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 with respect to claims as amended have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that the references do not teach 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. 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. Further, 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
Additionally, newly cited Ashitaka et al. teaches (Paragraphs 13 and 33) 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 polishing silica of Fei et al. and Otsuki 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.
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 and 2 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 0.01 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 3.0 µmol/g or more and 10.5 µmol/g or less.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 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 3.0 µmol/g or more and 10.5 µmol/g or less.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 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 3.0 µmol/g or more and 10.5 µmol/g or less 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.
Claims 1 and 2 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 10.5 µmol/g or less 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.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights