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(b)
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 12-13 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.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite due to the all claim recitations after the “dispersion treatment process” recitation lacking antecedent basis in claim 1 from which claim 12 depends. Further the recitations to an “additive tank” which recite a pH adjusting agent and a dispersing agent render the claim unclear as claim 1 only sets forth antecedent basis for a pH adjusting agent/dispersing agent with respect to the dispersion treatment process. This includes claim 13 as it depends from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7, from which claim 9 depends, recites an electrical conductivity after desalting treatment of 0.3 mS/cm. As such the claim 9 recitation of an electrical conductivity after desalting treatment of 1.0 mS/cm or less constitutes improper claim broadening and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi et al. (WO 2020/145121 A1; using US PGPub 2022/0111489 for English language citations) in view of Kozasa et al. (US PGPub 2009/0053981)
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-8 and 11, Mizoguchi teaches methods of regenerating a polishing agent slurry (see Figure) where the general method comprises polishing a material to be polished using a polishing slurry comprising a polishing agent, collecting the used polishing slurry and removing polishing scrap components from the polishing agent slurry, followed by sedimenting/separating/concentrating processes and regenerating the polishing agent (abstract; figure; [0015]).
Mizoguchi teaches polishing (Figure, box 1; [0084]) with a polishing agent slurry supplied in a tank ([0090]) and collecting the used polishing slurry in a tank with the water of dilution/washing (Figure, box 2; [0094-0099])(instant slurry collecting process) where density information is measured and the water of dilution is adjusted to a desired density of K2O ([0098]-[0101]), and the diluted slurry is pumped into a tank for further sedimenting/separating/concentrating processes (Figure, box 3, [0102]) (instant second process; instant claims 1-2 and 7-8), the specific gravity is measured and adjusted (Figure, box 4), the polishing agent particle size is adjusted (Figure, box 5; [0148]), and a regenerated polishing agent slurry is prepared (Figure, box 6; [0058]).
Mizoguchi teaches the sedimenting/separating steps include treating the collected polishing agent slurry with alkaline earth metal inorganic salt(s) which results in aggregation and sedimentation ([0106]) and adjusts/maintains a desired pH ([0110]-[0130]) which is then separated and concentrated ([0107]; [0133]-[0139]), and teaches the particle size is adjusted by re-dispersing the aggregates in water and adding a dispersing agent ([0147]-[0148]; [0153]) which preferably also acts as a pH buffer ([0156]-[0159]).
Mizoguchi teaches measuring density information and adjusting the used polishing slurry to obtain a desired value by dilution (instant desalting via reducing ion concentration). While Mizoguchi teaches later additions of inorganic salts and dispersing agents, Mizoguchi does not specifically teach addition of a pH adjusting agent (instant independent claims 1 and 7) and a dispersing agent (instant independent claim 1) in the diluted polishing slurry (instant dispersion treatment process). However, Kozasa teaches similar methods of recycling used polishing slurries and teaches that the collected used polishing slurry should be sequentially adjusted for relative density, viscosity and pH value prior to further treatment steps and removal of foreign substances via a filtration step ([0054]-[0059]). Kozasa teaches after the relative density is measured, the viscosity is adjusted by addition of a water-soluble polymer, preferably ethylcellulose ([0028]; [0056]), and the pH is adjusted by addition of an alkali solution, preferably ammonia water, to a targeted pH range of 10-11 ([0057]). Kozasa and Mizoguchi are analogous art and are combinable because they are concerned with the same filed of endeavor, namely recycling of used semiconductor polishing slurries. At the time of filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the viscosity and pH values of the collected used polishing slurry as taught by Kozasa after the density adjusting step of Mizoguchi and would have been motivated to do so as Kozasa teaches such prevents clogging of piping and filters and prevents aggregation prior to treatment with a dispersant (inorganic salt) ([0012]; [0025]-[0030]), respectively, and collectively results in an abrasive slurry suitable for recycling.
While Mizoguchi does not specifically teach the electrical conductivity of 0.3 mS/cm or less (instant claim 7) of the above diluted slurry, Mizoguchi does teach dilution with water to achieve a dilution of 5-50 times the initial polishing agent slurry mass ([0098]). It is noted that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01))
Regarding claim 5, Mizoguchi in view of Kozasa render obvious the method as set forth in claim 1 above. As noted Kozasa teaches adjusting to a pH range of 10 to 11 (see above). Kozasa further teaches adding the water-soluble polymer in amounts sufficient to obtain a viscosity of 0.004 to 0.01 Pa·s ([0056]). As such Kozasa renders obvious the claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 mass%. Alternatively, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results (see: In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; and MPEP 2144.05). At the time of the invention a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of water-soluble polymer as taught by Kozasa in order to obtain a suitable and desired viscosity and avoid clogging of piping and filters. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good (see In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215).
Regarding claims 3-4 and 9, Mizoguchi in view of Kozasa render obvious the methods as set forth in claims 1 and 7 above. As set forth above Mizoguchi teaches measuring density information and adjusting the used polishing slurry to obtain a desired value by dilution with water (instant desalting via reducing ion concentration). Mizoguchi teaches dilution with water to achieve a dilution of 5-50 times the initial polishing agent slurry mass ([0098]).
Mizoguchi does not specifically teach the electrical conductivity of 5.0 mS/cm or less (claim 3) or of 1.0 mS/cm or less (claims 4 and 9) of the diluted slurry. However, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (see In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655, (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430, (CCPA 1977). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”; MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 10, Mizoguchi in view of Kozasa render obvious the method as set forth in claim 7 above. As noted above Mizoguchi teaches the addition of the inorganic salts to induce agglomeration, Mizoguchi further teaches the pH value upon addition of inorganic salts is a pH of less than 10.0 and a minimum of 6.5 or more, preferably a pH from 8 to 10 ([0126]; [0129]-[0130]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Mizoguchi in view of Kozasa render obvious the method as set forth in claim 1 above. Mizoguchi teaches a system comprising the polishing process unit as claimed, the polishing agent slurry supply unit as claimed, a collecting unit as claimed, a diluting water supply desalting treatment unit as claimed, an ion concentration measuring part as claimed, sedimenting, separation and concentration units as claimed (Figure). Mizoguchi further teaches a regeneration step comprising an additive tank (Figure, 41) which may include known additives including dispersing agents and pH adjusting agents ([0153]-[0158]). Kozasa further teaches separate tanks of stock slurry solution, water-soluble polymer viscosity adjuster, and pH adjuster (FIG 1) (instant dispersion unit additive supply tank). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the separate tanks of Kozasa in the apparatus of Mizoguchi as Kozasa teaches separate and sequential tanks for separate/independent assessment and adjustment of density, viscosity and pH values ([0054]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE L STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/JANE L STANLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767