DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 3-7 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. In claims 3, 5 and 7, the terms “the adding” and “the additive” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 4 and 6 fail to cure the indefiniteness of their base claims, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suen et al (US 2013/0061876 A1).
As to claim 1, Suen discloses a planarization method 500, comprising:
providing a substrate 101 (Fig. 3B, Fig. 4A), wherein the substrate includes a first region 111 (silicon nitride, [0025]) and a second region 117 (conductive material tungsten, copper, cobalt [0029], [0043]) having different degrees of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity (inherently because they are made from different materials); and
polishing the substrate with a polishing slurry 501 (Fig. 5A, [0046]) and performing a surface treatment by the polishing slurry to adjust the degree of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of at least one of the first region and the second region (“to adjust the hydrophilicity of the first polishing stop layer 111” [0046]),
wherein the first region comprises a metal material including cobalt, copper or tungsten [0029], the second region comprises a dielectric material including silicon nitride compound [0025], the polishing slurry and the upper surface of the second region have a first contact angle, and the polishing slurry and the upper surface of the first region have a second contact angle, wherein the surface treatment causes a reduction of a contact angle difference between the first contact angle and the second contact angle during the polishing (inherent as a result of adjusting the hydrophilicity; “contact angle[] which may be used as a measure of the hydrophilic nature”, [0059]).
As to claim 2, Suen discloses that the surface treatment comprises transforming a material of the first region into another material having a degree of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity different from a degree of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of the material of the first region (see rejection of claim 1 where contact angle is a measure of hydrophilicity, Fig. 9A).
As to claim 3, Suen discloses adding additional acids [0047], which function as a pH adjuster as cited.
As to claims 5-6, Suen discloses to include an anionic surfactant as cited [0048], [0051].
As to claim 7, Suen discloses to include a corrosion inhibitor [0048].
As to claim 9, see the rejection of claim 1. Further, the method of Suen reduces contact angle, and therefore is expected to reduce a contact angle difference between the first contact angle and the second contact angle during the CMP operation to at least some extent.
As to claim 10, Suen has the same materials as in the instant invention, and therefore the same properties of hydrophobic and hydrophilic regions are expected. MPEP 2112.01, II (If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties).
As to claims 11-12, see the rejection of claims 3 and 5.
As to claim 13, see the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claim 1. Further, Suen discloses that the polishing is a CMP operation [0046].
As to claim 15, Suen discloses the same steps as recited, and therefore the same results of transforming the metal material into a metal oxide compound, and the pH adjuster modifies a pH value of the polishing slurry as cited are expected (see rejection of claim 3).
As to claim 17, see the rejection of claims 5-6. Because the same steps are conducted as in the instant invention, the same results of the surfactant bonding to the upper surface of the metal material during the CMP operation are expected.
As to claim 18, see the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 20, Suen teaches in another embodiment that the polishing slurry further comprises an additional second surfactant [0046], which is an additive as cited.
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.
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 4, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suen et al (US 2013/0061876 A1), as applied to claims 3, 15, and 19, respectively, and further in view of KR 2009/0113999 A.
As to claims 4 and 16, Suen discloses to add acids such as citric acid or oxalic acid [0046], phosphoric acid [0046], or hydrofluoric acid [0047]. Sulfuric acid and nitric acid are other known pH adjusters as taught by KR ’999 (see last claim). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sulfuric acid or nitric acid as a pH adjuster in the method of Suen because that they are useful pH adjusters for CMP compositions, and are expected to give the predictable result of a slurry that adjusts hydrophilicity.
As to claim 19, Suen discloses to add a corrosion inhibitor, but fails to disclose its composition. KR ’999 teaches that a short chain corrosion inhibitor such as 1-alykl-5-aminotetrazole or 1-alkyl-5-hydoxy-tetrazole are known, useful corrosion inhibitors (paragraph bridging pages 5-6). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cited corrosion inhibitor in the method of Suen because KR ’999 teaches that they are useful corrosion inhibitors for CMP compositions, and are expected to give the predictable result of inhibiting corrosion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is rejected under obvious-type double patenting, but is allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to suggest or disclose:
continuing polishing and performing a surface treatment by adjusting the polishing slurry to adjust the degree of hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of at least one of the first region and the second region, wherein a contact angle difference between the first contact angle and the second contact angle is equal to or less than 30 degrees during the polishing, as in the context of claim 8.
The closest prior art, Suen et al (US 2013/0061876 A1), discloses a method with polishing (buffing CMP process 400, Fig. 4B, [0042]) that renders the silicon oxide layer 111 hydrophobic [0044]. Suen discloses to continue polishing with a second cleaning solution 501. [0050], A second cleaning buffing CMP process 500 changes the degree of hydrophobicity of the exposed second region because a hydrophobic surface is changed from hydrophobic to being hydrophilic. [0051]. Suen discloses that Figure 9B illustrates the change in contact angle by polishing with cleaning solution 501. [0059]. The contact angle changes from 22 to 5 degrees. (Fig.9B, [0059]). While the contact angle is changed, Suen does not disclose that the contact angle difference between the first contact angle and the second contact angle is equal to or less than 30 degrees during the polishing, as in the context of claim 8. Suen fails to disclose the first contact angle. The prior art also fails to suggest or disclose the value of the first contact angle relative to the second contact angle. Therefore, it is unclear that the contact angle difference is within the cited range, nor is there motivation to provide the cited contact angle difference, as in the context of claim 8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,777,423. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated or fully encompassed by claims 1-24 of the ’423 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,373,879. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated or fully encompassed by claims 1-24 of the ’879 patent.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,300,508. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are anticipated or fully encompassed by claims 1-20 of the ’508 patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713