g/mol (core MW 273.46g/mol + 1000x EO with molecular weight of 44.05g/mol), which overlaps the molecular weight of 500-4000 g/mol. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use ranges including claimed ranges to provide a polyoxyethylene-based compound for the CMP composition with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8 is 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.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art Park doesn’t a ratio of a content by weight of the dishing inhibitor or skew inhibitor to a content by weight of the polyoxyalkylene-based surfactant is from 0.3 to 1.2.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art Park doesn’t teach that the polishing composition has a zeta potential of -80mV to -20mV.
Guoli Chemical is cited for HLB of polyoxyethylene oleylamine ether (CAS. NO. 26635-92-7)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights