Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/018,093

POLISHING COMPOSITION, AND POLISHING METHOD USING POLISHING COMPOSITION

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 14, 2023
Examiner
KUMAR, SRILAKSHMI K
Art Unit
1700
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Yamaguchi Seiken Kogyo Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 1m
To Grant
71%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
305 granted / 551 resolved
-9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 1m
Avg Prosecution
415 currently pending
Career history
966
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 551 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ohashi does not teach a composition of claim 1 including malonic acid. Applicant notes but dismisses Comparative Example 18 of Ohashi which comprises each of the claimed components of claim 1. The rejection over Ohashi is modified and maintained. An additional prior art reference is also applied below. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent 6,309,434 issued to Ohashi (hereinafter, Ohashi). Regarding claim 1, Ohashi teaches an aqueous polishing composition comprising: colloidal silica; an oxidizing agent; malonic acid; and, and inorganic acid metal salt (see Comparative Examples 18 and 23 in TABLE 1). Ohashi does not explicitly teach the pH of the composition . However, the claimed pH range of 0.1 – 6 spans almost the entire acidic range. All components of Ohashi’s composition (colloidal silica, H2O2, Fe(NO3)3 and, citric acid) would each individually contribute to an acidic pH level. One on-line pH calculator indicates a 0.4 wt.% citric acid solution (0.021 mol/L), such as Ohashi’s Ex. 1, would have a pH of 2.441 while another indicated Ohashi’s Ex. 1 composition would have a pH 2.4-2.6. The pH of Ohashi’s composition is expected to fall within the claimed range of 0.1-6. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to maintain a pH above 0.1 as safety concerns arise with lower pH values and one skilled in the art would expect the pH of Ohashi’s composition to be well below the upper claim limit of 6 as fundamental equilibrium calculations for a 0.4 wt.% citric acid composition indicate the pH would be about ~ 2.4. Regarding claim 2, Ohashi does not teach using the composition to polish a polishing target containing a group III-V compound as a constituent component. The recitation of claim 2 is directed to a future intended use of the claimed composition. If a prior art composition is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As Ohashi anticipates the claimed composition it is expected that Ohashi’s composition is also capable of polishing a polishing target containing a group III-V compound as a constituent component. Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ohashi teaches the oxidizing agent is hydrogen peroxide (see Comparative Examples 18 and 23 in TABLE 1). Regarding claim 6, Ohashi teaches inorganic acid metal salt is iron nitrate (see Comparative Examples 18 and 23 in TABLE 1). Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2019/0211228 as filed by Ward et al. See paragraph [0082] replicated below. PNG media_image1.png 529 1016 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170190936, US 20220025214, US20210206920, US 20200208014, US 20210230451, US 20220127495, and US 2005/0139119 each disclose a composition comprising colloidal silica, an oxidizing agent, malonic acid and iron nitrate. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allan W Olsen whose telephone number is (571)272-1441. The examiner can normally be reached variable; M-F 9-7. 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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. ALLAN W. OLSEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 1716 /Allan W. Olsen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 1 https://sensorex.com/ph-calculator/
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2023
Application Filed
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jul 24, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12420336
ANTI-FRETTING COATING COMPOSITION AND COATED COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12417853
ENGINEERED SIC-SIC COMPOSITE AND MONOLITHIC SIC LAYERED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12418039
MEMBRANE ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURING PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Patent 12410882
VACUUM ADIABATIC BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12397261
METHOD FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL HYDROGEN SEPARATION FROM NATURAL-GAS PIPELINES
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
71%
With Interview (+15.2%)
4y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 551 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month