DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18909483 application filed October 8, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on January 28, 2026. Claims 22-25 and 27-35 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-21 and 26 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretations
The claims are drawn to a chemical composition, and as such will be examined under such conditions. The process of forming the composition and using the composition, or the material that the composition acts upon are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight. (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details). It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (See MPEP 2106; Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409). Claim 1 recites “ii) a robustness value of the CMP composition is 0.9 or less, wherein the robustness value is measured as an absolute value of a difference between a first TEOS removal rate of the CMP composition with W polishing and a second TEOS removal rate of the CMP composition without W polishing; iii) the CMP composition is used for polishing a surface comprising W, TEOS, and SiN and the ratio of SiN removal rate (Å/min) to TEOS removal rate (Å/min) during polishing is greater than about 40:1.”. Regarding limitation ii) the specification discloses “robustness will be described in relation to the Table 4 described later”, and Table 4 describes “Slurry ingredient ratios versus 200 mm TEOS removal rates as a function of W polishing (ex-situ conditioning) or 200 mm blanket removal rates during regular polishing operation (in-situ conditioning)” (heading of Table 4), wherein the W polishing comprises “W polishing effect experiment: Two wafers were polished with ex-situ pad conditioning for each run, with no high pressure rinse with deionized water or pad conditioning after polish of the first wafer. TEOS removal rate were determined after the second polish”, wherein “Polishing condition: 1.5 psi (polishing pressure) -63 rpm (rotation speed) -125 ml/min (slurry supply speed) -IC1010 (polishing pad) -A165-Westech (200 mm)”, and the column “robustness evaluation” is indicated to be “the absolute value of the difference between the TEOS removal rate of “8 min. TEOS/4 min. TEOS (ex-situ)” and “8 min. W/4 min. TEOS (ex-situ)”. Thus to determine the value of robustness in limitation ii) a practitioner must obtain a test substrate having W layer and a test wafer having TEOS layer, then performing polishing on the two test wafers according to the conditions as described Regarding limitation iii) a practitioner must obtain a substrate comprising three exposed layers comprising W, TEOS and SiN, respectively, then performing a polishing operation in order to determine the removal rate for each layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the amended limitation “the robustness value is measured as an absolute value of a difference between a first TEOS removal rate of the CMP composition with W polishing and a second TEOS removal rate of the CMP composition without W polishing” in paragraph 0019 or at any other locations in the specification. Although the specification discloses “robustness will be described in relation to the Table 4 described later”, and Table 4 describes “Slurry ingredient ratios versus 200 mm TEOS removal rates as a function of W polishing (ex-situ conditioning) or 200 mm blanket removal rates during regular polishing operation (in-situ conditioning)” (heading of Table 4), wherein the W polishing comprises “W polishing effect experiment: Two wafers were polished with ex-situ pad conditioning for each run, with no high pressure rinse with deionized water or pad conditioning after polish of the first wafer. TEOS removal rate were determined after the second polish”, wherein “Polishing condition: 1.5 psi (polishing pressure) -63 rpm (rotation speed) -125 ml/min (slurry supply speed) -IC1010 (polishing pad) -A165-Westech (200 mm)”, and the column “robustness evaluation” is indicated to be “the absolute value of the difference between the TEOS removal rate of “8 min. TEOS/4 min. TEOS (ex-situ)” and “8 min. W/4 min. TEOS (ex-situ)”, this is narrower in scope than the claimed limitation, at least because the claimed limitation does not includes the polishing condition, i.e. the polishing pressure, rotation speed, slurry supply speed, type of polishing pad, different pad conditioning between the first and second test wafer, etc.
Claims 23-25 and 27-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 22.
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.
Claim 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 34 recites " The CMP composition of claim 32, wherein the amino acid is ẞ-alanine"; however, no amino acid is recited in claim 32, thus the term “the amino acid” lacks antecedent basis.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 22 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mishra et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190106596), hereinafter “Mishra”, in view of Yokoi et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190194493), hereinafter “Yokoi”:--Claims 22, 27: Mishra teaches a polishing composition, comprising
colloidal silica abrasives that are surface modified with an anionic group, such as sulfonic acid ([0045]), to have negative zeta potential ([0004, 0015-0016]), such as 0 to -100 mV ([0019]), that are present at a concentration 0.01-50 wt.% ([0048]); wherein the polishing composition has a conductivity of 0.01-100 mS/cm ([0020]). Mishra further teaches that the polishing composition may be used to selectively remove silicon nitride ([0062]), and that smaller particle size may be used to decrease the rate of removal of TEOS and increase the rate of removal of silicon nitride ([0054]). In an embodiment Mishra further discloses that the removal of silicon nitride:silicon oxide may be 45 (Table 1), and that the removal rate of silicon nitride may be high, while the removal rate of silicon oxide may be low to zero ([0075]). It is noted that TEOS is silicon oxide that is deposited by using tetraethyl orthosilicate precursor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the polishing composition to remove silicon nitride at a selectivity 40:1 or more versus TEOS because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Mishra further teaches that the polishing composition may comprise a cationic or anionic polymers, or a surfactant, at 0.001 wt.% or less ([0052]). Yokoi, also directed to a polishing composition for polishing a silicon nitride layer ([0124], Fig. 12), teaches that the polishing composition may advantageously comprise an anionic surfactant, such as alkylnaphthalenesulfonic acid or its salt ([0106]), at 0.001-1 wt.% ([0012]), wherein the anionic surfactant helps removing particles and metal impurities resulting in a more satisfactory treated surface ([0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to add alkylbenzenesulfonic at 0.001 wt.% to the polishing composition in the invention of Mishra because Mishra teaches that the polishing composition may comprise an anionic polymer or a surfactant at 0.001 wt.% or less, and Yokoi teaches that such surfactant would advantageously remove particles and metal impurities from the polishing composition. Fig. 2 shows that the zeta potential of the anionic silica abrasive remains stable over a pH range of 2-11; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use anionic silica abrasive that have zeta potential remains stable over a pH range of 2-12 in the invention of Mishra.
Claims 23-25 and 28-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mishra in view of Yokoi as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Akatsuka et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20110180511), hereinafter “Akatsuka”:--Claims 31, 32 : Mishra modified by Yokoi teaches the invention as above, wherein the polishing composition may comprise an anionic surfactant, such as alkylnaphthalenesulfonic acid or its salt. Mishra and Yokoi are silent about a specific molecular structure of the alkyl group. Akatsuka, also directed to a polishing composition comprising surfactant to remove insoluble complexes from the polishing composition ([0029]), wherein the surfactant may be an anionic surfactant ([0031]), such as triisopropylnaphthalenesulfonic acid (Comparative Example 4 in Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use triisopropylnaphthalenesulfonic acid as the anionic surfactant in the invention of Mishra modified by Yokoi because Mishra modified by Yokoi teaches that the anionic surfactant may be an alkylnaphthalenesulfonic acid or its salt, but is silent about a specific molecular structure of the alkyl group, and Akatsuka teaches that triisopropylnaphthalenesulfonic acid would be effective.--Claim 23, 24: Mishra teaches that the colloidal silica abrasives are surface modified with an anionic group, such as sulfonic acid ([0045]), as shown above. --Claim 25: Mishra teaches that the colloidal silica abrasives are present at a concentration 0.01-50 wt.% ([0048]), as shown above.--Claims 28, 29, 33, 34, 35: It is noted that since the option iii) in claim 1 is selected in this Office action, the other two options, i.e. i) and ii), are not considered. --Claim 30: Fig. 2 of Mishra shows that the zeta potential of the anionic silica abrasive remains stable over a pH range of 2-11; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use anionic silica abrasive that have zeta potential remains stable over a pH range of 2-12 in the invention of Mishra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713