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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soumiya (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0301176-A1) (hereinafter, “SOUMIYA”).
Regarding claim 1, SOUMIYA teaches polishing liquid for polishing a compound semiconductor substrate (see SOUMIYA at paragraphs [0010] and [0127]; it is noted that “for polishing a compound semiconductor substrate” is merely a recitation of an intended use of the composition rather than a limitation directed toward the claimed polishing liquid, and is therefore not considered to limit the present product claim; any composition as claimed by claim 1 would be expected to be able to perform the intended use of being used to polish a compound semiconductor substrate; regardless, SOUMIYA teaches polishing a semiconductor substrate), the polishing liquid comprising:
an aqueous solution in which a permanganate is dissolved (see SOUMIYA at paragraphs [0010], [0099] and [0121], teaching an aqueous solution comprising, as the oxidizing agent, a salt of permanganic acid, i.e., permanganate);
and abrasive grains which are dispersed in the aqueous solution and an electrokinetic potential (zeta potential) of which is plus (see SOUMIYA at paragraphs [0010], [0068] and [0121], teaching an aqueous solution comprising dispersed cation-modified silica particles having positive zeta potential as the abrasive grains).
Regarding claim 4, SOUMIYA teaches a polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive grains include silica grains having an average primary grain diameter of 12 nm to 60 nm (see SOUMIYA at paragraph [0055], teaching an average primary particle diameter of 25 nm or more and 50 nm or less).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SOUMIYA.
Regarding claim 2, SOUMIYA teaches a polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the polishing liquid has a pH overlapping with and thereby rendering obvious the claimed range of 3 to 7 (see SOUMIYA at paragraph [0111], teaching a pH of 2 or more and less than 7). As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 3, SOUMIYA teaches a polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein a concentration of the permanganate overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 2.5 wt%, (see SOUMIYA at paragraph [0100], teaching a concentration of the oxidizing agent of 0.1% by mass or more), and a concentration of the abrasive grains overlaps with the claimed range of not less than 4.5 wt% (see SOUMIYA at paragraph [0071], teaching a concentration of the cation-modified silica particles of 0.1% by mass or more), thereby rendering the claimed ranges obvious. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 on (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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731