Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/461,214

POLISHING LIQUID FOR POLISHING COMPOUND SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 05, 2023
Examiner
OLADAPO, TAIWO
Art Unit
1771
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Disco Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allow Rate
605 granted / 1144 resolved
-12.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
89 currently pending
Career history
1233
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1144 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . The amendment dated 12/11/2025 has been considered and entered. The amendment overcomes the previous rejections in view of Fu et al. (US 2021/0062042) for failing to teach the composition having zirconyl acetate as claimed. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn and new rejections are made below as necessitated by the amendment. 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, 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. 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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagai et al. (WO 2022/168859) which is published in English as Nakagai et al. (US 2024/0117218) and which is relied upon for making the current rejections. In regards to claims 1 – 14, Nakagai teaches polishing method and composition applied to polishing of silicon carbide (i.e., semiconductor substrate) and comprising a permanganate, metal salt A and water (abstract). The composition has a pH of preferably 5 or less [0010]. The permanganate can be sodium or potassium permanganate present in the composition at from about 5 mM (0.005 mol/L) to 2500 mM which provides calculated mass basis of sodium permanganate at from 0.07 to 35.4% or potassium permanganate 0.08 to 39.5% based on respective molar masses of 142 g/mol and 158 g/mol respectively in the aqueous solution [0016, 0017]. The metal salt A is a salt of an acid such as acetic acid (i.e., weak acid) etc. and a metal such as zirconia (i.e., zirconyl acetate) and is present in the composition at 1000 mM or less and from 0.1 mM or more which provides calculated amounts of the salt such as zirconyl acetate at from 0.003 to 32.74% in the composition based on a molar mass of 327.4 g/mol [0022, 0024]. The ratio of the permanganate to the metal salt A such as zirconyl acetate is from 0.002 to 200 [0025]. Therefore, the claimed limitations are overlapped. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments 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. Conclusion 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 TAIWO OLADAPO whose telephone number is (571)270-3723. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5pm. 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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. /TAIWO OLADAPO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590262
ANTI-FRICTION COMPOSITE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590263
LUBRICANT ADDITIVE, LUBRICANT COMPOSITION, AND WORKING FLUID COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584078
Method for Producing Lubricating Greases of Lithium Complex Soaps and Lithium-Calcium-Complex Soaps
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570911
A MARINE FUEL BLEND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571073
ALUMINUM BRONZE ALLOY AND SLIDING MEMBER USING SAID ALLOY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+11.4%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1144 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month