DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
Claim Objections
2. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, the applicants recite “the acidic substance comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid, hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrofluoric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, formic acid, malonic acid, maleic acid, oxalic acid, acetic acid, adipic acid, citric acid, acetic 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, lactic acid, aspartic acid, tartaric acid, and salts thereof” (emphasis added). It is noted that the phrase “acetic acid” and “lactic acid” occurs two (2) times in claim 7. This is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "a pH buffer and a pH adjuster", and since the substances targeted by each of them overlap, the difference between the "pH buffer" and the "pH adjuster" cannot be clearly understood. For example, in claims 6-7, applicants disclose that acetic acid, benzoic acid, succinic acid, malonic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid are used as pH buffer and pH adjuster. Therefore, it is unclear what the difference is between a pH buffer and a pH adjuster because the same ingredients can be used for a pH buffer and a pH adjuster.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they directly or indirectly depend on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reiss et al. (US 2022/0089908 A1).
As to claim 1, Reiss discloses a slurry composition for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) comprising:
two types of colloidal silica abrasive (See paragraph 0010-0012; surface modified colloidal silica and unmodified colloidal silica);
a pH buffer (paragraph 0034);
a pH adjuster (paragraph 0039);
wherein the two types of colloidal silica abrasive particles comprise first colloidal silica abrasive particles having a neutral charge and second colloidal silica abrasive particles having a negative charge (paragraph 0010-0023).
As to claim 3, Reiss discloses the primary particles of the two types of colloidal silica abrasive particles has a diameter of 15 nm or more, or about 20 nm or more, or 25 nm or more, or 30 nm or more, or 40 nm or more or 50 nm or more (paragraph 0015, within applicant’s range of 15 nm to 90 nm).
As to claim 5, Reiss discloses the pH buffer comprises organic acid (paragraph 0034-0035, 0120).
As to claim 6, Reiss discloses the pH buffer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, maleic acid, malonic acid, fumaric acid, phthalic acid, oxalic acid (paragraph 0031, 00860120).
As to claim 7, Reiss discloses the pH adjuster comprises an acid substance, a basic substance or both; the acid substance comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, maleic acid, malonic acid, fumaric acid, phthalic acid, oxalic acid (paragraph 0031, 00860120); the basic substance comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of alkali metal hydroxide, ammonium salts (paragraph 0034).
As to claim 8, Reiss discloses the two types of colloidal silica abrasive are include in an amount of 10 wt% or less, or 9 wt% or less or 5 wt% or less, or 0.1 wt% or less with respect to a total weight of the slurry composition (paragraph 0018-0019, within applicant’s range of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt%).
As to claim 9, Reiss discloses the pH buffer is included in the amount of 1000 ppm or less or 800 ppm or less, or 600 ppm or less, or 100 ppm (See paragraph 0031-0032; Note: 1000 ppm = 0.1 wt%; 800 ppm = 0.08 wt%; 600 ppm = 0.06 wt%; 100 ppm = 0.01 wt%; within applicant’s range of 0.01 wt% to 2 wt%).
As to claim 10, Reiss discloses a pH of 1 to 7, or 1 to 4 or pH of 2 or pH or 3 (paragraph 0033, within applicant’s range of “more than 1 and less than 3”).
8. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2021/0301173 A1)
As to claim 1, Lin discloses a slurry composition for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) comprising:
two types of colloidal silica abrasive (See paragraph 0013-0015; colloidal silica particle is not surface modified; and colloidal silica particle is surface modified;);
a pH buffer (paragraph 0025-0027);
a pH adjuster (paragraph 0025-0027);
wherein the two types of colloidal silica abrasive particles comprise first colloidal silica abrasive particles (not surface modified) having a neutral charge and second colloidal silica abrasive particles having a negative charge (paragraph 0013-0014).
As to claim 2, Lin discloses a weight ratio of the first colloidal silica abrasive particles to the second colloidal silica abrasive particle is 5:1 or 4:1 or 3:1 or 2:1 or 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 or 1:4, 1:5, or 1:6 (See paragraph 0022; within applicant’s range of 3:17 to 17:3; Note: 3:17 = 0.17647; 17:3 = 5.667).
As to claim 3, Lin discloses the primary particles of the two types of colloidal silica abrasive particles has a diameter of about 15 nm or about 20 nm or about 80 nm or about 90 nm (paragraph 0015, within applicant’s range of 15 nm to 90 nm).
As to claim 4, Lin discloses the secondary particles of the two types of colloidal silica abrasive particles has a diameter of 40, 50, 60, 65, 70, 70, 19, 100 or 150 nm (paragraph 0018; within applicant’s range of 15 nm to 90 nm).
As to claim 5, Lin discloses the pH buffer comprises organic acid (paragraph 0027).
As to claim 6, Lin discloses the pH buffer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of acetic acid, formic acid, benzoic acid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, phthalic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, citric acid (paragraph 0027).
As to claim 7, Lin discloses the pH adjuster comprises an acid substance, a basic substance or both; the acid substance comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of nitric acid, sulfuric acid, acetic acid, formic acid, benzoic acid, oxalic acid, succinic acid, phthalic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, citric acid (paragraph 0027).
As to claim 8, Lin discloses the two types of colloidal silica abrasive are include in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the slurry composition(paragraph 0021, within applicant’s range of 0.01 wt% to 10 wt%).
As to claim 9, Lin discloses the pH buffer (i.e. acetic acid) is included in an amount of 0.26 wt% with respect to a total weigh of the slurry composition (paragraph 0053, within applicant’s range of 0.01 wt% to 2 wt%)
As to claim 10, Lin discloses a pH of 1 to 3 including examples of pH = 1, or 1.2 or 2, 2.2 or 3 (paragraph 0026, within applicant’s range of “more than 1 and less than 3”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiss (US 2022/0089908 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishra et al. (US 2019/0359858 A1).
As to claim 11, Reiss discloses the polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises silicon oxide and a silicon nitride film; the polishing rate of the silicon oxide film is 500 Å/min or lower (paragraph 0052, within applicant’s range of 300 Å/min). As to claim 11, Reiss fails to disclose the polishing rate for the silicon nitride is 600 Å/min or more. Mishra discloses the polishing rate of the silicon nitride is 817 Å/min or 725 Å/min or 654 Å/min (See Table 3 in paragraph 0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiss in view of Mishra by having a polishing rate for the silicon nitride is 600 Å/min or more because 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(I)).
As to claim 12, Reiss fails to disclose a polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises copper. However, Reiss clearly discloses a polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride (paragraph 0052-0055). Mishra discloses polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises silicon oxide or silicon nitride (paragraph 0007-0010). Mishra further discloses the polishing composition can also be used to polish metals such as copper, titanium (paragraph 00031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reiss in view of Mishra by having a polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises copper because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
11. Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2021/0301173 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamimura et al. (US 2020/0354609 A1)
As to claim 11, Lin discloses the polishing target film of the slurry composition comprises silicon oxide and the polishing rate of the silicon oxide film is 303 Å/min or 310 Å/min (Table 1, within applicant’s range of 300 Å/min). As to claim 11, Lin fails to disclose the polishing target comprises silicon nitride and a polishing rate for the silicon nitride is 600 Å/min or more. Kamimura discloses the polishing targe is silicon oxide and silicon nitride and a polishing rate of the silicon nitride is 441 nm/min or 486 nm/min or 439 nm/min (See Table 1; Note: 441 nm/min = 4410 Å/min; 486 nm/min = 4860 Å/min; 439 nm/min = 4390 Å/min; within applicant’s range of 600 Å/min or more). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin in view of Kamimura by having a polishing rate for the silicon nitride more than 600 Å/min because 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(I)).
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights