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 § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 16-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata et al. (JP-2008270826-A, machine translation) in view of Costa et al. (BR-102013008932-A2, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 16, Kurata teaches a process for the manufacture of a semiconductor device comprising the chemical mechanical polishing of a substrate (S) used in the semiconductor industry (Paragraph [0001] polishing method for use on semiconductor devices) wherein the substrate (S) comprises
(i) tungsten and/or
(ii) tungsten alloys (Paragraph [0037] a metal film to be polished, where the metal film can include tungsten, tungsten nitride, tungsten alloys, and tungsten compounds)
in the presence of a composition for inhibition of tungsten etching (Paragraph [0008] polishing solution includes metal corrosion inhibitor) comprising
(A) at least one inorganic abrasive particle (Paragraph [0033] polishing solution can include abrasive particles that are inorganic);
(B) at least one corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph [0021] metal corrosion inhibitor can be a guanidine); and
(C) an aqueous medium (Paragraph [0010] polishing solution contains water); and
Kurata fails to teach wherein the pH of the composition is in the range of from ≥ 6.0 to ≤11.0.
However, Kurata teaches that the pH of the composition is 2-7 (Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and utilized in the composition a pH within the disclosed range of 2-7, including a pH that would have overlapped with the claimed range of from ≥ 6.0 to ≤ 11. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kurata fails to teach that the component (B) at least one corrosion inhibitor, is selected from chlorhexidine and chlorhexidine salts.
Costa discloses various corrosion inhibitors that are useful for metal substrates ([abstract], Paragraph 015]). Costa teaches that chlorhexidine is commonly found in salt form (Paragraph [001] neutral chlorhexidine (CLX) has a structure similar to bicathionic surfactants and is commonly found in dianionic salts). Costa teaches using chlorhexidine diacetate as a corrosion inhibitor (Paragraph [019]). Costa teaches that chlorhexidine is a corrosion inhibitor for metals (Paragraph [026] CLX will minimize a corrosive effect). Chlorhexidine is considered a member of biguanides (PubChem - Chlorhexidine, NPL Reference U, Description section). Biguanides are considered members of guanidines (PubChem - Biguanide, NPL Reference V, Description section). Therefore, Chlorhexidine is considered a member of guanidines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chlorhexidine as the corrosion inhibitor from the group of guanidines taught by Kurata. This would have been obvious because the selection of chlorhexidine would have yielded the predictable result of chlorhexidine acting as a corrosion inhibitor as taught by Costa. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 17, Kurata further teaches wherein the at least one inorganic abrasive particle (A) in the composition is selected from the group consisting of metal oxides, metal nitrides, metal carbides, silicides, borides, ceramics, diamond, organic hybrid particles, inorganic hybrid particles and silica (Paragraph [0033] abrasive particles can be alumina, silica, ceria, zirconia, titania, germania or polystyrene, polyacrylic, and polyvinyl chloride).
Regarding Claim 18, Kurata fails to explicitly teach wherein the concentration of the at least one inorganic abrasive particle (A) in the composition is in the range of from ≥ 0.01 wt.% to ≤ 10.0 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition.
However, Kurata further teaches the amount of abrasive particles is 10 wt% or less (Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and utilized in the composition a concentration of the abrasive particle within the disclosed range of 0-10 wt.%, including a concentration that would have overlapped with the claimed range of ≥0.01 wt. % to ≤10.0 wt.%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kurata teaches, as outlined above, that the metal corrosion inhibitor can comprise chlorhexidine.
Examiner takes the position that a composition that includes an aqueous medium and a chlorhexidine salt, as taught by the prior art, will be include chlorhexidine and as this taught by Costa as corrosion inhibitor, it can be considered to meet the instant limitation. A composition comprising a salt, where the salt comprises chlorhexidine, comprises chlorhexidine. Additionally, a salt will dissolve in an aqueous medium, such that the composition directly comprises the separate components of the salt in solution.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition by selecting chlorhexidine as the corrosion inhibitor. While Costa teaches chlorhexidine diacetate as a preferred salt to add to a solution for corrosion inhibition, Costa teaches that chlorhexidine in solution provides anti-corrosive properties (Paragraph [026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used chlorhexidine in place of chlorhexidine diacetate in the composition outlined above. This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, which is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Regarding Claim 20, Kurata fails to explicitly teach wherein the concentration of the at least one corrosion inhibitor (B) in the composition is in the range of from ≥ 0.001 wt.% to ≤ 0.05 wt.% , based on the total weight of the composition.
However, Kurata further teaches amount of metal corrosion inhibitor is 0.0005-10 wt% (Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and utilized in the composition a concentration of corrosion inhibitor within the disclosed range of 0.0005-10 wt.%, including a concentration that would have overlapped with the claimed range of ≥ 0.001 wt.% to ≤ 0.05 wt.%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 21, Kurata fails to teach wherein the pH of the composition is in the range of from >7 to ≤10.5. Kurata teaches that the preferred pH range is 2-7. It is the examiner’s position that the disclosed values (in particular a value of 7, or about 7, which is taught by Kurata when compared to pH value of just above 7, which would meet the instant limitation) are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have expected the same properties. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 22, Kurata further teaches wherein the composition further comprises at least one corrosion inhibitor (D) selected from polyacrylamides and polyacrylamide copolymers (Paragraph [0030] polishing solution can contain a water-soluble polymer, that can be a polyacrylamide).
Regarding Claim 23, Kurata fails to explicitly teach wherein the weight average molecular weight of the at least one corrosion inhibitor (D) in the composition is in the range of from ≥ 5000 g/mol to ≤50,000 g/mol, determined according to gel permeation chromatography.
However, Kurata teaches that the weight average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer can be 500-5 million (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and utilized in the composition a polyacrylamide with a molecular weight within the disclosed range of 5,000-5,000,000, including a concentration that would have overlapped with the claimed range of from ≥ 5000 g/mol to ≤50,000 g/mol. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 24, Kurata fails to explicitly teach wherein the concentration of the at least one corrosion inhibitor (D) in the composition is in the range of from ≥ 0.001 wt.% to ≤ 0.5 wt.%, based on the total weight of the composition.
However, Kurata further teaches mount of water-soluble polymer is particularly preferably 1 wt% or less (Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and utilized in the composition a concentration of the at least one corrosion inhibitor (D) within the disclosed range of 0-1 wt.%, including a concentration that would have overlapped with the claimed range of ≥ 0.001 wt.% to ≤ 0.5 wt.%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 25, Kurata further teaches wherein the composition further comprises at least one oxidizing agent (E) selected from the group consisting of organic peroxides, inorganic peroxides, persulfates, iodates, ferric nitrate, periodic acids, periodates, permanganates, perchloric acids, perchlorates, phosphoric acids, bromic acids and bromates (Paragraph [0010] polishing solution contains an oxidizing agent. Paragraph [0016] oxidizing agent can be hydrogen peroxide, potassium periodate, persulfate).
Regarding Claim 27, Kurata further teaches wherein the at least one oxidizing agent (E) in the composition is hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph [0016] oxidizing agent can be hydrogen peroxide).
Regarding Claim 28, Kurata fails to explicitly teach wherein the concentration of the at least one oxidizing agent (E) in the composition is in the range of from ≥ 0.01 wt.% to ≤ 1.0 wt.%.
However, Kurata further teaches amount of oxidizing agent is 0.1-25 wt% (Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an oxidizing agent at a level within the disclosed range of 0.1-25 wt. %, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of from ≥ 0.01 wt.% to ≤ 1.0 wt.%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 29, Kurata further teaches wherein the static etch rate (SER) of tungsten is below 12Å /min (Paragraph [0050] etching rate of 1.0nm/min, which is equivalent to 10Å/min, or less can be achieved).
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurata in view of Costa as applied to claims 16 and 25 above, and in further view of Fu et al. (US-20150376462-A1).
Modified Kurata teaches that the composition includes an oxidizer.
Modified Kurata fails to teach that the oxidizer is selected from the group consisting of organic peroxides, ferric nitrate and phosphoric acids.
Fu teaches a composition that can be used in the chemical mechanical polishing of a tungsten layer (Paragraph [0006]). Teaches that the composition can include an oxidizer (Paragraph [0023]). Teaches that the oxidizer can be an organic peroxide (Paragraph [0055]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the oxidizer taught by Kurata with an organic peroxide as taught by Fu since organic peroxides are known to be suitable oxidizers in the application of chemical mechanical polishing of tungsten and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
