DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 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.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHENG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0195242) in view of KAMIMURA (KR20220132036 as evidenced by the machine translation).
With regards to claim 1-3, Chen discloses a polishing composition for a semiconductor process, comprising a polishing particle (Paragraphs [0021]-[0024]); and a corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph [0029]), wherein the polishing composition for a semiconductor process has a pH of 2 to 5 (Paragraph [0037]), and a static etch rate for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is at most 5Å/ming (Paragraph [0045]) which falls within Applicant’s range of 6 Å/min or less.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the corrosion inhibitor comprises a first corrosion inhibitor, which is an amino azole-based compound; and a second corrosion inhibitor, which is a diazole-based compound; Icorr, which is a corrosion current density for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is 60 μA/cm2 or less; and Ecorr, which is a corrosion potential for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is -30 mV or more.
However, Chen discloses wherein one or more corrosion inhibitors may be used (Paragraph [0029]). Kamimura discloses a polishing composition comprising an abrasive (Paragraphs [0096]-[0099]), a corrosion inhibitor wherein two or more azole compounds maybe used including an amino azole based compound and a diazole based compound (Paragraphs [0063]-[0084] discloses a benzotriazole, pyrazole and imidazole). As such Chen a modified by Kamimura renders obvious wherein the corrosion inhibitor comprises a first corrosion inhibitor, which is an amino azole-based compound; and a second corrosion inhibitor, which is a diazole-based compound.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I) "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. MPEP 2112.01(II) Chen as modified by Kamimura renders obvious Applicant’s claimed polishing composition and therefore would possess the same properties of Applicant’s claimed composition including ; Icorr, which is a corrosion current density for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is 60 μA/cm2 or less; and Ecorr, which is a corrosion potential for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is -30 mV or more. While Chen as modified by Kamimura does not explicitly disclose the corrosion current density and corrosion potential, it is the Examiner’s position that such properties would be found within the composition as rendered obvious by the prior art as the composition is rendered obvious by Chen as modified by Kamimura.
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 method of Chen to include the two or more corrosion inhibitors as rendered obvious by Kamimura because the reference of Kamimura discloses when a polishing solutions contains two or more types of acold compounds is applied to CMP a better polishing speed can be obtained and dishing is less likely to occur on the polishing surface (Paragraph [0078]) 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 two corrosion inhibitors as rendered obvious by Kamimura. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Cheng renders obvious the composition comprising the corrosion inhibitor of -/1 wt% to about 0.5 wt% (Cheng Paragraph [0030]) which renders obvious the corrosion inhibitor of 0.07 wt% to 3 wt%.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)
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Cheng renders obvious wherein a ratio of a content (by weight) of the second corrosion inhibitor to a content (by weight) of the first corrosion inhibitor is greater than 1 (Kamimura Paragraph [0081]) which renders obvious 0.6 to 2.0. 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)
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Cheng render obvious wherein the slurry has a corrosion inhibitor which allows for a range selectivities in polishing rate of metals including tungsten (Cheng Paragraph [0012]), wherein the corrosion inhibitor in the polishing composition reduces the removal of certain metals wherein the metal includes tungsten (See Cheng Paragraphs [0029], [0045]) which renders obvious wherein the corrosion inhibitor inhibits corrosion of a tungsten film.
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Cheng render obvious the composition further comprising a fluorine based surfactant (Kamimura Paragraph [0119]) of 0.00002 to 2 mass% (Kamimura Paragraph [0126]) which renders obvious 10 ppm( by weight) to 500 ppm (by weight). 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)
With regards to claim 8, the modified teachings of Cheng render obvious a polishing selectivity ratio of a silicon oxide film to a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is 5 or more. (Cheng Paragraph [0045]). 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)
With regards to claim 9, Chen discloses a method of manufacturing a substrate, comprising polishing a substrate by applying a polishing composition (Paragraph [0045]) the polishing, comprising a polishing particle (Paragraphs [0021]-[0024]); and a corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph [0029]), wherein the polishing composition for a semiconductor process has a pH of 2 to 5 (Paragraph [0037]), and a static etch rate for a tungsten film of the polishing composition for a semiconductor process is at most 5Å/ming (Paragraph [0045]) which falls within Applicant’s range of 6 Å/min or less.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the corrosion inhibitor comprises a first corrosion inhibitor, which is an amino azole-based compound; and a second corrosion inhibitor, which is a diazole-based compound.
However, Chen discloses wherein one or more corrosion inhibitors may be used (Paragraph [0029]). Kamimura discloses a polishing composition comprising an abrasive (Paragraphs [0096]-[0099]), a corrosion inhibitor wherein two or more azole compounds maybe used including an amino azole based compound and a diazole based compound (Paragraphs [0063]-[0084] discloses a benzotriazole, pyrazole and imidazole). As such Chen a modified by Kamimura renders obvious wherein the corrosion inhibitor comprises a first corrosion inhibitor, which is an amino azole-based compound; and a second corrosion inhibitor, which is a diazole-based compound.
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 method of Chen to include the two or more corrosion inhibitors as rendered obvious by Kamimura because the reference of Kamimura discloses when a polishing solutions contains two or more types of acold compounds is applied to CMP a better polishing speed can be obtained and dishing is less likely to occur on the polishing surface (Paragraph [0078]) 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 two corrosion inhibitors as rendered obvious by Kamimura. MPEP 2143D
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0293048).
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