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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/21/2025.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/08/2025, has been entered. Claims 16 and 17 are amended, no claims are cancelled, claim 22 is newly added, and claims 1-15 remain withdrawn as described above. Accordingly, claims 1-22 are pending with claims 16-22 considered in this Office Action.
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 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuzawa et al. (U.S. 6,615,499) as evidenced by Stanford Materials “The Ultimate Guide to Cerium Oxide Polishing Powder” NPL.
Regarding claim 16, Matsuzawa et al. (hereinafter “Matsuzawa”) teaches a cerium oxide abrasive slurry wherein the slurry has a medium (meeting claimed ‘carrier’) and cerium oxide particles (meeting claimed ‘plurality of abrasive particles disposed in the carrier’) (Abstract).
As evidenced by Stanford Materials, cerium oxide has a Mohs hardness of about 6-7 which lies within the claimed range of “about 4 to about 10”.
Matsuzawa further teaches that the cerium oxide particles have diameters of 20 to 500 nm with the volume distribution median value of 80 nm (Example 1, Col. 9 lines 42-44; meeting claimed “majority of the abrasive particles have a median size of at least 30 nm, and wherein said particulate slurry is substantially free of any abrasive particles having a median size of about 20 nm or less”).
As the median size of the particles is 80 nm, the slurry would be free of any abrasive particles having a median size of about 20 nm or less (emphasis respectfully added for clarity).
Additionally, the median size is 80 nm which is the median for the set including all, i.e., the majority, of the particles which meets the claim feature requiring “a majority of the abrasive particles have a median size in the range of from about 30 nm to about 100 nm”.
Regarding claim 17, Matsuzawa teaches the slurry as applied to claim 16 above and further teaches that polymeric dispersants such as methacrylic acid polymer (Col. 5 lines 1-24) are added with the cerium oxide particles (Col. 5 lines 39-43) such that the abrasive particles comprise an organic material.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Matsuzawa teaches the slurry as applied to claim 16 above and further teaches cerium oxide (Abstract, Example 1) which meets ‘inorganic material’ (claim 19) and specifically both “ceria” and “cerium oxide” as claimed (claim 20).
Regarding claim 21, Matsuzawa teaches the slurry as applied to claim 16 above and further teaches that the carrier is water (Example 1; meeting claimed ‘aqueous solution’).
Regarding claim 22, Matsuzawa teaches the slurry as applied to claim 17 above and further teaches the inclusion of polymeric dispersants such as poly(ammonium (meth)acrylate) and other suitable polymers (Col. 5 lines 1-24) which, based on their polymeric nature, would meet the claimed feature requiring ‘the organic material’ to comprise “a reaction product of a polymerizable mixture including one or more polymerizable resins”. Specifically, the polymer itself is the reaction product from the polymerizable mixture of reactants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code, Graham v. Deere factual inquiries, and presumption of common ownership not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzawa et al. (U.S. 6,615,499) as evidenced by Stanford Materials “The Ultimate Guide to Cerium Oxide Polishing Powder” NPL.
Regarding claim 18, Matsuzawa teaches the slurry as applied to claim 16 above but is silent to the cerium oxide particles having a ‘substantially spherical morphology’ as claimed. However, Matsuzawa acknowledges that the diameter of the particles is determined using the volume of a sphere (Col. 6 lines 43-45) which would indicate to the person of ordinary skill that the particles would be largely spherical.
Alternatively, it would be obvious to select the appropriate shape of the abrasive particles so as to achieve desired abrasive performance because it is well known in the abrasive arts that particles for sensitive applications such as Si films and semiconductors must have particularly shaped surfaces so as to minimize detrimental gouging, scrapes, and non-uniform polishing.
Please note that Matsuzawa also expressly seeks to avoid the formation of scratches and acknowledges that “a problem arises that it causes scratches to a degree that can be visually noticed… as the diameter of the primary grain is large (“Background Art; Col. 1 lines 53-55). While Matsuzawa does not expressly attribute the scratches to the shape of the particles, POSITA would understand that the shape would also be a factor in polishing performance such that edges and sharpness should be avoided so as to limit scratches.
POSITA would understand that a sphere is the optimal shape to avoid edges and sharp points on the particle that could lead to scratches and/or gouges of the surface of the material to be polished.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the particle distribution of Matsuzawa is far larger than that of Applicant (Page 3 approx. 1st paragraph of Remarks filed 12/08/2025), Examiner respectfully notes that there are no presented claim features directed to the particle distribution. Even though Matsuzawa discloses a range of particle sizes and distributions, Matsuzawa still possess a median size of 80 nm which meets the claims.
As to Applicant’s argument that Matsuzawa’s reported median size of 80 nm is to a volume distribution median value which is “not the same as the median size” (Page 3 approx. 2nd paragraph of Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the median is defined such that it necessarily is the middle number of a set. Thus, Matsuzawa’s reported ‘median’ value of 80 nm is not influenced by volume as argued by Applicant.
As best as can be understood, it appears that Applicant is trying to argue that the particle distribution of Matsuzawa is different from Applicant’s and, because of the large spread of particle sizes, the median is skewed. However, the median cannot be skewed because of the way it is defined. The mean or average particle size can be skewed by outliers but the median cannot. Thus, Applicant’s arguments that the reported median value of Matsuzawa is different from Applicant’s median value are unpersuasive.
Also, to make the record clear, Applicant’s provided example in the specification uses two colloidal silica sources where the mean of one slurry is 79 nm while the mean of the other is 24 nm (emphasis respectfully added for clarity of the record) (screenshot below).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chu et al. (U.S. 2006/0175295) directed to an abrasive particle for chemical mechanical polishing where the plurality of abrasive particles have a polydisperse particle size distribution with median particle size, by volume, being about 20 nm to about 100 nm and wherein the fraction of particles greater than about 100 nm is less than or equal to about 20% by volume of the abrasive particles. Notably, this disclosure provides a special definition of “span” from which they determine the median (Paragraph 0027).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738