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) 1-6, as to the point that the applied prior art, Egami fails to teach a redispersing agent 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, 6,11-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami et al (US 2021/0002513) in view of Lamphere et al (US 5,876,268) and further in view of Asai et al (US 2019/0084121).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Egami et al disclose a polishing composition and a method of forming the composition, which comprises: silica particles which have (a) a primary particle diameter of 5-300 nm as calculated on the basis of a specific surface area determined by a BET method using nitrogen adsorption, (b) a particle diameter variation coefficient of 10% or less, and (c) a Sears number Y of 10.0-12.0, in a dispersion liquid (medium) [0020],[0056],[0065],(see also abstract; [0022],[0026]).
Egami et al also indicates that the silica particles form aggregates of 10-1,000 nm, which equates 0.01 to 1 micrometer in average particle diameter [0057].
Egami et al disclose that the sphericity of the silica particles is preferably 0.80 to 1.00. When the shape of the silica particles is a true sphere or closer to a true sphere, the smoothness of the polished surface is improved and the occurrence of defects can be suppressed. Therefore, the sphericity is more preferably 0.90 to 1.00 and particularly preferably 1.00 [0048], aforesaid sphericity corresponds the claimed “circularity” of the particles.
Egami et al fails to disclose the average particle size of more than 1.0 micrometer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lamphere et al disclose a composition with loose abrasive particles having an average particle size range from about 0.1 to about 50 micrometers, typically from about 1 to 30 micrometers; and the abrasive comprises silica (col.14, lines 55-67).
Lamphere et al also disclose that loose abrasive slurries are usually the preferred means to generate the final polish because of the ability of the loose abrasive slurries to remove essentially all the remaining scratches to generate an optically clear surface that is essentially free of any defects, imperfections and/or minute scratches (col.2, lines 45-59).
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 Lamphere et al's teaching of using silica particles having more than 1.0 micrometer average particles size into the teaching of Egami et al for removing essentially all the remaining scratches to generate an optically clear surface that is essentially free of any defects as suggested by Lamphere et al.
Modified Egami et al still fail to disclose the composition further comprises a redispersing agent, wherein the redispersing agent contains at least one selected from the group listed in the claims 1 and 6.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Asai et al disclose a polishing composition comprises an auxiliary dispersing agent to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives may be further added to the polishing composition as necessary [0106],[0107]; and examples of the dispersion auxiliary agent include condensed phosphate such as pyrophosphate [0108]; and aforesaid pyrophosphate being a specific type of condensed phosphoric acid derivative. Therefore, reads on the claimed redispersing agent listed in the claims 1 and 6.
Additionally, Asai et al also disclose the polishing composition further comprises a chelating agent, which includes an organic phosphonic acid-based chelating agent [0094]; and such also reads on the claimed redispersing agent.
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 Asai et al's teaching of introducing the auxiliary dispersing agent to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives into the teaching of modified Egami et al in order to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives as suggested by Asai et al.
Regarding claims 11-12, and 17-18, Lamphere et al disclose a composition with loose abrasive particles having an average particle size range from about 0.1 to about 50 micrometers, typically from about 1 to 30 micrometers; and the abrasive comprises silica (col.14, lines 55-67); and aforesaid ranges overlaps the claimed ranges in both claims 11-12 and 17-18 and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Asai et al disclose that the pH of the polishing composition is not especially restricted, acidity or alkalinity is preferable. Specifically, pH5 or less is preferable for acidity and pH3 or less is more preferable [0086].
Egami et al also disclose the pH of the dispersion liquid is lower than 7 [0092]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of pH is 2.0 or more and 7.0 or less; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Egami et al disclose that the sphericity of the silica particles is preferably 0.80 to 1.00. When the shape of the silica particles is a true sphere or closer to a true sphere, the smoothness of the polished surface is improved and the occurrence of defects can be suppressed. Therefore, the sphericity is more preferably 0.90 to 1.00 [0048], aforesaid sphericity corresponds the claimed “circularity” of the particles; and overlaps the claimed range of 0.95 or more and 1.0 or less. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami et al (US 2021/0002513) in view of Lamphere et al (US 5,876,268) and Asai et al (US 2019/0084121) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noguchi et al (US 2020/0354564).
Regarding claims 3-5, polishing an object containing a resin and a filler, would have been purely an intended use of the claimed composition and that has no patentable weight.
Additionally, the recitation of “the polishing composition is used for polishing an object to be polished containing resin an a filler” does not patentably distinguish the claimed polishing solution from the composition disclosed Egami et al in view of Lamphere et al at this time since the prior art meets the structural and/or chemical limitations set forth and there is nothing on record to evidence that the prior art product could not function in the desired capacity or that there is some additional implied structure associated with the term. The burden is shifted upon the Applicant to evidence the contrary.
Furthermore, Egami et al indicates that the polishing composition described therein is used for, for example, formation of substrates for metal wiring layers.
Furthermore, the modified Egami et al do not indicate that said composition is used for polishing an object containing a filler and a resin and such a filler has an average particle diameter smaller than the average particle diameter (D50) of the silica particles as of claim 4.
However, Noguchi et al disclose during making a printed wiring board, a thermosetting resin filling material. As the thermosetting resin filling material, generally used are an epoxy resin as a thermosetting resin component, an epoxy resin curing agent, and a thermosetting resin filling material containing an inorganic filler [0003]; The average particle size of the inorganic filler is suitably in the range of 0.1 μm to 25 μm and preferably in the range of 0.1 μm to 15 μm, in consideration of dispersibility, filling properties in the hole part, smoothness when a wiring layer is formed on the filled portion, and the like of the inorganic filler. More preferred is 1 μm to 10 μm. Note that, the average particle diameter means an average primary particle diameter, and the average particle diameter (D50) can be measured by a laser diffraction/scattering method [0052]; After the thermosetting resin composition is cured as described above, an unnecessary part of the cured product protruding from the surface of the printed wiring board is removed by a known physical polishing method and planarized [0078].
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 Noguchi et al’s teaching of polishing a substrate containing an epoxy resin and filler material into the teaching of modified Egami et al for achieving a planarized surface suggested Noguchi et al.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egami et al (US 2021/0002513) in view of Lamphere et al (US 5,876,268) and Asai et al (US 2019/0084121) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Tamada et al (US 2019/0119523).
Modified Egami et al disclose above but fail to disclose the redispersing agent includes crystalline cellulose as the context of claims 9-10 and 15-16.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tamada et al disclose a polishing composition comprises a water-soluble polymer, when added in the composition, redispersibility of the magnetic particles and the abrasive particles becomes better; and example of such includes hydroxypropyl cellulose, α-cellulose, β-cellulose, γ-cellulose, pullulan, chitosan [0125]; and aforesaid “α-cellulose” - is predominantly crystalline in its natural state(Google) and easily reads on the claimed “crystalline cellulose”.
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 Tamada et al's teaching of using
α-cellulose (crystalline cellulose) as redispersing agent, into the teaching of modified Egami et al for better redispersion of abrasive particles as taught by Tamada et al.
Double Patenting
Claims 1,3-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,5-9 of co-pending Application No. 18/848,283 in view of Asai et al (US 2019/0084121). The difference between the application ‘283 and the instant invention is that instant invention requires to have a specified redispersing agent as listed in the claims 1 and 6 and the claimed dispersion degree of the abrasive grains.
However, However, in the same field of endeavor, Asai et al disclose a polishing composition comprises an auxiliary dispersing agent to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives may be further added to the polishing composition as necessary [0106],[0107]; and examples of the dispersion auxiliary agent include condensed phosphate such as pyrophosphate [0108]; and aforesaid pyrophosphate being a specific type of condensed phosphoric acid derivative. Therefore, reads on the claimed redispersing agent listed in the claim 1.
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 Asai et al's teaching of introducing the auxiliary dispersing agent to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives into the teaching of instant invention (application ‘467) in order to ease redispersion of an aggregate of the abrasives as suggested by Asai et al.
It is expected that the claimed dispersion degree of the abrasive grains in the application’283 could be easily achievable as all the polishing components are disclosed in the instant invention (application ‘467) having the similar average primary particles size (D50) and the circularity of the primary particles and expected to have the same property.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. SUMITANI et al (US 2022/0363554) disclose a polishing composition comprises silica particle in which an average value of a circularity coefficient measured by a field-emission scanning electron microscope is 0.90 or more, which prevent secondary aggregation, have excellent dispersion stability, and are suitable for polishing [0018],[0021]. SUMITANI et al also disclose the dispersion stability of the silica particles in a dispersion liquid is excellent, and an object to be polished having a smooth surface is obtained and the silica particles are excellent in the stability of the polishing performance [0036].
Izawa et al (US 2022/0025213) disclose a polishing composition comprises abrasive particles having an average particle size of 0.01 μm or more [0024], dispersing medium [0045] and capable of improving redispersibility [0010];and the object to be polished containing a resin on a polishing surface, the resin may further include inorganic fillers such as calcium carbonate, magnesium carbonate, barium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, aluminum silicate, titanium oxide, alumina, zinc oxide, silicon dioxide, kaolin, talc, glass beads, sericite activated white earth, bentonite, and aluminum nitride, and organic fillers such as polyester fine particles, polyurethane fine particles, and rubber fine particles, and the like [0063].
Tredinnick et al (US 3,715,842) disclose a polishing composition comprises silica particles and using 0.4 percent methyl cellulose. Settling occurred, but the settled material was soft and readily redispersed, and no scratching developed (example 1 and col.6, lines 24-33). It is noted that Methyl cellulose is generally considered amorphous or only partially crystalline.
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