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 considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2012/0270400 to Takegoshi et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Takegoshi et al. teaches a polishing composition, comprising: at least one abrasive (Paragraphs 58); at least one organic photocatalyst (Paragraph 33), wherein the organic photocatalyst is selected from the group consisting of a porphyrin compound, a thiaporphyrin compound, a phthalocyanine compound, a subphthalocyanine compound, a helical carbenium ion containing compound, and mixtures thereof; and water (Paragraph 30).
Regarding Claim 2, Takegoshi et al. teaches (Paragraph 58) the at least one abrasive is selected from the group consisting of alumina, silica, titania, ceria, zirconia, co- formed products of alumina, silica, titania, ceria, or zirconia, coated abrasives, surface modified abrasives, and mixtures thereof.
Regarding Claim 3, Takegoshi et al. teaches (Paragraph 59) the at least one abrasive is in an amount of from about 0.01% to about 50% by weight of the composition.
Regarding Claim 4, Takegoshi et al. teaches (implicit) the organic photocatalyst has an absorption max (Amax) of from about 350 nm to about 850 nm
Regarding Claim 5, Takegoshi et al. teaches (implicit) the organic photocatalyst does not contain a transition metal
Regarding Claim 6, Takegoshi et al. teaches (Paragraph 41) the organic photocatalyst is in an amount of from about 0.0001% to about 10% by weight of the composition.
Regarding Claim 8, Takegoshi et al. teaches (Paragraph 68) a polishing composition that does not include hydrogen peroxide, orthoperiodic acid, metaperiodic acid, dimesoperiodic acid, diorthoperiodic acid, ammonium periodate, potassium periodate, sodium periodate, ammonium persulfate, iodic acid, an iodate salt, perchloric acid, a perchloroate salt, hydroxylamine, or a hydroxylamine salt.
Regarding Claim 9, Takegoshi et al. teaches (Paragraphs 44 and 53) at least one
compound selected from the group consisting of pH adjusting agents, corrosion inhibitors, surfactants, chelating agents, water-soluble polymers, organic acids, organic solvents, or mixtures thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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