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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/4/26 has been entered.
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 8/4/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the results at 2.0 to 5.9 µmol/g or less are unexpected with regards to washability and stability. However, the argument is not persuasive to overcome the Prior Art because Fei et al. teaches useful ranges include 0.1-1% by mass (about 2-10.2 µmol/g) and Otsuki et al. teaches 0.5 to 350 µmol/g, preferably 5.5 to 170 µmol/g solids which overlaps applicants corresponding range of 6.37 to 20.4 µmol/g solids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of silane coupling agent within the broadly recited range in order to provide the desired zeta potential and stability under low pH conditions as shown by Fei et al, and provide a modified colloidal silica that can be stably dispersed and can further increase electrostatic attraction or repulsion against a polished object, and further suppresses an increase in secondary particle size, formation of aggregates, and gelation as recited by Otsuki et al. with predictable results. Further the stability results shown (Table 1) are not unexpected commensurate in scope with the claimed range but show stability improvement with amounts of sulfonic acid groups greater than 5.9 µmol/g. Similarly the washability results are not unexpected commensurate with the claimed range, but show gradual improvement with lower addition amounts and apply only to one particular polishing object (SiN) application.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112429741 to Fei et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Fei et al. teaches sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein during synthesis the mercapto-containing silane coupling agent is present at 0.1 to 3% (for example 0.1 to 1%) of the mass of silica in the silica sol to me modified (See Page 3). Fei et al. teaches (Examples 1-6) applying different concentrations of mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane to the silica sol and prepared by the preparation method of mixing with alcohol solvent, heating, refluxing and aging, followed by heating, mixing with oxidizing agent and reacting. Therefore, it is implicit that the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 1.5 µmol/g or more and 10.2 µmol/g or less.
Fei et al. does not expressly teach a narrower range of 3.0-5.9 µmol/g. However, the amount of silane coupling agent is a result effective variable, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of silane coupling agent in order to provide the desired zeta potential and stability under desired pH conditions with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1, Fei et al. teaches silica particles are widely used for chemical mechanical polishing, but does not expressly teach the sulfonic acid-modified colloidal silica has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. However, according to the description (Pages 10-11) the microparticles are reduced as claimed by the solvent distillation step. Therefore, the same distillation step of Fei et al. (Examples 1, 3, 6) would reasonably be expected to reduce the microparticles as claimed, or else is the result of essential limitations which have not been claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Fei et al. teaches (Pages 3 and Examples) silane coupling agent such as 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane.
Regarding Claim 7 Fei et al. does not expressly teach metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less. However, the reduced impurities are reasonably expected to be achieved through the same process of heating and distillation.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112429741 to Fei et al. in view of US Publication 2017/0362465 to Ashitaka et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Fei et al. teaches sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein during synthesis the mercapto-containing silane coupling agent is present at 0.01 to 10% of the mass of silica in the silica sol to me modified (See Claim 2). Fei et al. teaches (Examples 1-6) applying different concentrations of mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane to the silica sol and prepared by the preparation method of mixing with alcohol solvent, heating, refluxing and aging, followed by heating, mixing with oxidizing agent and reacting. Therefore, it is implicit that the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 1.5 µmol/g or more and 10.2 µmol/g or less.
Fei et al. does not expressly teach a narrower range of 3.0-5.9 µmol/g. However, the amount of silane coupling agent is a result effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of silane coupling agent in order to provide the desired zeta potential and stability under low pH conditions with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1, Fei et al. teaches silica particles are widely used for chemical mechanical polishing, but does not expressly teach the sulfonic acid-modified colloidal silica has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. However, Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraphs 13 and 33-37) silane modified colloidal silica preferably has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the silica of Fei et al. with a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size in order to produce chemical mechanical polishing particles with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Fei et al. teaches (Pages 3 and Examples) silane coupling agent such as 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane.
Regarding Claim 7 Fei et al. does not expressly teach metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less. However, Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraph 84) metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0177318 to Otsuki et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Otsuki et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 110- 116 in context) sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 0.5 to 350 µmol/g, preferably 5.5 to 170 µmol/g. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 2.0 µmol/g or more and 5.9 µmol/g or less (6.37 to 20.4 µmol/g solids) in order to provide a modified colloidal silica that can be stably dispersed and can further increase electrostatic attraction or repulsion against a polished object, and further suppresses an increase in secondary particle size, formation of aggregates, and gelation as recited by Otsuki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Otsuki et al. does not expressly teach the sulfonic acid- modified colloidal silica has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. However, according to the description (Pages 10-11) the microparticles are reduced as claimed by the solvent distillation step. Therefore, the same distillation step of Otsuki et al. (Paragraphs 96, 105 and Examples) would reasonably be expected to reduce the microparticles as claimed, or else is the result of essential limitations which have not been claimed. Further, Otsuki et al. (Paragraphs 103, 105) ultrafiltration which would reasonably be expected to reduce microparticles as claimed, or else is the result of essential limitations which have not been claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Otsuki et al. teaches (Paragraph 93) silane coupling agent such as 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane.
Regarding Claim 7, Otsuki et al. teaches (Paragraph 119) metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2022/0177318 to Otsuki et al. in view of US Publication 2017/0362465 to Ashitaka et al.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Otsuki et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 110-
116 in context) sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 0.5 to 350 µmol/g, preferably 5.5 to 170 µmol/g. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a sulfonic acid modified colloidal silica wherein the amount of sulfonic acid groups per 1g of particles is 3.0 µmol/g or more and 5.9 µmol/g or less (6.37 to 20.4 µmol/g solids) in order to provide a modified colloidal silica that can be stably dispersed and can further increase electrostatic attraction or repulsion against a polished object, and further suppresses an increase in secondary particle size, formation of aggregates, and gelation as recited by Otsuki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Otsuki et al. teaches silica particles are used as abrasive for electronic materials such as semiconductor wafers (Paragraph 3), but does not expressly teach the sulfonic acid-modified colloidal silica has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. However, Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraphs 13 and 33-37) silane modified colloidal silica for polishing preferably has a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size based on a Heywood diameter (diameter of the equivalent circle) by image analysis using a scanning electron microscope. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the silica of Ashitaka et al. with a number-based percentage of 10% or less of microparticles having a particle size of 40% or less of a volume-average particle size in order to produce chemical mechanical polishing particles with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, Otsuki et al. teaches (Paragraph 93) silane coupling agent such as 3-mercaptopropyltrimethoxysilane. Similarly, Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraph 47) the well-known silane coupling agents.
Regarding Claim 7, Otsuki et al. teaches (Paragraph 119) metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less. Similarly, Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraph 84) metallic impurities 1ppm by mass or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM 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, 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
