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 Interpretation
Claim 1: “a surface roughness of RAPRE of the preliminarily polished measured by an AFM is 0.1 nm or less…” - The limitation is understood as reciting a surface roughness of 0.1 nm, with an intended means for measuring accurately the surface roughness. The method is not positively reciting the atomic force microscope (AFM), or requiring it be measured during the polishing process.
Drawings
Due to the nature of the application, which is focused towards the chemical composition of polishing compounds, the examiner finds drawings are not necessitated in order to understand the mete and bounds of the application subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 6 and 11 recite in part “…wherein the final polishing composition contains no abrasive AFIN…” The limitation is written as if there could be other abrasives apart from abrasive AFIN in the polishing composition. Per the applicant’s specification [0072], the limitation would be clearer if recited as an “abrasive-free final polishing composition.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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.
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 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US PG Pub No. 20170321098).
In regards to claim 1, Takahashi discloses
a method for polishing a substrate made of a material having a Vickers hardness of 1500 Hv or higher ([0018]): the method comprising:
[0018] The present invention also provides a method for producing a polished object. The production method comprises polishing an object formed of a material having a Vickers hardness of 1500 Hv or higher with a polishing composition disclosed herein supplied to the object. The production method can efficiently provide a polished object having a polished surface of a super-hard material.
a step of carrying out preliminary polishing on the substrate using a preliminary polishing composition ([0054-0063]); and
[0054] The present description provides a method for polishing a material having a Vickers hardness of 1500 Hv or higher and a method for producing a polished object using the polishing method. The polishing method is characterized by comprising a step of polishing an object using the polishing composition disclosed herein. The polishing method according to a preferable embodiment includes a step of carrying out preliminary polishing (a preliminary polishing step), and a step of earning out final polishing (a final polishing step). The preliminary polishing step referred to herein is a step where preliminary polishing is performed on an object formed of a material having a Vickers hardness of 1500 Hv or higher at least on the surface (a surface to be polished). In a typical embodiment, the preliminary polishing step is a polishing step that is arranged immediately before the final polishing step. The preliminary polishing step can be a single-stage polishing process or a multi-stage polishing process having two or more stages…
[0055] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition is used in the preliminary polishing step. In the preliminary polishing step, a higher polishing removal rate may be higher than that of the final polishing step. Thus, the polishing (imposition disclosed herein is suitable as the polishing composition (preliminary polishing composition) used in a preliminary polishing step for a super-hard surface. When the preliminary polishing step includes a multi-stage polishing process that includes two or more stages, the polishing composition disclosed herein can be preferably applied to the preliminary polishing in an early stage (on the upstream side…
[0056] When the preliminary polishing step includes a multi-stage polishing process that includes two or more stages, two or more stages of the polishing process can be carried out using a polishing composition disclosed herein...
[0060] The preliminary polishing and the final polishing can be applied to polishing either with a single-side polishing machine or with a double-side polishing machine…
[0063] The polishing method disclosed herein may include an optional step in addition to the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step. Such a step can be a lapping step carried out before the preliminary polishing step...
a step of carrying out final polishing on the preliminarily polished substrate using a final polishing composition ([0054-0063]), wherein
[0054] … The polishing method according to a preferable embodiment includes a step of carrying out preliminary polishing (a preliminary polishing step), and a step of earning out final polishing (a final polishing step)…In a typical embodiment, the preliminary polishing step is a polishing step that is arranged immediately before the final polishing step. The preliminary polishing step can be a single-stage polishing process or a multi-stage polishing process having two or more stages. Here, the final polishing step is a step where final polishing is performed on the preliminarily polished object, referring to a polishing step that is arranged at last (i.e. on the most downstream side) among polishing steps carried out using abrasive-containing polishing slurries. In such a polishing method comprising a preliminary polishing step and a final polishing step, the polishing composition disclosed herein can be used in the preliminary polishing step, in the final polishing step, or in each of the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.
[0055] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition is used in the preliminary polishing step. In the preliminary polishing step, a higher polishing removal rate may be higher than that of the final polishing step…
[0057] When the polishing composition disclosed herein is used in both the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step, it is preferable to select the preliminary polishing composition and the polishing composition (final polishing composition) used in the final polishing step so that the difference between the oxidation-reduction potential ORP.sub.FIN (mV) of the final polishing composition and ORP.sub.y (mV) (ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y) is less than the difference between the oxidation-reduction potential ORP.sub.PRE (mV) of the preliminary polishing composition and ORP.sub.y (mV) (ORP.sub.PRE−ORP.sub.y). According to such a combination of the preliminary polishing composition and the final polishing composition, the polished lace tends to be made desirably smooth in a short time in polishing of a super-hard material.
[0058] The polishing method disclosed herein can be preferably practiced in an embodiment comprising a step of earning out preliminary polishing of an object using a preliminary polishing composition having an oxidation-reduction potential ORP.sub.PRE (mV) that satisfies ORP.sub.PRE−ORP.sub.y≧100 mV; and a step of carrying out final polishing of the object using a final polishing composition having tin oxidation-reduction potential ORP.sub.FIN (mV) that satisfies ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y≦100 mV, the method comprising these steps in this order. According to such a combination of the preliminary polishing composition and the final polishing composition, the polished face tends to be made smoother in a shorter time in polishing of a super-hard material.
[0059] In a preferable final polishing composition, ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y is 50 mV or less. The use of the final polishing composition having a relatively small ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y value, smoothness and flatness can be combined at a high level on a super-hard surface. From the standpoint, of the polishing efficiency etc., the ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y value is preferably −500 mV or greater, or more preferably −200 mV or greater, For instance, with the combined use of the final polishing composition that satisfies −200 mV≦ORP.sub.FIN−ORP.sub.y≦0 mV and the preliminary polishing composition that satisfies (ORP.sub.PRE−ORP.sub.y≧100 mV a polished object having a smooth and flat super-hard surface can be efficiently obtained. The oxidation-reduction potential ORP.sub.FIN of the final polishing composition can be, but is not particularly limited to, for instance, 300 mV to 750 mV (preferably 400 mV to 700 mV).
[0060] The preliminary polishing and the final polishing can be applied to polishing either with a single-side polishing machine or with a double-side polishing machine.
[0063] The polishing method disclosed herein may include an optional step in addition to the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step. Such a step can be a lapping step carried out before the preliminary polishing step... with an abrasive (typically a diamond abrasive) supplied between the platen for polishing and the object to be polished. The polishing method disclosed herein m ay include an additional step (a cleaning step or a polishing step) before the preliminary polishing step, or between the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.
a surface roughness RaPRE of the preliminarily polished substrate measured by an AFM, and
wherein a polishing removal in the final polishing step.
Takahashi fails to disclose the polishing removal ranges “0.3 microns or more.” Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0022]
In the art disclosed herein, final polishing is carried out so that the polishing removal is 0.3 pm or more. By setting the polishing removal in the final polishing (hereinafter also referred to as a polishing removal Wim) to 0.3 pm or more, latent defects on the superficial layer of the preliminarily polished substrate tend to be removed suitably. From the viewpoint of improvement in elimination of latent defects, in some preferred embodiments, the polishing removal Wm in the final polishing may be more than 0.3 pm, 0.32 pm or more, 0.35 pm or more, 0.4 pm or more, or 0.42 pm or more. The substrate surface from which latent defects are suitably eliminated tends to have lower surface roughness and improved smoothness.
[0023]
The upper limit of the polishing removal Wrnr in the final polishing is not particularly limited. From the viewpoint of efficiently removing latent defects from the superficial layer of the substrate without increasing the total polishing time too much, the polishing removal Wrnr in the final polishing is usually appropriate to be 2 pm or less, preferably 1.5 pm or less, more preferably 1 pm or less, and even more preferably 0.8 pm or less (e.g., 0.5 pm or less).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions.
Takahashi recognizes “[0007] The conventional art documents suggest the use of certain components (abrasives, oxidants, etc.) in their slurries used for polishing (in their polishing compositions) so as to improve polishing removal rates (amounts of surfaces removed from objects to be polished per unit time) and surface smoothness…”As such, in view of a recognized problem, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum workable ranges of polishing removal, by trying a finite number of solutions, in order to improve substrate surface conditions ([0021]).
Takahashi fails to disclose the surface roughness ranges from “0.1 nm or less”. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
[0025]
In the polishing method disclosed herein, the surface roughness of the substrate measured by the AFM after the final polishing (hereinafter also referred to as a "surface roughness RaFIN")isnot particularly limited. In a preferred embodiment of the art disclosed herein, the final polishing is carried out such that the surface roughness Rarm is less than 0.06 nm, and more preferably 0.05 nm or less. In this way, the final polishing is performed such that the surface roughness Rarm is less than or equal to a predetermined value (or less than a predetermined value), thereby making it possible to achieve a surface with excellent smoothness. From the viewpoint of not reducing productivity too much, the surface roughness Rarm after the final polishing may be 0.01 nm or more, 0.02 nm or more, 0.03 nm or more, or 0.035 nm or more.
[0026]
In the polishing method disclosed herein, the preliminary polishing is carried out using the preliminary polishing composition such that the surface roughness of the substrate measured by the AFM after the preliminary polishing (hereinafter also referred to as a "surface roughness RaPn") is 0.1 nm or less. By carrying out the preliminary polishing so as to achieve the surface roughness Rarni of 0.1 nm or less, the subsequent final polishing can efficiently remove latent defects from the superficial layer of the substrate.
[0027]
From the viewpoint of improvement in elimination of latent defects by the final polishing, the surface roughness Rapi of the substrate after the preliminary polishing is preferably 0.09 nm or less, more preferably 0.08 nm or less, and even more preferably 0.07 nm or less (for example, 0.065 nm or less).
[0028]
The lower limit of the surface roughness Rarni after the preliminary polishing is not particularly limited. From the viewpoint of efficiently improving the smoothness of the substrate surface without increasing the total polishing time too much, the surface roughness RaPn of the substrate after the preliminary polishing is normally appropriate to be 0.03 nm or more, and is preferably more than
0.04 nm, more preferably 0.045 nm or more, and even more preferably 0.05 nm or more (for example,
0.055 nm or more).
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions.
Takahashi recognizes “[0007] The conventional art documents suggest the use of certain components (abrasives, oxidants, etc.) in their slurries used for polishing (in their polishing compositions) so as to improve polishing removal rates (amounts of surfaces removed from objects to be polished per unit time) and surface smoothness…”As such, in view of a recognized problem, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the optimum workable ranges of polishing removal, by trying a finite number of solutions, in order to improve substrate surface conditions ([0021]).
In regards to claim 2, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary polishing composition contains alumina particles as an abrasive APRE ([0028]).
[0028] The polishing composition disclosed herein typically includes an abrasive. The material and the properties of the abrasive are not particularly limited as long as the polishing composition satisfies the formula (1) with respect to the oxidation-reduction potential in relation to the material to be polished. For instance, the abrasive may be inorganic particles, organic particles, or inorganic/organic composite particles. Examples include an abrasive substantially formed of any of the following: oxide particles such as silica particles, alumina particles…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select alumina particles as the abrasive APRE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 3, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary polishing composition contains a composite metal oxide as a polishing aid BPRE ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select metal oxides as the polishing aid BPRE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 4, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the final polishing composition contains no abrasive AFIN or contains silica particles as an abrasive AFIN ([0028]).
[0028] The polishing composition disclosed herein typically includes an abrasive. The material and the properties of the abrasive are not particularly limited as long as the polishing composition satisfies the formula (1) with respect to the oxidation-reduction potential in relation to the material to be polished…Examples include an abrasive substantially formed of any of the following: oxide particles such as silica particles, alumina particles
[0054]…:In such a polishing method comprising a preliminary polishing step and a final polishing step, the polishing composition disclosed herein can be used in the preliminary polishing step, in the final polishing step, or in each of the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select silica particles as the abrasive AFIN, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 5, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the final polishing composition contains a composite metal oxide as a polishing aid BFIN ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select metal oxides as the polishing aid BFIN, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 6, Takahashi as modified discloses
a polishing composition kit (at least preliminary polishing composition, final polishing composition, and polishing pad; [0060]) used in the polishing method according to claim 1,
[0060] The preliminary polishing and the final polishing can be applied to polishing either with a single-side polishing machine or with a double-side polishing machine. With respect to the single-side polishing machine, the object to be polished is adhered to a ceramic plate with wax or held with a holder called a carrier; while supplying the polishing composition, a polishing pad is pushed against one face of the object and the two are moved (e.g. rotated) in coordination to polish the one face of the object. With respect to the double-side polishing machine, the object to be polished is held with a holder called a earner; while supplying the polishing composition from the top, the surface plates are pushed against the opposing laces of the object and they are rotated in opposite directions to simultaneously polish the two faces of the object.
[0061] The polishing pads used in the respective polishing steps disclosed herein are not particularly limited. For instance, any species can be used among non-woven fabric types, suede types, hard polyurethane foam types, abrasive-containing species, abrasive-free species, etc.
comprising: the preliminary polishing composition and the final polishing composition ([0028])
wherein the preliminary polishing composition contains alumina particles as an abrasive APRE([0028]),
and wherein the final polishing composition contains no abrasive AFIN or contains silica particles as an abrasive AFIN ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select alumina particles as the abrasive APRE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select silica particles as the abrasive AFIN, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 7, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary polishing composition contains silica particles ([0028]) as an abrasive APRE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select alumina particles as the abrasive APRE, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 8, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 3, wherein the composite metal oxide contains permanganates ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select permanganate as a metal oxide for the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 9, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 5, wherein the composite metal oxide contains permanganates ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select permanganate as a metal oxide for the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 10, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 5, wherein the composite metal oxide contains vanadates ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select vanadate as a metal oxide for the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 12, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, wherein the final polishing composition contains alumina particles as an abrasive AFIN ([0028]).
[0028] The polishing composition disclosed herein typically includes an abrasive. The material and the properties of the abrasive are not particularly limited as long as the polishing composition satisfies the formula (1) with respect to the oxidation-reduction potential in relation to the material to be polished…Examples include an abrasive substantially formed of any of the following: oxide particles such as silica particles, alumina particles…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select alumina particles as the abrasive AFIN, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 13, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 8, wherein the permanganate is sodium permanganate ([0038]).
[0038] The species of polishing aid is not particularly limited as long as the polishing composition satisfies the formula (1) with respect to the oxidation-reduction potential in relation to the material to be polished. Examples of the polishing aid include…ferrates including ferric acid and its salts (potassium ferrate, etc.); permanganates including permanganate acid and its salts (sodium permanganate, potassium, permanganate, etc.);…These can be used singly as one species or in a combination of two or more species. In particular, permanganic acid or a salt thereof, chromic acid or a salt thereof, and ferric acid or a salt thereof are preferable. Sodium permanganate and potassium permanganate are particularly preferable. The use of these compounds as the polishing aid can effectively increase ORP.sub.x, thereby efficiently increasing the polishing removal rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select sodium permanganate as a metal oxide for the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 14, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 9, wherein the permanganate is potassium permanganate ([0038]).
[0038] The species of polishing aid is not particularly limited as long as the polishing composition satisfies the formula (1) with respect to the oxidation-reduction potential in relation to the material to be polished. Examples of the polishing aid include …These can be used singly as one species or in a combination of two or more species. In particular, permanganic acid or a salt thereof, chromic acid or a salt thereof, and ferric acid or a salt thereof are preferable. Sodium permanganate and potassium permanganate are particularly preferable. The use of these compounds as the polishing aid can effectively increase ORP.sub.x, thereby efficiently increasing the polishing removal rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select potassium permanganate as a metal oxide for the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 15, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 3, wherein the composite metal oxide contains metal nitrates ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a metal oxide that includes metal nitrates as the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
In regards to claim 16, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 5, wherein the composite metal oxide contains metal nitrates ([0039]).
[0039] In a preferable embodiment, the polishing composition includes a composite metal oxide as the polishing aid. Examples of the composite metal oxide include metal nitrates, ferrates, permanganates, chromates, vanadates, ruthenates, molybdates, rhenates and tungstates. In particular, ferrates, permanganates and chromates are more preferable; permanganates are even more preferable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a metal oxide that includes metal nitrates as the polishing aid, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07), and its implementation would yield predicable results regarding effective planarization of the substrate workpiece.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US PG Pub No. 20170321098) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakashima (US PG Pub No. 20120244388).
In regards to claim 11, Takahashi as modified discloses
the polishing method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that a final polishing composition contains “no abrasive AFIN ([0054])”.
Takahashi discloses the polishing composition in the final polishing step being optional.
[0054]…:In such a polishing method comprising a preliminary polishing step and a final polishing step, the polishing composition disclosed herein can be used in the preliminary polishing step, in the final polishing step, or in each of the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.
Takahashi discloses that there may be an intermediary step between the supposed preliminary and final polishing step as well.
[0062] The object polished by the method disclosed herein is typically cleaned after polished. The cleaning can be carried out using a suitable detergent. The detergent used is not particularly limited. A suitable species can be selected and used among detergents that are commonly known or used.
[0063] The polishing method disclosed herein may include an optional step in addition to the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.… The polishing method disclosed herein m ay include an additional step (a cleaning step or a polishing step) before the preliminary polishing step, or between the preliminary polishing step and the final polishing step.
Takashima is silent to the detergent employed. Nakashima, which also discloses a substrate polishing process teaches detergents for cleaning:
[0001] The present invention relates to a glass substrate for information recording media, a process for its production, and a magnetic recording medium. More particularly, it relates to an improvement of a cleaning step after polishing the glass substrate.
[0007] Under the circumstances, it is desired to completely remove cerium oxide abrasives, and a cleaning liquid containing an inorganic acid and ascorbic acid has been proposed (e.g. Patent Document 1 and 2). With such a cleaning liquid, by the action of the inorganic acid and ascorbic acid, the cerium oxide abrasives are dissolved and removed.
[0008] Further, it has also been proposed to use a cleaning liquid containing heated sulfuric acid as the main component, for cleaning in a final step (e.g. Patent Document 3).
The recited, the “final polishing” step is understood as a cleaning step, as it doesn’t require abrasives. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to incorporate the teaching of Nakashima in order to provide a step of cleaning the substrate using an abrasive-free compound, removing left over abrasives, and improving substrate finished quality by removing foreign matters remaining on the substrate ([0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723