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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the unit “Mpa” should be “MPa”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN113524025, a machine-translated English version is used) in view of Zeng et al. (CN110842800, a machine-translated English version is used).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses a chemical-mechanical composite processing method for a silicon carbide surface (abstract), comprising the following steps: mounting a grinding and polishing tool onto a main shaft (polishing pad 2 placed on polishing disk 3 reads on a grinding and polishing tool, paragraph n0034; Fig. 1), and installing a piece of silicon carbide onto a clamp (SiC wafer reads on a piece of silicon carbide, paragraph n0034; Fig. 1), where the grinding and polishing tool is actuated by the main shaft to rotate (paragraph n0034; Fig. 1), then pressing the silicon carbide against the grinding and polishing tool under action of an external force, so that the grinding and polishing tool rotates relatively to the silicon carbide to create frictional force against the silicon carbide, thereby achieving chemical-mechanical composite processing cycles to grind and polish the silicon carbide surface (paragraphs n0034-0035; Figs. 1-4); the grinding and polishing tool comprises a composite mixture of active metals and abrasive particles (paragraphs n0041-0042 and 0044); said chemical-mechanical composite processing cycles comprise the following: the active metals in the grinding and polishing tool and the silicon carbide surface are subject to chemical reaction induced by friction to generate a chemical reaction layer (paragraphs n0034-0035 and Fig. 4c); then the chemical reaction layer is scraped off by mechanical action of the abrasive particles in the grinding and polishing tool to expose a fresh silicon carbide surface, thus completing a first cycle (paragraph n0036; Fig. 4d); and then, the fresh silicon carbide surface is subject to chemical reaction again with the active metals in the grinding and polishing tool to generate another new chemical reaction layer, which is then mechanically scraped off by the abrasive particles again to expose another fresh silicon carbide surface, thus completing a second cycle, and further cycles repeating same steps of the second cycle are achieved until processing of the silicon carbide is completed (paragraph n0037 and Fig. 4); the grinding and polishing tool is prepared using the active metals and the abrasive particles according to a volume ratio of 4:3 (4% Pt powder, 3% diamond powder, paragraph n0055 and Table 3); the active metals are metals that chemically react with an Si surface of the silicon carbide (paragraphs n0034-0035). Su is silent about the grinding and polishing tool is prepared by hot-pressing and sintering. However, Zeng teaches a process for preparing a grinding and polishing tool by hot-pressing and sintering, which has the advantages of being green, environmentally friendly, with high product yield and production efficiency (paragraph 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a known desirable preparation process as taught by Zeng, in the method of Hama for preparing the grinding and polishing tool, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Regarding claim 3, Su discloses wherein the active metals chemically reacting with the Si surface of the silicon carbide comprise chromium (paragraph n0041).
Regarding claim 5, Su discloses wherein the abrasive particles comprise diamond (paragraph n0044).
Regarding claim 6, Su discloses wherein the frictional force is achieved through wet friction (spraying deionized water, paragraph 0038). Su in view of Zeng is silent about wherein a gas environment when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide is at least one of the following: atmospheric environment, oxygen-enriched environment, and inert gas environment; an atmospheric temperature when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide is room temperature. However, Su does not require special environment or heating/cooling when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide (paragraphs n0034-0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to practice the method of Su in an atmospheric environment at room temperature when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide, with a reasonable expectation of success. Su in view of Zeng fails to disclose a rotating speed of the grinding and polishing tool when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide is 1-50 m/s, and a pressure of the silicon carbide pressing against the grinding and polishing tool when the frictional force is enacted against the silicon carbide is 0.1-1 MPa. However, Su teaches that the rotation speed and the pressure are noteworthy process parameters in the polishing process with end results comprising polishing rate and surface roughness (paragraph n0053). Therefore, 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 process parameters through routine experimentation to achieve desirable polishing rate and surface roughness (paragraph n0053), with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (CN113524025, a machine-translated English version is used) in view of Zeng et al. (CN110842800, a machine-translated English version is used) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN110774118, an English equivalent version, US20220288741 is used).
Regarding claim 2, Su in view of Zeng is silent about wherein the active metals chemically reacting with the C surface of the silicon carbide comprise one or more of the following: iron, cobalt, nickel, manganese, chromium, titanium, vanadium, zirconium, molybdenum, tungsten, aluminum, and niobium. However, Lu teaches a method for grinding and polishing diamond, wherein the grinding and polishing tool (grinding wheel) comprises active metals chemically reacting with the C surface of the silicon carbide comprising one or more of the following: iron, chromium, titanium, molybdenum, and tungsten (claims 1 and 3). Because both diamond and silicon carbide are hard materials comprising carbon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a grinding and polishing tool (grinding wheel) as taught by Lu for grinding and polishing diamond in the method of Su in view of Zeng for girding and polishing a silicon carbide, with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses wherein the active metals comprise one or a mixture of metal elements (claim 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713