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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Amendments made to claims 1-4 and 9-10, and the withdrawal of claims 7-8, as filed on March 6, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
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, 4-6, 13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yashiro et al. (JP4846445, a machine-translated English version is used).
Regarding claim 1, Yashiro discloses a chemical mechanical polishing composition (paragraph 0025) comprising: silica particles (A) (colloidal silica solid, paragraph 0025); a salt containing hypochlorite ions (CIO-) (B) (sodium hypochlorite, paragraph 0025); and hydrogen peroxide (C) (paragraph 0025), wherein MB/MC = 1.83 (a slurry was prepared by adding 5 mass% of an oxidizing agent, which was made by mixing 4 mass% of 30 mass% hydrogen peroxide solution and 96 mass% of 5% available chlorine sodium hypochlorite (aqueous solution), to 95 mass% colloidal silica, paragraph 0025; the ratio is calculated using molar mass of sodium hypochlorite = 74.44g/mol, molar mass of hydrogen peroxide = 34.01g/mol; MB/MC = (5*96/74.44)/(30*4/34.01)=1.83), where MB (mol/L) is an amount of the acid or salt thereof (B) and MC (mol/L) is an amount of hydrogen peroxide (C). MB/MC value disclosed by Yashiro falls within the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Yashiro discloses the composition comprises colloidal silica at a pH of about 10 (paragraph 0025), which has an absolute value of a zeta potential of higher than 10 mV as evidenced by Junior et al. (Fig. 5, in “The Behavior of Zeta Potential of Silica Suspensions”, New Journal of Glass and Ceramics, vol. 4, year 2014, pages 29-37).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Yashiro discloses wherein MB (mol/L) is 0.03 mol/L (assuming 1L of the slurry has a mass of about 1000g, the concentration of sodium hypochlorite in the composition is 1000x0.05x0.96x0.05 = 0.03 (mol/L), paragraph 0025), which is within the range recited in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 16-17, Yashiro discloses wherein pH is about 10 (paragraph 0025), which is within the range recited in the instant claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 9-12 and 14-15 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:
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a composition wherein the abrasive-grains-silica particles (A) have a functional group represented by the general formulae recited in the instant claim, in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of Yoshiro discloses the composition comprising colloidal silica without the recited functional group (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 14, they are dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a composition wherein the abrasive-grains-silica particles (A) have a functional group represented by the general formulae recited in the instant claim, in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of Yoshiro discloses the composition comprising colloidal silica without the recited functional group (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claims 10, 12 and 15, they are dependent on claim 3.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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