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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/13/2026. Claims 5-6, 9-15, 17-29, and 34-36 are pending in the current office action. Claims 5, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-21, 29, 34 have been amended by the applicant. Claims 21-28 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 7, 8, 30-33, 37-42 are cancelled.
Status of the Rejection
The rejection of claims 1, 7, 8, 30-33, 37-42 is obviated by the Applicant’s cancellation.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites the term “solid contents”. This term would have an ordinary and customary meaning of any contents that would be solid, when in a pure state, under standard temperature and pressure conditions. However, applicant has supplied an express intent to provide a specific definition for this term in Paragraph [0077], which states: “the solid contents are intended to be all components other than water, hydrogen peroxide, and the organic solvent in the present polishing liquid." Therefore, Claim 20 will be examined using this definition for “solid contents”. See MPEP 2111.01(V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-6, 9-15, 17, 19-20, 29, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (KR-20190005918-A, machine translation) in view Hayama et al. (US-20180226267-A1).
Regarding Claim 29, (note as the independent claim, Claim 29 is being addressed first in this section, the dependent claims will be addressed in numerical order below) Kamimura teaches a polishing liquid used for chemical mechanical polishing of an object to be polished (Paragraph [0001] polishing solution taught), the polishing liquid comprising:
abrasive grains (Paragraph [0049] polishing liquid includes abrasive grains);
a cationic compound, wherein the cationic compound is a compound other than a surfactant, the cationic compound is a compound selected from the group consisting of tetrabutylammonium hydroxide (TBAH), tetrabutylphosphonium hydroxide (TBPH), and tetrapropylphosphonium hydroxide (TPPH) (Paragraph [0130-0134] polishing solution can include a pH adjuster or buffer, that can be tetrabutylammonium hydroxide);
an anionic surfactant (Paragraph [0102-0104] polishing liquid can include a surfactant that can be an anionic surfactant);
at least one benzotriazole compound selected from the group consisting of benzotriazole, 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole, and 1-hydroxybenzotriazole (Paragraph [0081] polishing liquid can include an azole compound. Paragraph [0088] the azole compound can be benzotrizole);
a passivation film forming agent having a ClogP value of 1.5 to 3.8 (Paragraph [0058] polishing liquid includes organic acid. Paragraph [0061] organic acid can be salicyclic acid. Examiner takes the position that salicylic acid has an inherent ClogP value that falls within the claimed range of 1.5 to 3.8. This position is supported by evidentiary support document PubChem – Salicylic Acid, which identifies a ClogP value of 2.26 (Page 18));
a polymer compound (Paragraph [0102] polishing liquid can include a polymer); and
hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph [0073] polishing liquid can include an oxidizing agent. Paragraph 0075] oxidizing agent can be hydrogen peroxide).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein an average primary particle diameter of the abrasive grains is 5 nm or more and 30 nm or less, and a content of the abrasive grains is in a range of 1.0% by mass or more and 5.5% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches an average primary particle size of the abrasive particles is 1-100nm (Paragraph [0053]) and that the polishing liquid includes 0.01% mass or more and 10% mass or less of abrasive particles (Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an average primary particle diameter for the abrasive grains at a level within the disclosed range of 1-100nm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 5 nm or more and 30 nm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of abrasive grains within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.01% mass or more and 10% mass or less, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1.0% by mass or more and 5.5% by mass or less. 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).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a content of the cationic compound is 0.1% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches that the content of the pH adjuster or buffer is not particularly limited but is usual 0.001% mass to 0.1% mass of the polishing liquid (Paragraph [0135]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of cationic compound within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.001% mass to 0.1% mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.1% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less. 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).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a content of the anionic surfactant is in a range of 0.002% to 0.3% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches that the content of the anionic surfactant can be included from 0.00001% mass to 1.0% mass (Paragraph [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of anionic surfactant within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.0001% mass to 1.0% mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.002% to 0.3% by mass. 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).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a content of the at least one benzotriazole compound is in a range of 0.01% to 0.5% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches that the content of the at least one benzotriazole compound can be 0.001% mass to 2.0% mass (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of the at least one benzotriazole compound within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.001% mass to 2.0% mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.01% to 0.5% by mass. 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).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a content of the passivation film forming agent is in a range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches that the organic acid is included at 0.001% mass or more and 25% mass or less (Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of the passivation film forming agent within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.001% mass to 25% mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass. 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).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a pH is 2.0 to 4.0.
However, Kamimura teaches that the pH of the solution can be 1.0 to 14.0, and when the polishing target is an inorganic semiconductor layer, the pH of the solution can be 1.5 to 5.0 (Paragraphs [0045-0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pH for the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 1.5 to 5.0, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range 2.0 to 4.0. 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).
Kamimura fails to teach that the anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of N-lauroyl sarcosinate, dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, and lauryl phosphonic acid. Kamimura teaches that the anionic surfactant can be an alkylbenzenesulfonic acid but does not provide specific examples (Paragraphs [0102-0104]).
Hayama teaches a composition for use in chemical mechanical polishing of semiconductors (Paragraphs [0002-0003]). Hayama teaches a composition for polishing can contain a surfactant (Paragraph [0082] component in the CMP slurry can be a surfactant). Hayama teaches that the surfactant can be an anionic surfactant and that dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid is an example of a suitable anionic surfactant (Paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition taught by Kamimura by selecting as the anionic surfactant, or the alkylbenzenesulfonic acid, within the composition dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, as taught by Hayama.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one anionic surfactant used in polishing compositions for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, 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.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches wherein the at least one benzotriazole compound includes two or more benzotriazole compounds (Paragraph [0092] two or more azole compounds can be used. Paragraphs [0088-0089] multiple benzotriazole compounds are taught as suitable).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the at least one benzotriazole compound is 0.01 to 4.0.
However, Kamimura further teaches that the organic acid (which can be considered the passivation film forming agent as outlined above) is included at 0.001% mass or more and 25% mass or less (Paragraph [0062]) and that the content of the at least one benzotriazole compound can be 0.001% mass to 2.0% mass (Paragraph [0091]).
Therefore, in an embodiment that also meets all the limitations of Claim 29 (such that and "a content of the passivation film forming agent is in a range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass" and "a content of the at least one benzotriazole compound is in a range of 0.01% to 0.5% by mass"), Kamimura teaches a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the at least one benzotriazole compound is 0.002 to 50 (0.001/0.5=0.002 , 0.5/.01=50.0).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated amounts of the passivation film forming agent and the at least one benzotriazole compound such that the mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the at least one benzotriazole compound was within the disclosed range of 0.002 to 50, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range 0.01 to 4.0. 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 Claims 9 and 10, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches that the polishing liquid further comprises one or more organic acids selected from the group consisting of polycarboxylic acid and polyphosphonic acid, as required by claim 9, and wherein the one or more organic acids are selected from the group consisting of citric acid, succinic acid, malic acid, maleic acid, 1-hydroxyethane-1,1-diphosphonic acid, and ethylenediaminetetramethylenephosphonic acid, as required by claim 10 (Paragraph [0064] two or more organic acids can be used, such that the composition included salicyclic acid and an additional acids. Paragraph [0061] citric, succinic, malic, maleic acid are suitable organic acids).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches wherein the polymer compound has a carboxylic acid group (Paragraph [0110] "carboxylic acid-containing polymers, such as polymethacrylic acid and polyacrylic acid, polyacrylamide, polymethacrylamide, and polyethyleneimine" can be used as the polymer).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above.
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein the polymer compound has a weight-average molecular weight of 2,000 to 30,000.
However, Kamimura further teaches the weight average molecular weight of the polymer can be between 2,000 and 50,000 (Paragraph [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a weight average molecular weight for the polymer at a level within the disclosed range of 2,000 to 50,000, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range 2,000 to 30,000. 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 13, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches that the polishing liquid can further comprise an organic solvent (Paragraph [0122] the polishing liquid can include an organic solvent).
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach that the organic solvent is included in an amount of 0.05% to 5.0% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polishing liquid.
However, Kamimura teaches that the organic solvent can be included at an amount from 0.001% to 5% by mass (Paragraph [0127]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an amount of the organic solvent within the polishing liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.001% mass to 5% mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.05% to 5% by mass. 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 14, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches wherein the passivation film forming agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of salicylic acid, 4-methylsalicylic acid, 4-methylbenzoic acid, 4-tert-butylbenzoic acid, 4-propylbenzoic acid, 6-hydroxy-2-naphthalenecarboxylic acid, 1-hydroxy-2- naphthalenecarboxylic acid, 3-hydroxy-2-naphthalenecarboxylic acid, quinaldic acid, 8- hydroxyquinoline, and 2-methyl-8-hydroxyquinoline (Paragraph [0058] polishing liquid includes organic acid. Paragraph [0061] organic acid can be salicyclic acid).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches wherein the ClogP value of the passivation film forming agent is 2.1 to 3.8 (Paragraph [0058] polishing liquid includes organic acid. Paragraph [0061] organic acid can be salicyclic acid. Examiner takes the position that salicylic acid has an inherent ClogP value that falls within the claimed range of 2.1 to 3.8. This position is supported by evidentiary support document PubChem – Salicylic Acid, which identifies a ClogP value of 2.26 (Page 18)).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches that the polishing liquid further comprises a nonionic surfactant (Paragraphs [0102-0103] polishing liquid can include a surfactant, that can be a nonionic surfactant. Paragraph [0109] two or more surfactants can be used, such that an anionic surfactant as required by claim 29, and a nonionic surfactant can be in the polishing liquid).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above.
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to a content of the polymer compound is 0.05 or more and less than 10.
However, Kamimura further teaches the organic acid (which can be considered the passivation film forming agent as outlined above) is included at 0.001% mass or more and 25% mass or less (Paragraph [0062]) and that the polymer can be included at 0.0001% to 2.0% mass (Paragraph [0119]).
Therefore, in an embodiment that also meets all the limitations of Claim 29 (such that and "a content of the passivation film forming agent is in a range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass"), Kamimura teaches a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to a content of the polymer compound of 0.0005 to 5000 (0.001/2=0.0005 , 0.5/0.0001=5000).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated amounts of the passivation film forming agent and the polymer compound such that the mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the polymer compound was within the disclosed range of 0.0005 to 5000, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.05 or more and less than 10. 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 20, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above. Note: this claim is being examined using the interpretation outlined in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a concentration of solid contents is 10% by mass or more.
However, Kamimura further teaches the following amounts to include within the polishing liquid:
polishing liquid includes 0.0001% mass to 2.0% mass polymer (Paragraph [0119])
polishing liquid includes 0.01% mass or more and 10% mass or less of abrasive particles (Paragraph [0055])
polishing liquid can include a polishing accelerator, which can be included at 0.001 to 10.0 % mass (Paragraphs [0094-0096])
polishing liquid can include a pH adjuster and can be included at 0.001-0.1% by mass (Paragraph [0130-10135])
polishing liquid can include a surfactant, which can be included from 0.00001 to 1.0% mass (Paragraphs [0102-0108])
polishing liquid can include an azole compound, which can be included at 0.001 to 2% mass (Paragraphs [0081] and [0091])
polishing liquid includes organic acid, which can be included at 0.001% mass or more and 25% mass or less (Paragraphs [0058-0062])
polishing liquid can include a charge control agent which can be included at 0.0001-3% by mass (Paragraphs [0066-0069])
Therefore, using the interpretation for "solid contents" outlined in the Claim Interpretation section and the taught ranges for components of the polishing liquid, in an embodiment that meets all the limitations of Claim 29 (such that "a content of the abrasive grains is in a range of 1.0% by mass or more and 5.5% by mass or less" , "a content of the cationic compound is 0.1% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less" , "a content of the anionic surfactant is in a range of 0.002% to 0.3% by mass" , "a content of the at least one benzotriazole compound is in a range of 0.01% to 0.5% by mass" , and "a content of the passivation film forming agent is in a range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass") the solid contents can be calculated to be: (0.0001% to 2% polymer) + (1.0% to 5.5% abrasive particles) + (0.0005% to 0.5% passivation film forming agent) + (0.0001% to 0.1% cationic compound) + (0.002% to 0.3% anionic surfactant) + (0.01% to 0.5% at least one benzotriazole compound) + (0.001% to 10% polishing accelerator) + (0.0001% to 3% charge adjuster), which equals a total range of 1.0147% to 21.9%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated amounts components withing the polishing liquid such that the concentration of solid contents was within the disclosed range of 1.0147% to 21.9%, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 10% by mass or more. 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).
The recitation of "…the polishing liquid is used after 3-times or more dilution on a mass basis" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. While features of a product may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a product must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) [MPEP 2114]. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Alternatively, the applicant is advised that the limitation “…the polishing liquid is used after 3-times or more dilution on a mass basis.” is a product-by-process limitation. The claim is limited by the final concentration of the mixture and is not further limited by the amount of dilutions that have previously taken place. There is no apparent difference between the apparatus as claimed and the prior art as taught by Fukasawa. MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above.
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the cationic compound is 0.01 or more and 2.0 or less.
Kamimura further teaches that the polishing liquid can include a cationic compound at 0.001-0.1% by mass (Paragraphs [0130-0135]) and a passivation film forming agent at 0.001% to 25% mass (Paragraphs [0058-0062]).
Therefore, in an embodiment that also meets all the limitations of Claim 29 (such that and "a content of the passivation film forming agent is in a range of 0.005% to 0.5% by mass" and “a content of the cationic compound is 0.1% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less”), Kamimura teaches a mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the cationic compound is 0.01 to 5 (0.001/0.1=0.01 , 0.5/0.1=5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated amounts of the passivation film forming agent and the cationic compound such that the mass ratio of the content of the passivation film forming agent to the content of the polymer compound was within the disclosed range of 0.01 to 5, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.01 or more and 2.0 or less. 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 35, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of Claim 29 as outlined above.
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach wherein a mass ratio of a content of the polymer compound to the content of the cationic compound is 0.01 or more and 50 or less.
Kamimura further teaches that the polishing liquid can include a cationic compound at 0.001-0.1% by mass (Paragraphs [0130-0135]) and a polymer at 0.0001% mass to 2.0% mass (Paragraph [0119]).
Therefore, in an embodiment that also meets all the limitations of Claim 29 (such that “a content of the cationic compound is 0.1% by mass or more and 5.0% by mass or less”), Kamimura teaches a mass ratio of the content of the polymer compound to the content of the cationic compound is 0.001 to 20 (0.0001/0.1=0.001 , 2/0.01=20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated amounts of the polymer compound and the cationic compound such that the mass ratio of the content of the polymer compound to the content of the polymer compound was within the disclosed range of 0.001 to 20, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.01 or more and 2.0 or less. 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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (KR-20190005918-A, machine translation) in view Hayama et al. (US-20180226267-A1), as applied to claims 17 and 29 above, and further in view of Fukasawa et al. (JP 2017048256 A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of claims 17 and 29 as outlined above. Kamimura further teaches that suitable nonionic surfactants can be “ether-type, ether ester-type, ester-type, nitrogen-containing, glycol-type, and fluorine-based surfactants” (Paragraph [0107]).
Modified Kamimura fails to teach wherein an HLB value of the nonionic surfactant is 8 to 15.
Fukasawa teaches a polishing liquid (Paragraph [0015]). Fukasawa teaches that the polishing liquid can include a nonionic surfactant, and that polyoxyethylene lauryl ether is a suitable nonionic surfactant (Paragraph [0100]). Examiner takes the position that polyoxyethylene lauryl ether has an inherent HLB value that falls within the claimed range of 8-15. This position is supported by evidentiary support document Griffin identifies the HLB value of polyoxyethylene lauryl ether is 10.8 (Table 1)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of modified Kamimura by using polyoxyethylene lauryl ether as the nonionic surfactant, as taught by Fukasawa.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one nonionic surfactant used in polishing compositions for another. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, 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.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (KR-20190005918-A, machine translation) in view Hayama et al. (US-20180226267-A1), and applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Izawa et al. (US 20190080927 A1).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Kamimura teaches all the limitations of claim 29, as outlined above.
Modified Kamimura fails to teach wherein a zeta potential of the abrasive grains in the polishing liquid is in a range of +20.0 mV to +40.0 mV.
Izawa teaches a polishing composition (Paragraph [0010]) that comprises colloidal silica (Paragraph [0024]) and has a pH less than 6 (Paragraph [0010]). Izawa further teaches that the colloidal silica have a zeta potential with an absolute value of 10mV or more (Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the polishing liquid of Kamimura by selecting a colloidal silica with a zeta potential with an absolute value of 10mV or more as taught by Izawa, including the selection of a zeta potential of +20mV to +40mV, as specified by instant Claim 36.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a zeta potential at a level within the disclosed range of an absolute value of 10mV or more, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of +20mV to +40mV. 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).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this selection because abrasive grains with a zeta potential in this range improves the dispersion stability of the abrasive grains (Izawa Paragraph [0036]). Furthermore, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-5, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713