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 1-13, in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract of dated 12/18/2023 includes more than one paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
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(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mae et al (US 2020/0308449) in view of Iwata et al (US 2018/0215953).
Regarding claim 1, Mae et al disclose a polishing composition comprises abrasive grains having an organic acid immobilized on a surface thereof [0008], [0025],[0027]; and a pH adjusting agent of an acid compound [0093].
Mae et al disclose that the abrasive grain has the lower limit of the diameter ratio, which is effective in increasing the polishing speed. In an embodiment of the present invention, an upper limit of D90/D10 is preferably 4.0 or less, more preferably 3.5 or less and which is measured laser diffracton scattering [0035]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of D90/D10 is 2.2 or more; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Mae et al also disclose that an abrasive grain (sulfonic acid immobilized colloidal silica, average primary particle size: 35 nm, average secondary particle size: 70 nm [0123] and the average secondary particle size of the abrasive grains was calculated by a dynamic light scattering method [0125].
Mae et al fail to disclose above that the average secondary particle size: 70 nm [0123] but fails to teach such corresponds the claimed D50 as the particle diameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Iwata et al disclose that colloidal silica contained in the polishing composition according to at least one embodiment preferably has an average particle size of 5 to 200 nm. The average particle size of 5 nm or more can suppress lowering of a polishing rate. The average particle size of 200 nm or less can suppress deterioration of surface smoothness. The average particle size of the colloidal silica is more preferably 5 to 150 nm, and still more preferably 30 to 100 nm. In addition, the average particle size in the present application is a median diameter (D50) [0047], [0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Iwata et al's teaching of using a median diameter (D50) regards to the average particle diameter into the teaching of Mae et al for suppressing deterioration of surface smoothness as suggested by Iwata et al [0047].
Regarding claim 2, Mae et al disclose the abrasive grain comprises colloidal silica [0028].
Regarding claim 5, Mae et al disclose that the abrasive grains have an average primary particle size of the abrasive grains is preferably 60 nm or less, more preferably 50 nm or less, and still more preferably 40 nm or less [0033]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 30 nm or more; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Mae discloses that the average secondary particle size of the abrasive grains is preferably less than 100 nm, more preferably 90 nm or less, still more preferably 80 nm or less, and yet still more preferably 75 nm or less [0034]; aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 70 nm or more; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Mae discloses that a content of the abrasive grain in the polishing composition is preferably 0.1% by mass or more, still more preferably more than 0.01% by mass, and yet still more preferably 0.3% by mass or more, and may be 0.8% by mass or more, 1.2% by mass or more, 2% by mass or more, 3% by mass or more, and 4% by mass or more [0037]; aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 0.1% or more and 15% or less; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Mae discloses that the composition having a pH of less than 9.0, in an embodiment of the present invention, the pH of the polishing composition is 3.9 or less, 3.7 or less, 3.5 or less, or 3.3 or less. In an embodiment of the present invention, the pH of the polishing composition is more than 1.0 [0092]; aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of 1 or more and less than 5; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 9-10, Mae discloses that the composition comprises a pH adjusting agent of inorganic acid and such inorganic acid comprises hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, etc. [0093].
Regarding claim 11, Mae et al disclose that the composition comprises an aqueous carrier; and the aqueous carrier has a function of dispersing or dissolving the respective components [0113].
Regarding claim 12, Mae et al disclose that the composition comprises an oxidizing agent [0116].
Regarding claim 13, Mae et al disclose that the polishing object may comprises silicon oxide film and silicon nitride, etc. [0010].
However, the recitation of wherein the object to be polished further contains silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention while features of an apparatus (or product) may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Additionally, the claimed limitation is the inclusion of an article worked upon by the claimed structure, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mae et al (US 2020/0308449) in view of Iwata et al (US 2018/0215953) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Izawa et al (US 2019/0300751).
Modified Mae et al disclose above for the claim 1 but fail to disclose a true density of the abrasive grains with regards to claims 3-4.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Izawa et al disclose a polishing composition comprises a high -purity of abrasive grains as “colloidal silica” [00312]; and the true density of the silica (abrasive grains) is preferably more than 1.70 g/cm.sup.3, more preferably 1.80 g/cm.sup.3 or more, further preferably 1.90 g/cm.sup.3 or more, and particularly preferably 2.07 g/cm.sup.3 or more [0035].
Izawa et al also disclose that the density of the silica (abrasive grains) also varies depending on a method for producing silica (for example, a sol-gel method, a soda silicate method, or the like). In addition, even in the case of employing one production method (for example, a sol-gel method), the porosity changes due to a temperature, a time for reaction, or the like. Since the porosity of the silica is considered to affect the hardness of the silica itself, it is preferable to figure out the true density [0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Izawa et al's teaching of using abrasive grains have a true density of 1.7 or more into the teaching of modified Mae et al for achieving a high-purity abrasive grains as suggested by Izawa et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 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 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713