DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/08/2026:
claims 1-19 are currently pending
claim 17 is amended
claim 19 is added
previously presented claim objection is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim
previously presented prior art grounds of rejection based on Hiroyasu are withdrawn in view of the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 01/08/2026
new prior art grounds of rejection applying Hartlen, JP Patent Office and Egami are presented herein
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 01/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 01/08/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-18 based upon Hiroyasu et al. (JP 5084670 B2). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hartlen et al., JP Patent Office and Egami et al.
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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartlen et al. (Facile preparation of highly monodispersed small silica spheres (15 to >200 nm) suitable for colloidal templating and formation of ordered arrays. Langmuir, 2008, 24, pages 1714-1720), hereinafter referred to as HARTLEN, in view of the Statement of Submission of Publications by Japan Patent Office retrieved from IDS received on 11/05/2025 (NPL Reference 1 in said IDS, see the section entitled “Regarding Publication 1” found on page 2), herein after referred to JP Patent Office.
Regarding claim 1, HARTLEN teaches highly monodisperse spherical silica nanoparticles with diameters ranging from ca. 15 to 200 nm (see HARTLEN at Abstract). HARTLEN also teaches the production of a continuous range of silica spheres with better than 2% polydispersity (see HARTLEN at Conclusion and Fig. 1). While HARTLEN is silent with respect to the silica particle having an average value of a circularity coefficient measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope being 0.90 or more, and wherein the silica particles has (A) a standard deviation of the circularity coefficient of 0.05 or less, (B) an average value of a Heywood diameter measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope being 30nm or less, and (C) an average value of an aspect ratio measured by a field -emission scanning electron microscope being 1.20 or less, HARTLEN discloses images of monodisperse silica spheres obtained by electron microscopy (see HARTLEN at Fig.1). JP Patent Office performed image analysis on the 209 silica particles shown in Figure 1(e) of HARTLEN, and obtained the mean value and standard deviations of the aspect ratio, circularity, and equivalent circular diameter of the silica particles of HARTLEN (see JP Patent Office at last paragraph on page 2). The aforementioned Fig. 1(e) and tabulated results are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
513
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, based on the image analysis results, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particle having an average value of a circularity coefficient of 0.95, and wherein the silica particle has (A) a standard deviation of the circularity coefficient of 0.01, and (C) an average value of an aspect ratio of 1.05; which overlap and render obvious the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 2-3, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particles according to claim 1, wherein the silica particle has the features (A) or (C) (claim 2) and (B) (claim 3), and the average value of a Heywood diameter is 20 nm or less (see HARTLEN at Abstract: nanoparticles with diameters ranging from ca. 15 to 200 nm). HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches an average value of a circularity coefficient of 0.95, indicating nearly spherically particles, thus, Heywood diameter (sqrt(4A/π)) would be very similar to the average particle diameter.
Regarding claims 4-6, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particles according to claims 1-3, wherein the silica particle has the feature (A) or (B), and an average value of an aspect ratio measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope is 1.20 or less (see JP Patent Office at Table on page 3: aspect ratio of 1.05, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claims 7-8, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particles according to claims 2-3, wherein a standard deviation of the Heywood diameter is 3.00 nm or less (see HARTLEN at Abstract: highly monodisperse spherical silica nanoparticles with diameters ranging from ca. 15 to 200 nm). Furthermore, as demonstrated in Fig. 1, silica spheres of HARTLEN are nearly identical in size. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that highly monodispersed silica particles of HARTLEN that can be 15 nm in size, would have a standard deviation of less than 3 nm.
Regarding claims 9-11, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particles according to claims 4-6, wherein a standard deviation of the aspect ratio is 0.15 or less (see JP Patent Office at Table on page 3: standard deviation of 0.04, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 13, HARTLEN as modified by JP Patent Office teaches the silica particles according to claim 1 comprising a tetraalkoxysilane condensate as a main component (see HARTLEN at Experimental Section. Chemicals: tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS)).
Claims 1, 12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami et al. (WO 2019189610 A1) with reference to US 20210002513 A1 for citation, hereinafter referred to as EGAMI.
Regarding claim 1, EGAMI teaches a silica particle in which average value of a circularity coefficient measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope is 0.90 or more (paragraph [0048]: the sphericity of the silica particles is preferably 0.80 to 1.00, … and particularly preferably 1.00), wherein the silica particle has any one of the following features (A) to (C):
(B) an average value of a Heywood diameter measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope is 30 nm or less (paragraph [0035]: primary particle diameter is preferably 5 to 100 nm). EGAMI teaches that sphericity of 1.00, indicating spherically particles, thus, Heywood diameter (sqrt(4A/π)) would be very similar to the average particle diameter. Thus, EGAMI teaches the range of 5 to 100 nm, which overlaps with the claimed range (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
For the purpose of examination, the statement “measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope” is not considered as further limiting structurally the silica particle.
Regarding features (A) and (C):
(A) s standard deviation of the circularity coefficient is 0.05 or less,
(C) an average value of an aspect ratio measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope is 1.20 or less,
EGAMI teaches a method for producing silica sol using alkoxysilane as a raw material (paragraph [0069]: an alkoxysilane, which is a raw material, is hydrolyzed and polycondensed in the presence of water, an organic solvent and a catalyst to form silica particles). EGAMI also teaches a water-soluble solvent, e.g., methanol, ethanol (paragraph [0077]); and hydrolysis catalyst such as ammonia, amine (paragraph [0078]); and the pH is in the range of 8 or higher (paragraph [0089]).
Since the disclosed process is the same as that of the instant invention (see Specification, Method for producing silica particles), and EGAMI discloses obtaining silica particles with the sphericity and particle size as set forth in claim 1, the features (A) and (C) would be inherently present in the silica particles of EGAMI.
Regarding claim 12, EGAMI teaches the silica particle according to claim 1, wherein a content of metal impurity is 5 ppm or less (paragraph [0051]: in the silica particles, it is preferable that the contents of each of alkali metals, alkali earth metals, Fe, Ti, Zn, Pd, Ag, Mn, Co, Mo, Sn, Al and Zr are less than 0.1 ppm). EGAMI teaches a range which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, EGAMI teaches a silica sol comprising: the silica particle according to claim 1 (paragraph [0154]: the dispersion liquid A of silica particles).
Regarding claim 15, EGAMI teaches a polishing composition comprising: the silica sol according to claim 14 (paragraph [0154]: the dispersion liquid A of silica particles and a water soluble polymer were mixed, thereby preparing a polishing composition).
Regarding claim 16, EGAMI teaches a polishing method, comprising: polishing a substrate using the polishing composition according to claim 15 (paragraph [0172]: the substrate for polishing … with each of the polishing compositions).
Regarding claim 17, EGAMI teaches a method for producing a semiconductor wafer, comprising: polishing the semiconductor wafer using the polishing composition according to claim 15 (paragraph [0172]: a substrate for polishing (a single crystal silicon wafer having a crystal structure of 1.0.0) was used and set in a polishing machine, and the substrate for polishing was polished for 5 minutes by use of a polishing pad Politex P103 with a polishing load of 0.05 MPa at a table rotation speed of 50 rpm, and a spindle speed of 50 rpm with each of the polishing compositions).
Regarding claim 18, EGAMI teaches a method for producing a semiconductor device, comprising: polishing the semiconductor device using the polishing composition according to claim 15 (paragraph [0172]: a single crystal silicon wafer having a crystal structure of 1.0.0) was used and set in a polishing machine, and the substrate for polishing was polished for 5 minutes by use of a polishing pad Politex P103 with a polishing load of 0.05 MPa at a table rotation speed of 50 rpm, and a spindle speed of 50 rpm with each of the polishing compositions).
Regarding claim 19, EGAMI teaches the silica particle according to claim 12, wherein the content of metal impurity is a total content of sodium, potassium, iron, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, zinc, cobalt, chromium, copper, manganese, lead, titanium, silver, and nickel present in the silica particle (paragraph [0051]: in the silica particles, it is preferable that the contents of each of alkali metals, alkali earth metals, Fe, Ti, Zn, Pd, Ag, Mn, Co, Mo, Sn, Al and Zr are less than 0.1 ppm; that the amounts of each of Cu, Ni, Cr are less than 1 ppb … the alkali metals refer to Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs and Fr. The alkali earth metals refer to Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba and Ra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731