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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further examination.
The restriction requirement is hereby made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0024434 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses polishing of magnetic, optical, semiconductor and silicon wafers using a chemical mechanical polishing composition comprising polymer-coated particles (abstract, [0008]). The polymer-coated particles are disclosed to comprise an inner particle core of materials such as ceramics such as silica, alumina, titania, ceria, zirconia, manganese oxide, and more ([0013]-[0015]) with the preferred particle cores comprising silica or alumina ([0016]). The disclosed material for the inner particle core read on the claimed “polishing particle comprises a metal oxide”. The polymer coating reads on the claimed “a coating layer surrounding the polishing particles”. Wang, additionally, discloses the use of an initiator such as benzoyl peroxide initiator to initiate the reaction to form the outer polymeric layer ([0023], [0040], [0058]); this is a peroxide compound as an initiator, which reads on one of the preferred radical initiator compounds as disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 11, [0053]-[0054], and [0056]). According to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, this is also considered a photoinitiator (see specification, page 11, [0053]). Thus, the claimed “photoinitiator” is rendered obvious as well. The dispersion which is used to form the polymer coating onto the inner particle core is used as a chemical mechanical polishing formulation (abstract and [0045]). Finally, Wang discloses trimethylolpropane triacrylate as a suitable monomer compound for the outer polymeric shell/layer ([0024]) which is disclosed to be an example of a radically polymerizable compound which is disclosed to be a photoreactive monomer in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 7, [0035]-[0037]). Therefore, the limitation of the “coating layer comprises a photoreactive monomer or oligomer” is met.
With respect to claim 2, as noted above, Wang discloses materials such as ceramics such as silica, alumina, titania, ceria, zirconia, manganese oxide, and more as the materials for the inner particle core, which reads on the claimed “polishing particle” ([0013]-[0015]).
With respect to claim 3, as noted above, Wang discloses monomers such as trimethylolpropane triacrylate ([0024]) as an example of the monomer for forming the polymeric shell/layer on the inner particle core. Trimethylolpropane triacrylate reads on an example of a radically polymerizable compound which is disclosed to be a photoreactive monomer in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 7, [0035]-[0037]).
With respect to claim 4, the disclosed trimethylolpropane triacrylate reads on the “(meth)acrylate-based compound” as disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 7, [0037]).
With respect to claim 5, Wang discloses trimethylolpropane triacrylate ([0024]) as an example of a monomer forming the polymeric shell/layer on the inner particle core; this compound reads on one of the claimed radically polymerizable compound as claimed in claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Wang, additionally, discloses polymers such as polyvinyl ethers as part of the polymers, or one of the polymers, coating the outer particle core ([0034]) which reads on the claimed “vinyl ether-based compound” as one type of the claimed “cationically polymerizable compound”. It is important to note that the reference is open to the use of a mixture of different polymers ([0024], [0028], and [0034]).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Wang discloses the use of an initiator such as peroxide initiator ([0040]) to initiate the reaction to form the outer polymeric layer. The reference, also, specifically discloses benzoyl peroxide initiator ([0023], [0040], [0058]), which according to the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, is not only a photoinitiator, but a radical initiator compound (see specification, page 11, [0053]-[0054], and [0056]). It is noted that Wang, also, teaches azo compounds as initiator ([0040]), which again, reads on the claimed “radical initiator”.
With respect to claim 11, Wang discloses a concentration of 0.1-50 wt% of polymer-coated abrasive in a polishing solution ([0046]).
With respect to claim 12, in an embodiment, Wang discloses the use of 471.66g silica, 50.28g divinylbenzene monomer, and 5.02g benzoyl peroxide initiator to a dispersion, and after stirring and mixing, addition four additions of 37.55 diviylbenzene monomer and 3.75g benzoyl peroxide initiator; further processing takes place. Based on the amount of the components within the dispersion, it would be expected to have a concentration for the benzoyl peroxide initiator, i.e. the claimed photoinitiator, which would, at least, overlap with the claimed concentration of 0.01-10 wt%, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 13, Wang, as detailed out above, teaches, at least, a radically polymerizable compound; thus, the reference reads on claim 13.
With respect to claim 14, the fact that Wang discloses polymerizing monomers to form a coating/shell on core particles using initiators or catalysts, is taken to read on the photoreactive monomer or oligomer of the abrasive is polymerized by the photoinitiator to form agglomerate of the abrasive and other abrasives, especially in light of the fact that more than one type of core particle may be used ([0013]-[0016]). Moreover, according to Wang, nanometer sized core particles and coated particles are preferred ([0017]). Thus, upon polymerization, it would be well within the scope of a skilled artisan to expect to have, at least, some level of agglomeration between the core particles as they receive a coating of polymeric material during the polymerization conducted using initiators.
Assuming the above is not found persuasive, it is noted that the claims under examination are product claims, and as such, explicit or implied process limitations/steps, are not seen to add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims (see MPEP 2113). The recitation of “wherein when irriadiated with light, the photoreactive monomer or oligomer of the abrasive is polymerized by the photoinitiator to form agglomerate of the abrasive and other abrasives” is a process limitation. The final product, i.e. the claimed slurry of claim 1, is rendered obvious by Wang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 3, and 7 wherein the “cationically polymerizable compounds includes an epoxy-based compound comprising 3,4-epoxyclochexylmethyl-3,4-epoxycylohexanecarboxylate (EPOX), bisphenol A diglycidylether (DGEBA) or a mixture thereof; a vinyl ether-based compound comprising 1,4-cylcohexane dimethanol divinylether (CVDE); and an oxetane-based compound comprising disubstituted oxetane (DSO)”.
Also, the prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 8, and 10 wherein the “cationic initiator comprises a diazolsulfone compound, a sulfonium salt, an iodonium salt, a sulfonate compound, or a mixture thereof”.
Wang, although discloses the use of a cyclohexane dimethanol as an alcohol, used as a suitable monomer for the polyermic shell/coating ([0024]), does not disclose 1,4-cyclohexane dimethanol “divinylether”. Additionally, although Wang recognizes the use of azo compounds as initiators ([0040]), the reference does not disclose any diazosulfone compound as initiator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights