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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-16, the cancelation of claims 17-20, and the addition of claims 21-24 in the reply filed on September 29, 2025 are acknowledged.
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 1-4 and 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al. (US20090075566).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a method of performing a polishing process (abstract), the method comprising: forming spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles (paragraphs 0012-0013 and 0018); covering the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles with an organic coating (the polishing composition comprises both titanium dioxide and a cationic copolymer, paragraph 0023; titanium oxide particles in the presence of cationic copolymer is covered by an organic coating, as evidenced by Kilmkevicius, abstract, Langmuir, vol. 31, year 2015, pages 2074-2083); storing the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles together with an oxidizer (peroxide reads on an oxidizer, paragraph 0040); forming a polishing solution with the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles (paragraph 0040); applying the polishing solution on a surface of a work piece (claims 1 and 20); and polishing the surface of the work piece with the polishing solution (claims 1 and 20).
Regarding claim 2, White discloses wherein the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles are formed to be single crystals (titanium dioxide particles having rutile and anatase structures, claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, White discloses wherein more than half of the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles are formed to have an anatase crystalline structure (X/Y ration of about 0.5, claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, White discloses wherein less than half of the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles are formed to have a rutile crystalline structure (X/Y ration of about 0.5, claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, White discloses wherein the oxidizer comprises hydrogen peroxide (claim 10).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White et al. (US20090075566) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Matsui et al. (US20030022502).
Regarding claim 7, White is silent about exposing the polishing solution to ultra-violet light while applying the polishing solution on the surface of the work piece. However, Matui teaches that exposing polishing solution comprising titanium oxide particles to ultra-violet light while applying the polishing solution on the surface of the work piece can induce photocatalytic function in the polishing solution (slurry), which enhances the oxidizing power of the slurry (paragraphs 0093 and 0134). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to expose the polishing solution to ultra-violet light while applying the polishing solution on the surface of the work piece as taught by Matsui in the method of White, in order to enhance the oxidizing power of the titanium oxide particles. It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: storing the spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles together with the oxidizer for at least ten days, in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of White discloses mixing spherical titanium dioxide nano-particles with the oxidizer 1 week or less prior to use (paragraph 0040).
Claims 8-16 and 21-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: forming a protective layer of organic material on the single-crystalline titanium dioxide nano-particles; storing the single-crystalline titanium dioxide nano-particles for a period of time; forming a CMP slurry with the single-crystalline titanium dioxide nano-particles and an acid, wherein the acid removes the protective layer of organic material, in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of White does not form a protective layer on titanium dioxide nano-particles to be removed when forming a CMP slurry with the nano-particles.
Regarding claims 9-16, they are dependent on claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: forming protective layers on the titanium dioxide nano-particles; storing the titanium dioxide nano-particles with the protective layers; forming a CMP slurry by mixing the titanium dioxide nano-particles with the protective layers and an acid, wherein the acid at least partially removes the protective layers from the titanium dioxide nano-particles, in in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of White does not form a protective layer on titanium dioxide nano-particles to be removed when forming a CMP slurry with the nano-particles.
Regarding claims 22-24, they are dependent on claim 21.
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