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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 24, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5,7-14,17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not teach “at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished, the slurry yields 0.13 to 0.21 in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy as a ratio of an atomic amount of the trivalent cerium to a total atomic amount of the trivalent cerium and the tetravalent cerium” (claim 1). The original disclosure does not teach “at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished, the slurry yields 0.13 to 0.32 in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy as a ratio of an atomic amount of the trivalent cerium to a total atomic amount of the trivalent cerium and the tetravalent cerium” (claim 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,7-11,13,14,17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottiglieri et al (PG Pub 2019/0153264 A1) and Wang et al (PG Pub 2015/0284593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bottiglieri teaches a slurry comprising abrasive grains (abstract) and a liquid medium, wherein the abrasive grains contain at least one cerium compound selected from the group consisting of cerium oxide (paragraph [0039]) and cerium hydroxide, the at least one cerium compound contains cerium capable of being trivalent cerium or tetravalent cerium (paragraph [0039]), and when the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished (abstract), the slurry yields 0.13 to 0.21 (0.16, when Ce3+/Ce4+ is 0.2, paragraph [0039]) in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy as a ratio of an atomic amount of the trivalent cerium to a total atomic amount of the trivalent cerium and the tetravalent cerium.
Bottiglieri does not teach a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry is +10 mV or more.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry of less than (“within”) +10 mV indicates unstable composition (paragraph [0057]), resulting in inconsistent planarizing performance (paragraphs [0054][0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before effective filing date of the invention to make a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry to be +10 mV or more for the benefit of achieving consistent planarizing performance.
Bottiglieri does not teach the claimed slurry yields are at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished.
Bottiglieri teaches the yields of 0.16 for the benefit of improving the removal process (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the slurry yields as claimed throughout the entire polishing process (thus including at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished) for the benefit of maintaining the removal process.
Regarding claim 2, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive grains contain the cerium oxide (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein the surface to be polished contains at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon (abstract), aluminum, cobalt, copper, gallium, germanium, arsenic, ruthenium, indium, tin, hafnium, thallium, tungsten, and platinum.
Regarding claim 8, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein the surface to be polished contains silicon (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive grains include first particles and second particles in contact with the first particles, a particle size of the second particles is smaller than a particle size of the first particles (paragraph [0043]), the first particles contain cerium oxide, and the second particles contain a cerium compound (paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 10, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 9, wherein the particle size of the first particles is 15 to 1000 nm (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 9, wherein the particle size of the second particles is 1 to 50 nm (paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein a content of the abrasive grains is 0.01 to 1% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the slurry (total slurry mass = carrier mass + particulate mass, paragraph [0030]; carrier and particulate masses are 90% and 10%, respectively, paragraph [0037]; 10% of 10% is 0.01 or 1%).
Regarding claim 14, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein pH is 2.0 to 5.0 (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 17, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is 0.13 to 0.16 (0.16, when Ce3+/Ce4+ is 0.2, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 18, Bottiglieri teaches (see claim 1) a slurry comprising abrasive grains and a liquid medium, wherein the abrasive grains contain cerium oxide, a content of the cerium oxide is less than 0.5% by mass on the basis of a total mass of the slurry (total slurry mass = carrier mass + particulate mass, paragraph [0030]; carrier and particulate masses are 97% and 3%, respectively, paragraph [0030]; of the 3% particulate mass, 10% is cerium oxide, paragraph [0036]; thus, cerium oxide is 0.003 or 0.3%), the cerium oxide contains cerium capable of being trivalent cerium or tetravalent cerium, and when the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished, the slurry yields 0.13 to 0.32 (0.16, when Ce3+/Ce4+ is 0.2, paragraph [0039]) in X- ray photoelectron spectroscopy as a ratio of an atomic amount of the trivalent cerium to a total atomic amount of the trivalent cerium and the tetravalent cerium.
Bottiglieri does not teach a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry is +10 mV or more.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry of less than (“within”) +10 mV indicates unstable composition (paragraph [0057]), resulting in inconsistent planarizing performance (paragraphs [0054][0055]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before effective filing date of the invention to make a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the slurry to be +10 mV or more for the benefit of achieving consistent planarizing performance.
Bottiglieri does not teach the claimed slurry yields are at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished.
Bottiglieri teaches the yields of 0.16 for the benefit of improving the removal process (paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the slurry yields as claimed throughout the entire polishing process (thus including at least 1 minute after the slurry is brought into contact with a surface to be polished to bring the abrasive grains into contact with the surface to be polished) for the benefit of maintaining the removal process.
Regarding claim 19, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 18, wherein the ratio is 0.13 to 0.28 (0.16, when Ce3+/Ce4+ is 0.2, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 18, wherein the ratio is 0.13 to 0.21 (0.16, when Ce3+/Ce4+ is 0.2, paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 21, Bottiglieri teaches the slurry according to claim 18, wherein the content of the cerium oxide is less than 0.3% by mass on the basis of a total mass of the slurry (total slurry mass = carrier mass + particulate mass, paragraph [0030]; carrier and particulate masses are 97% and 3%, respectively, paragraph [0030]; of the 3% particulate mass, not greater than 10% is cerium oxide, paragraph [0036]; thus, cerium oxide is less than 0.003 or 0.3%).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottiglieri et al (PG Pub 2019/0153264 A1) and Wang et al (PG Pub 2015/0284593 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Oh et al (PG Pub 2010/0062687 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009]), for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009], and Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the abrasive grains to contain the cerium hydroxide for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them.
Regarding claim 4, Bottiglieri remains as applied in claim 1.
Bottiglieri further teaches the abrasive grains contain the cerium oxide (paragraph [0039]).
Bottiglieri does not teach the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide.
In the same field of endeavor, Oh teaches the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009]) and (two kinds of cerium oxides, paragraph [0009]) cerium oxide (paragraph [0009]), for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009], and Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the abrasive grains to contain the cerium oxide and the cerium hydroxide for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them.
Regarding claim 5, Oh does not explicitly teach a content of cerium hydroxide in the abrasive grains is 5 to 50% by mass on the basis of the entire abrasive grains.
Oh teaches adjusting the ratio of two kinds of abrasive grains changes either polishing rates of silicon oxide and silicon nitride, or the polishing selectivity between them (paragraphs [0027][0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a content of cerium hydroxide in the abrasive grains, to be 5 to 50% by mass on the basis of the entire abrasive grains, for example, according to the intended use of the slurry. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 9.
The previous combination does not teach the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide.
Oh teaches the abrasive grains contain the cerium hydroxide (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009]), for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them (paragraphs [0044] and [0005] to [0009], and Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the abrasive grains to contain the cerium hydroxide for the benefit of adjusting polishing rate of silicon oxide and silicon nitride and polishing selectivity between them.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 29, 2025 with regards to claims 1 and 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the previously cited art and the currently cited Wang et al teach the claimed features. See rejection above.
Applicant's arguments with regards to 102(b)(2)(C) exception of Iwano reference are persuasive thus rejection of claims 3,4,5,and 12 under Iwano reference are withdrawn. However, currently cited Oh reference teaches features in claims 3,4,5 and 12. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899