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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching and examination of the claims would have been done by the examiner without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction requirement is required not only for the search burden but they have acquired in different status in the art, as discussed in the previous office communication.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2017/0335139) in view of Singh (US 2003/0162399) supported by Ward et al (US 2021/0017421).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong et al disclose a CMP slurry composition for polishing copper including: polishing particles; and deionized water, wherein the polishing particles include inorganic particles and organic particles, and both the inorganic particles and the organic particles have a positive zeta potential [0008], aforesaid inorganic particles may include metal oxide [0026]; and have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 10 nm to about 500 nm [0037]; and such corresponds to the claimed “nano-abrasive particles”; and the “organic particles” corresponds to the claimed “soft particles”.
Unlike the instant invention, Jeong et al fail to teach the nano-abrasive particles having a Mohs hardness greater than about 5; and the soft particles having a Mohs hardness lower than the Mohs hardness of the nano-abrasive particles.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Singh discloses a CMP slurry composition [0040], wherein the slurry composition includes particles, such particles can be soft particles being soft or having soft surfaces, which is defined herein as a particle which provides a surface hardness less than 3.0 on the Mohs scale [0041]; Singh also discloses the slurry the slurry can also include a plurality of abrasive particles. As used herein, the term "abrasive" refers to particles which have hardness greater or equal to 3.0 on the Mohs scale. Examples of abrasive particles in the slurry include silica, alumina, zirconia, yttria, silicon nitride, carbon, their mixtures, and their related compounds [0041]; and aforesaid teaching appears to reads on the limitation of the nano-abrasive particles having greater than about 5 (supported by Ward et al; [0028] and the Mohs hardness of the soft particles is lower than that of the nano-abrasive particle’s Mohs hardness.
Additionally, Wads et al support that the abrasive of alumina, zirconia having a Mohs hardness of about 5.5 or more [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Singh’s teaching (supported by Ward et al) of using soft particles and abrasives with the specified Mohs hardness into the teaching of Jeong et al for polishing with high selectivity as suggested by Sing ([0032],[0033]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong et al disclose the organic particles (corresponds to the soft particles) may include polymer such as polystyrene, poly(meth)acrylate, polyvinyl chloride, polyacetal, polyester, polyamide, polyimide, or a copolymer thereof [0031].
Regarding claim 3, modified Jeong et al disclose above that Mohs hardness of soft particles is lower than that of the nano-abrasive particle’s Mohs hardness. So, the difference in the Mohs hardness among them would be greater than or equal to about 1 as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong et al disclose that the average particle diameter (D50) of the organic particles (soft particles) (D2) may be greater than the average particle diameter (D50) of the inorganic particles (nano-abrasive particles) (D1) [0037].
Regarding claim 5, Jeong et al disclose that each of the inorganic particles and the organic particles, which are the polishing particles, may have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 10 nm to about 500 nm [0037], which overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 100 nm; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Jeong et al disclose that the organic particles (soft particles), which are the polishing particles, may have an average particle diameter (D50) of about 10 nm to about 500 nm [0037], which overlaps the claimed range of about 50 nm to about 20 micrometers; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Jeong et al disclose that the polishing particles include inorganic particles (a1) and organic particles (a2) having the same charge [0024]; and most likely both of them having a positive zeta potential [0025].
Regarding claim 8, Jeong et al disclose that the organic particles (corresponds to the soft particles) may include polymer such as polystyrene, poly(meth)acrylate, polyvinyl chloride, polyacetal, polyester, polyamide, polyimide, or a copolymer thereof [0031].
Regarding claims 9-10, Jeong et al disclose that the inorganic particles (a1) (corresponds to the nano-abrasive particles) may include a metal oxide ; and the inorganic particles (a1) may include silica (SiO.sub.2), the surface of which has a positive zeta potential, alumina (Al.sub.2O.sub.3) [0026].
Regarding claim 11, Jeong et al disclose that the polishing particles may be present in an amount of about 0.01 wt % to about 20 wt % in the CMP slurry composition [0039], which overlaps the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 15 wt%.
Regarding claim 12, Jeong et al disclose that the polishing particles may include the inorganic particles and the organic particles in a weight ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:0.5 [0038], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Jeong et al disclose above that the composition comprises a inorganic (nano-abrasive) particles and organic particles (soft particles) in a weight ratio of about 1:0.1 to about 1:0.5 [0038] and the claimed volume ratio would have been obvious with in the weight ratio of such particles and the shape of the organic particles (soft particles) would have been commonly spherical in the polishing technology.
In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong et al disclose that the composition further comprises oxidant (oxidizing agent ) [0041], a surfactant, a modifier, a pH regulator, a dispersant, and the like [0047]; chelating agent [0044].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al (US 2022/0193733) disclose inorganic particles 151 include spherical or polygonal aluminum oxide particles, spherical or polygonal silicon carbide particles, spherical or polygonal diamond particles, spherical or polygonal quartz particles, spherical or polygonal zirconia (ZrO.sub.2) particles, spherical or polygonal ceria (CeO.sub.2) particles or a combination thereof. The particle size of the aforementioned inorganic particles is about 0.02 μm-50 μm, and the aforementioned inorganic particles have a Mohs hardness of larger than or equal to 7 [0042]; and the organic particles 141 have a Mohs hardness of less than 7 [0068] used in a polishing pad.
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
Prosecution Insights