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 § 112
Claims 1-9 are 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the polishing composition has an Rm/e value of 2.5% or less,” wherein “Rm/e = Dm/De * 100(%).” Claim 1 further recites that “a De value is a number of defects detected from a top surface of a substrate after polishing the top surface with the polishing composition for the semiconductor process and etching back the top surface,” and that “a Dm value is a number of defects derived from the organic substance among 100 defects randomly selected from the defects detected from the top surface after the polishing and etching back of the top surface.”
However, claim 1 does not clearly define how the Rm/e value is determined when fewer than 100 defects are detected from the top surface, because the claim requires Dm to be determined from “100 defects randomly selected from the defects detected.” Claim 1 also does not clearly define how the Rm/e value is determined when no defects are detected, because Equation 1 requires dividing Dm by De, and De would be zero. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear.
Although claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above, for purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring the Rm/e value to be determined using the measurement procedure described in the specification, including polishing a 300 mm wafer having a tungsten film on its entire top surface, etching back the polished substrate using SF₆ plasma etching, measuring the total number of defects as De, and determining Dm from organic-derived defects among 100 randomly selected defects.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from indefinite claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons as claim 1 because claim 9 recites the same Rm/e, De, and Dm limitations.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2023/0227696 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hong teaches a polishing composition for a semiconductor process comprising polishing particles, a polishing pad protectant, and a fluorinated surfactant (3% by weight abrasive particles, 2% by weight sorbitol solution, 0.0025% by weight fluorine-based surfactant Chemours FS-30, and the remainder ultrapure water solvent; paragraph [0160]). Hong further teaches that the polyol suppresses adsorption of abrasive particles onto a polished surface and suppresses occurrence of defects, and that the fluorine-based surfactant prevents excessive adsorption of abrasive particles and carbon residues onto the semiconductor substrate surface during polishing (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]).
Hong does not expressly teach wherein the polishing composition has an Rm/e value of 2.5% or less, which is a ratio of a number of defects derived from an organic substance as calculated by Equation 1.
However, the instant specification describes polishing compositions comprising colloidal silica polishing particles, sorbitol as a polishing pad protectant, and a fluorinated surfactant. Specifically, Example 1 includes 3 wt% colloidal silica modified with 38 ppm by weight of (3-aminopropyl) triethoxysilane, 2 wt% sorbitol, and 50 ppm by weight of Capstone FS 3100 (paragraph [0114]; Table 1). Examples 2 and 3 were prepared under the same conditions as Example 1, except for the differences identified in paragraphs [0115]-[0116] and Table 1. Table 3 reports Rm/e values of 0.88%, 0.50%, and 0.45% for Examples 1-3, respectively, and the specification states that Examples 1-3 exhibited Rm/e values of 1% or less (paragraph [0136]; Table 3).
Hong teaches the same claim-relevant component classes in overlapping or close amounts, including 3% by weight abrasive particles, 2% by weight sorbitol solution, and 0.0025% by weight fluorine-based surfactant Chemours FS-30 (paragraph [0160]). Hong further teaches that the polyol suppresses adsorption of abrasive particles and occurrence of defects, and that the fluorine-based surfactant prevents excessive adsorption of carbon residues during polishing (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and optimize Hong’s sorbitol- and fluorinated-surfactant-containing polishing composition to reduce organic-substance-derived defects, including to obtain an Rm/e value of 2.5% or less, because Hong identifies the same defect-reduction problem and uses the same claim-relevant component classes for that purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Hong teaches wherein the polishing pad protectant comprises a sugar alcohol (Hong teaches that the polyol may include sorbitol, and sorbitol is a sugar alcohol; paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 3, Hong teaches wherein the sugar alcohol is one selected from the group consisting of sorbitol, mannitol, galactitol, fucitol, iditol, inositol, arabitol, xylitol, erythritol, threitol, and combinations thereof (Hong teaches sorbitol as the polyol, and sorbitol is one of the specifically recited sugar alcohols; paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Hong teaches fluorinated surfactants corresponding to compounds having alkylene oxide repeat units. Hong teaches that the fluorine-based surfactant may be selected from ethylene oxide/propylene oxide fluorosurfactants and polyoxyethylene fluorosurfactants, which correspond to fluorinated surfactants having alkylene oxide repeat units (paragraph [0096]). Hong further teaches that suitable fluorine-based surfactants include Capstone FS-3100 from Chemours (paragraph [0094]).
To the extent Hong does not expressly disclose the specific Formula 1 structure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a fluorinated surfactant represented by Formula 1 from Hong’s disclosed fluorinated surfactant classes because Hong teaches fluorine-based surfactants, including ethylene oxide/propylene oxide fluorosurfactants and polyoxyethylene fluorosurfactants, for preventing excessive adsorption of abrasive particles and carbon residues onto the semiconductor substrate surface during polishing (paragraphs [0093]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 5, Hong teaches wherein the polishing composition comprises from 1 wt% to 5 wt% of the polishing pad protectant (Hong teaches the composition may include about 0.5% to about 5% by weight of polyol, preferably about 1% to about 4% by weight of polyol; paragraph [0099]). Hong further teaches an example composition including 2% by weight sorbitol solution (paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 6, Hong teaches wherein the polishing composition comprises from 10 ppm by weight to 500 ppm by weight of the fluorinated surfactant (Hong’s example composition includes 0.0025% by weight fluorine-based surfactant, which corresponds to 25 ppm by weight and falls within the claimed range; paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 7, Hong teaches further comprising a tungsten inhibitor, wherein the tungsten inhibitor is one selected from the group consisting of an azole-based compound, an amino acid, and combinations thereof (Hong teaches that the organic acid may serve as a complexing agent that traps metal ions such as tungsten ions and chelates metal oxide to suppress re-adsorption of the metal oxide to the metal film layer; paragraph [0091]). Hong further teaches that the organic acid may include glycine, and glycine is an amino acid (paragraph [0091]). Hong’s example composition includes 0.1% by weight glycine (paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 8, Hong teaches wherein the polishing composition has a pH of 2.5 to 5 (Hong teaches adjusting pH to pH 2 to pH 4, which overlaps the claimed range of pH 2.5 to 5; paragraph [0101]). Hong further teaches weakly acidic surface-modified colloidal silica having a pH of 3.8, which is within the claimed range (paragraph [0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of the polishing composition has a pH of 2.5 to 5 because Hong teaches overlapping ranges for pH, and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 2023/0227696 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hong teaches a method of manufacturing a substrate comprising polishing the substrate by applying a polishing composition for a semiconductor process (polishing a pattern wafer including a silicon substrate, SiO2 oxide film, Ti/TiN metal barrier film, and tungsten film by applying the composition for a semiconductor process; paragraph [0172]).
Hong teaches the polishing composition comprises polishing particles, a polishing pad protectant, and a fluorinated surfactant (3% by weight abrasive particles, 2% by weight sorbitol solution, 0.0025% by weight fluorine-based surfactant Chemours FS-30, and the remainder ultrapure water solvent; paragraph [0160]). Hong further teaches that the polyol suppresses adsorption of abrasive particles onto a polished surface and suppresses occurrence of defects, and that the fluorine-based surfactant prevents excessive adsorption of abrasive particles and carbon residues onto the semiconductor substrate surface during polishing (paragraphs [0092]-[0094]).
Hong does not expressly teach wherein the polishing composition used in the method has an Rm/e value of 2.5% or less, which is a ratio of a number of defects derived from an organic substance as calculated by Equation 1.
However, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select and optimize Hong’s sorbitol- and fluorinated-surfactant-containing polishing composition to reduce organic-substance-derived defects, including to obtain an Rm/e value of 2.5% or less.
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