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 § 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 1-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (KR 10-1406757 B1) in view of Edelbach et al. (US 6,616,514 B1) and further in view of Dysard et al. (US 2009/0081871 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paik teaches a CMP slurry comprising:
silica particles (Paik identifies silica as a suitable abrasive particle; paragraph [0031]); Paik continues to teach a nonionic compound in part (Paik teaches a nonionic dispersant comprising polyethylene oxide, polypropylene oxide, or combinations thereof; paragraphs [0037]-[0038]);Paik also teaches an amino acid (Paik teaches an amino acid that improves abrasive-particle dispersibility and oxide polishing speed; paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Paik further teaches a pH buffer (Paik teaches an amine salt that provides a buffer function and improves compatibility among slurry components; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]); Paik teaches a pH adjuster (Paik teaches acidic and basic pH-adjusting materials; paragraph [0042]). Paik further teaches a pH of 1 to 4 in part (Paik teaches a pH of about 3 to about 8, which overlaps the claimed range; paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed pH range of 1 to 4 because Paik teaches an overlapping pH range of about 3 to about 8 for the CMP slurry, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Paik does not expressly teach that the nonionic compound is selected from a group consisting of dextran, dextrose, and dextrin.
Edelbach teaches at least one nonionic compound selected from dextran, dextrose, and dextrin Edelbach teaches at least one nonionic compound selected from dextran, dextrose, and dextrin (Edelbach teaches dextrin as an organic polyol component of a CMP slurry; column 4, lines 40-51). Edelbach likewise teaches CMP slurry compositions for polishing oxide-containing semiconductor substrates (Edelbach teaches chemically mechanically polishing an LPCVD TEOS silicon dioxide film on a silicon substrate using CMP slurries containing an abrasive and an organic polyol, including dextrin; column 6, Example 1 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Paik by using Edelbach’s dextrin as the nonionic compound because Edelbach teaches dextrin as a known organic polyol additive suitable for use in an abrasive CMP slurry. The substitution of one known nonionic CMP additive for another would have involved the use of a known material according to its established function and would have predictably provided a CMP slurry containing a nonionic organic additive. See MPEP § 2141 (III)(B) and MPEP § 2141 (III)(C).
Modified Paik does not expressly teach colloidal silica particles.
Dysard teaches colloidal silica particles (Dysard teaches a CMP composition comprising colloidal silica abrasive particles suspended in a liquid carrier; paragraphs [0006], [0008], and [0012]-[0013]). Dysard likewise teaches acidic CMP compositions for polishing silicon oxide films, thereby teaching abrasive particles used for the same semiconductor polishing application as Paik (paragraphs [0007], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Paik by using Dysard’s colloidal silica particles as the silica abrasive particles because Dysard teaches colloidal silica as a known abrasive for acidic semiconductor CMP compositions. Using a known colloidal form of Paik’s silica abrasive would have predictably provided abrasive particles suitable for polishing semiconductor films. See MPEP § 2141 (III)(C).
Regarding claim 2, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above.
Edelbach further teaches wherein the nonionic compound is included in an amount of 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt% in the slurry composition (Edelbach teaches dextrin in an amount beginning at about 0.1 wt%; column 4, lines 52-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed amount of 0.001 wt% to 0.1 wt% because Edelbach teaches dextrin beginning at about 0.1 wt%, which overlaps the claimed range, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above. Modified Paik further teaches wherein the silica particles are included in an amount that overlaps the claimed 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% (Paik teaches silica abrasive particles in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%; paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed concentration of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% because Paik teaches an overlapping abrasive-particle concentration of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above.
Dysard further teaches wherein the colloidal silica particles have a particle size of 10 nanometers to 200 nanometers (Dysard teaches colloidal-silica abrasive particles having an average particle size of about 10 nanometers to about 150 nanometers; paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above. Modified Paik further teaches wherein the amino acid is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 5.0 wt% in the slurry composition (Paik teaches about 0.1 to about 5 parts by weight amino acid per 100 parts abrasive particles, which, together with Paik’s disclosed abrasive concentration, provides an amino-acid concentration within the claimed range; paragraphs [0034] and [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed amino-acid concentration because Paik teaches an overlapping concentration, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above. Modified Paik further teaches wherein the amino acid comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of arginine, lysine, histidine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, asparagine, glutamine, tyrosine, serine, cysteine, threonine, glycine, alanine, β-alanine, proline, tryptophan, methionine, phenylalanine, valine, leucine, and isoleucine (Paik teaches claimed amino acids including arginine, lysine, histidine, aspartic acid, asparagine, glutamine, tyrosine, serine, cysteine, glycine, proline, phenylalanine, valine, and isoleucine; paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above. Modified Paik further teaches wherein the pH buffer is included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 2.0 wt% in the slurry composition (Paik teaches an amine salt having a buffer function in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 2.5 wt%; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the claimed pH-buffer concentration because Paik teaches an overlapping concentration of about 0.01 wt% to about 2.5 wt%, and where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above.
Modified Paik further teaches wherein the pH adjuster comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of: at least one acidic material selected from a group consisting of hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, bromic acid, iodic acid, formic acid, malonic acid, maleic acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid, adipic acid, citric acid, propionic acid, fumaric acid, lactic acid, salicylic acid, pimelic acid, benzoic acid, succinic acid, phthalic acid, butyric acid, glutaric acid, glutamic acid, glycolic acid, aspartic acid, tartaric acid, and salts thereof; and at least one basic material selected from a group consisting of ammonia, ammonium methyl propanol, tetramethylammonium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, rubidium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, and imidazole (Paik teaches claimed pH adjusters including hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, formic acid, malonic acid, maleic acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, phthalic acid, glutaric acid, tartaric acid, ammonia, ammonium methyl propanol, tetramethylammonium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, rubidium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium carbonate; paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above.
Modified Paik does not expressly teach wherein a target film to be polished using the slurry composition is a silicon oxide film, and a polishing rate for the silicon oxide film is in a range of 200 angstroms per minute to 700 angstroms per minute.
Dysard teaches wherein a target film to be polished using the slurry composition is a silicon oxide film, and a polishing rate for the silicon oxide film is in a range of 200 angstroms per minute to 700 angstroms per minute (Dysard teaches polishing silicon oxide films, including tetraethyl orthosilicate oxide films, and reports silicon oxide removal rates of 552, 366, 681, 450, 235, and 524 angstroms per minute using acidic colloidal-silica compositions; paragraphs [0047], [0060]-[0063], and Table 3).
The Examiner notes that the limitation reciting a target film to be polished using the slurry composition is directed to an intended use of the claimed composition. Such language does not further limit the claimed composition unless it results in a structural or manipulative difference in the claimed composition. Here, the recited intended use does not change the composition itself. Therefore, the composition of modified Paik would have been capable of polishing a silicon oxide film at least as effectively as the claimed composition. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. in view of Edelbach et al. and Dysard et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2013/0146804 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Paik teaches the slurry composition of claim 1 above.
Modified Paik does not expressly teach wherein the pH buffer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of an organic acid and an amine-based compound, the organic acid comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of oxalic acid, malic acid, maleic acid, malonic acid, formic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, picolinic acid, citric acid, succinic acid, tartaric acid, glutaric acid, glutamic acid, glycolic acid, propionic acid, fumaric acid, salicylic acid, pimelic acid, benzoic acid, butyric acid, aspartic acid, sulfonic acid, and phthalic acid, and the amine-based compound comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of benzylamine, monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, trimethanolamine, dimethylbenzylamine, ethoxybenzylamine, monoisopropanolamine, aminoethylethanolamine, N,N-diethylethanolamine, diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), pentaethylenehexamine (PEHA), bis(hexamethylene)triamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am3), N,N’-bis(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am4), N,N,N’-tris(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am5), N-3-aminopropyl-1,3-diaminopropane, N,N’-bis(3-aminopropyl)-1,3-diaminopropane, N,N,N’-tris(3-aminopropyl)-1,3-diaminopropane, bis-(3-aminopropyl)amine, dipropylenetriamine, and tripropylenetetramine.
Mizuno teaches wherein the pH buffer comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of an organic acid and an amine-based compound, the organic acid comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of oxalic acid, malic acid, maleic acid, malonic acid, formic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, picolinic acid, citric acid, succinic acid, tartaric acid, glutaric acid, glutamic acid, glycolic acid, propionic acid, fumaric acid, salicylic acid, pimelic acid, benzoic acid, butyric acid, aspartic acid, sulfonic acid, and phthalic acid, and the amine-based compound comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of benzylamine, monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, trimethanolamine, dimethylbenzylamine, ethoxybenzylamine, monoisopropanolamine, aminoethylethanolamine, N,N-diethylethanolamine, diethylenetriamine (DETA), triethylenetetramine (TETA), tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA), pentaethylenehexamine (PEHA), bis(hexamethylene)triamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am3), N,N’-bis(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am4), N,N,N’-tris(3-aminopropyl)ethylenediamine (Am5), N-3-aminopropyl-1,3-diaminopropane, N,N’-bis(3-aminopropyl)-1,3-diaminopropane, N,N,N’-tris(3-aminopropyl)-1,3-diaminopropane, bis-(3-aminopropyl)amine, dipropylenetriamine, and tripropylenetetramine (Mizuno teaches organic acids including formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, butyric acid, benzoic acid, glycolic acid, salicylic acid, oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, pimelic acid, maleic acid, phthalic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, citric acid, and lactic acid, and teaches that combinations of weak acids and bases provide a pH-buffering action; paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify modified Paik to use one of Mizuno’s disclosed organic acids as a component of the pH buffer because Mizuno teaches the organic acids as known components of acidic semiconductor polishing compositions and teaches that acid-base combinations provide pH-buffering action. Using the known buffering system would have predictably maintained the desired slurry pH. See MPEP § 2141 (III)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 L 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights