DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 August 11, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on August 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0267081).
With regards to claim 1, Fu discloses a polishing composition for a semiconductor process, comprising: polishing particles (Paragraph [0009]); iron (Fe) ions (Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]); and an iron (Fe) ion stabilizer (Paragraphs [0027]-[0029]); wherein the iron ion stabilizer comprises two or more carboxyl groups (Paragraph [0029]), and wherein the polishing composition has electrical conductivity of 200 μS/cm to 800 μS/cm (Paragraph [0023]).
With regards to claims 2-3, Fu discloses wherein the iron ions are divalent or trivalent (ferric (iron III) or ferrous (iron II) compounds) and wherein the iron ions are derived from a compound selected from the group consisting of iron chloride, iron nitrate, iron sulfate, iron perchlorate, iron acetate and iron citrate. (Paragraph [0024])
With regards to claim 4, Fu discloses wherein the iron ion stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of ethanedioic acid, propanedioic acid, butanedioic acid, pentanedioic acid, hexanedioic acid, and heptanedioic acid. (Paragraph [0029])
With regards to claim 7, Fu discloses wherein the polishing particles comprise metal oxide particles, silicon oxide particles, or a combination thereof. (Paragraph [0009])
With regards to claim 8, Fu discloses wherein the polishing particles are colloidal silica particles (Paragraphs [0009]-[0014] discloses only colloidal silica particles which anticipates 100% colloidal silica particles) which anticipates wherein the polishing particles comprise 70 wt% or more of colloidal silica based on a total weight of the polishing particle.
With regards to claim 9, Fu discloses wherein the polishing composition comprises 1 wt% to 10 wt% of the polishing particles based on a total weight of the polishing composition (Paragraph [0014]).
With regards to claim 14, Fu discloses wherein a polishing selectivity of the polishing composition for a silicon oxide film relative to a tungsten film is 1 to 5. (Paragraph [0044] discloses 1:1).
With regards to claim 15, Fun discloses wherein a pH of the polishing composition is 1.5 to 4.5. (Paragraph [0022] discloses 2 or more and 4 or less).
With regards to claim 17, Fu discloses wherein the composition further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of an oxidant (Paragraph [0030]), a pH adjuster (Paragraph [0022]) and dispersant (Paragraph [0015]).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0267081).
With regards to claim 5, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Fu does not explicitly disclose wherein a weight ratio of a content of the iron ion stabilizer relative to a content of the iron ions is 3 to 50.
However, Fu discloses wherein the stabilizer may be added to the slurries in an amount ranging from about 1 equivalent per ion containing accelerator to about 3.0 weight percent or more (Paragraph [0029]) rendering obvious wherein a weight ratio of a content of the iron ion stabilizer relative to a content of the iron ions is 3 to 50. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Fu to include the weight ratio as rendered obvious by Fu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the weight ratio content as rendered obvious by Fu. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 6, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Fu does not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing composition comprises 1*10-4 wt% to 5*10-3 wt% of the iron ions.
However, Fu discloses wherein the polishing composition comprises 1-3000ppm Fe based on the total weight of the composition (Paragraph [0026]) rendering obvious wherein the polishing composition comprises 1*10-4 wt% to 5*10-3 wt% of the iron ions. 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). MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Fu to include the iron ion concentration as rendered obvious by Fu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the iron ion concentration as rendered obvious by Fu. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 16, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fu does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the particles having a diameter exceeding 1 μm in the polishing composition is 80/ml or less as measured by a large particle counter (LPC) per unit volume.
However, Fu discloses wherein the average particle size of about 5 to 150 nm when measured using a dynamic light scattering tool (Paragraph [0013]) which would render obvious particles below a diameter of 1 µm. As such Fu renders obvious wherein a number of the particles having a diameter exceeding 1 μm in the polishing composition is 80/ml or less as measured by a large particle counter (LPC) per unit volume as the modified teachings of Fu teaches the largest average particle size if 5 to 150nm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Fu to include the particle diameter as rendered obvious by Fu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired composition using the particle diameter as rendered obvious by Fu. MPEP 2143D
Claims 10 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0267081) in view of KIM et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0212429).
With regards to claim 10, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1.
However Fu is silent as to wherein the polishing particles comprise: a first polishing particle filtered through a primary filter having a pore size of 0.05 μm to 2 μm; a second polishing particle filtered through a secondary filter having a pore size of at most 0.9 times of the pore size of the primary filter; and a third polishing particle filtered through a tertiary filter having a pore size of at most 1.5 times of the pore size of the secondary filter.
Kim discloses a polishing composition comprising colloidal silica (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]) wherein the abrasives may be a multi-type dispersion type particle size distribution with three different type of average particle sizes to have better dispersibility and reduce scratches on a wafer surface (Paragraph [0053]) wherein the abrasives are between 5nm and 150 nm (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053]) which renders obvious Applicant’s polishing particle size. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) MPEP 2113(I) Therefore while the prior art of Fu as modified by Kim does not explicitly disclose filtering the particles through a primary filter, secondary filter and tertiary filter, it is the Examiner’s position that the particles of the prior art would fall within the resulting size distribution of particles filtered by Applicant’s method.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Fu to include the particle distribution as rendered obvious by Kim because the reference of Kim teaches that such particle distribution have a better dispersibility and reduced scratches (Paragraph [0053]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the particle size distribution as rendered obvious by Kim. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claims 11-13, Fu discloses the limitations of claim 1.
However, Fu is silent as to wherein the composition further comprises a polyglycerin-based compound; wherein a weight average molecular weight of the polyglycerin-based compound is 300 g/mol to 1,200 g/mol and wherein the polishing composition comprises 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt% of the polyglycerin-based compound based on a total weight of the polishing composition.
Kim discloses a polishing composition comprising colloidal silica (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]) and a compound including at least one of polyglycerin (Paragraph [0057]) wherein the compound may have a weight average molecular weight of 800 or more (Paragraph [0061]) which renders obvious wherein a weight average molecular weight of the polyglycerin-based compound is 300 g/mol to 1,200 g/mol; and wherein the compound may be present in amounts of 0.0001 wt% to 5 wt% (Paragraph [0058]) which renders obvious wherein the polishing composition comprises 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt% of the polyglycerin-based compound based on a total weight of the polishing composition. 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). MPEP 2144.05 (I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Fu to include the polyglycerin based compound as rendered obvious by Kim because the reference of Kim teaches that the compound may aid in high polishing rates while reducing dishing, erosion and loss of the polishing stop film during polishing (Paragraph [0058]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired polishing composition using the polyglycerin based compound as rendered obvious by Kim. MPEP 2143D
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 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 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights