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 claim(s) 1-14, as to the point that the combined teaching fails to disclose the second particles are listed in the currently amended claim 1, 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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josseaux et al (US 9,914,864) in view of Komaki et al (US 5,080,975).
Regarding claim 1, Josseaux et al disclose an improved abrasive particle includes a shaped abrasive particle (resemble as the claimed first particle) comprising a body, which corresponds to the claimed “first particle with a first hardness”; and a plurality of abrasive particles (resemble as the claimed second particles, with a second hardness) bonded to at least one surface of the body of the shaped abrasive particle (col.1, lines 61-62; col.2, lines 11-14; Figures 8,10).
Josseaux et al disclose that the shaped abrasive particle (first particle) is formed by using ceramic powder, the ceramic powder material can include an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, a boride, an oxycarbide, an oxynitride, and a combination thereof. In particular instances, the ceramic material can include alumina; More specifically, the ceramic material may include a boehmite material (col.3, lines 46-col.4, lines 27); aforesaid alumina and boehmite are the same as the instant invention’s first particle and expected to have the same hardness, that may have been greater than the second particles.
Josseaux et al also disclose that the plurality of abrasive particles can be applied or bonded to the at least one surface of the body of the mixture 101 and/or precursor shaped abrasive particles 123 as unsintered particles. For example, the plurality of abrasive particles can include a raw material including at least one material of the group of an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, a boride, an oxycarbide, an oxynitride, or a combination thereof (col.13, lines 50-62).
Josseaux et al disclose that an elongated abrasive particle (reads on the first particle) can have a length defined by longitudinal axis 652, a width defined by the lateral axis 653, and a vertical axis 654 defining a height. As will be appreciated, the body 651 can have a primary aspect ratio of length: width such that the length is greater than the width. Furthermore, the length of the body 651 can be greater than or equal to the height. Finally, the width of the body 651 can be greater than or equal to the height 654. In accordance with an embodiment, the primary aspect ratio of length: width can be at least 1.1:1, at least 1.2:1, at least 1.5:1, at least 1.8:1, at least 2:1, at least 3:1, at least 4:1, at least 5:1, at least 6:1, or even at least 10:1 (col.27, lines 27-38).
Josseaux et al may not disclose the second particles comprises as listed in the claim 1.
However, Komaki et al disclose a composite diamond particle in which silicon carbide (SiC) being a core (corresponds to the claimed first particle) and covering the cores with a polycrystalline diamond coating (corresponds to the claimed second particles); and such composite particles are highly useful as abrasive granules for grinding (abstract).
Komaki et al also disclose that a granular abradant is used particularly for polishing the surface of a given object to high smoothness (col.1, lines 42-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Komaki et al's teaching of using the abrasive composite into the teaching of Josseaux et al for achieving high degree smoothness and also are highly useful as abrasive granules for grinding as suggested by Komaki et al.
Regarding claim 2, Josseaux et al disclose that a first-dimension length of the first particle is smaller than a second-dimension length of the first particle and a third-dimension length of the first particle (see Figures 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 3, Josseaux et al disclose that the shaped abrasive particle (first particle) is formed by using ceramic powder, the ceramic powder material can include an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, a boride, an oxycarbide, an oxynitride, and a combination thereof. In particular instances, the ceramic material can include alumina (col.3, lines 46-col.4, lines 27).
Regarding claim 5, Komaki et al teach above the second particles being diamond; and changes in size of an article were held to be obvious. In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Komaki et al teach the second particles being diamond and expected to have the claimed hardness, considering inherent property.
Regarding claims 11-12, Josseaux et al disclose above that the first particle is rod-shaped or platy shaped (see Figures 6B, 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Josseaux et al disclose above that Josseaux et al disclose that an elongated abrasive particle (reads on the first particle) can have a length defined by longitudinal axis 652, a width defined by the lateral axis 653, and a vertical axis 654 defining a height. As will be appreciated, the body 651 can have a primary aspect ratio of length: width such that the length is greater than the width. Furthermore, the length of the body 651 can be greater than or equal to the height. Finally, the width of the body 651 can be greater than or equal to the height 654. In accordance with an embodiment, the primary aspect ratio of length: width can be at least 1.1:1, at least 1.2:1, at least 1.5:1, at least 1.8:1, at least 2:1, at least 3:1, at least 4:1, at least 5:1, at least 6:1, or even at least 10:1 (col.27, lines 27-38).
Claim(s) 7-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josseaux et al (US 9,914,864) in view of Komaki et al (US 5,080,975) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al (US 2004/0203324).
Regarding claims 7-8, Modified Josseaux et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fails to disclose the composition having a pH in the range of 1-13 as of claims 7-8.
However, Smith et al disclose that adjustment of the pH of the aqueous dispersion composition can improve the dispersability while also increasing the polishing rate, and the pH is preferably determined as appropriate in consideration of the electrochemical properties of the working surface, the dispersability and stability of the polymer particles and the polishing rate. An embodiment of the polishing composition is an aqueous composition that has a pH under 5.0 [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Smith et al's teaching of maintaining pH of the composition into the teaching of modified Josseaux et al for improving dispersability while increasing the polishing rate as suggested by Smith et al [0052].
Regarding claims 9-10, Smith et al disclose a composition containing composite particles and water can contain other desired components such as acids, oxidizing agents and the like if necessary, and can be used as a polishing material for various devices including microelectronic devices, magnetic disks, and the like [0037]; As specific oxidizing agents there may be mentioned organic peroxides such as hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, perbenzoic acid, tertbutylhydroperoxide, and the like; permanganate compounds such as potassium permanganate, and the like; bichromate compounds such as potassium bichromate, and the like; halogenate compounds such as potassium iodate, and the like; perhalogenate compounds such as perchloric acid, and the like; transition metal salts such as potassium ferricyanide, and the like; persulfuric compounds such as ammonium persulfate, and the like; polyvalent metal salts such as iron nitrate, cerium ammonium nitrate, and the like; two or more of these may also be used in combination. By including such oxidizing agents, it is possible to vastly increase the polishing rate for polishing of metal layers, and particularly of working films of wafers [0042]; and aforesaid “cerium ammonium nitrate” being an isotropic oxidizer.
Regarding claim 14, Smith et al disclose above that the composition comprises a slurry composition containing composite particles and water can contain other desired components such as acids, oxidizing agents and the like if necessary, and can be used as a polishing material for various devices including microelectronic devices, magnetic disks, and the like [0037].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jonschker et al (US 20250197703) disclose a CMP composition, comprises a base abrasive particle coated with amino-polyorganosiloxane [0058]; and the base abrasive particles can have any shapes: spherically or non-spherically shaped such as elongated and/or branched, the base abrasive particles can partially be aggregated. Elongated shaped is preferred [0115] and [0116].
Tian et al (US 2013/0205676) disclose a method of forming an abrasive article includes providing a substrate comprising an elongated body having an aspect ratio of length:width of at least about 10:1 [0010]-[0011].
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 SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights