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 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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, 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yassin et al. (J. Yassin et al. 'Room temperature synthesis of high-quality Ce(IV)-based MOFs in water' Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 324, 2021, 111303, pp. 1-11, IDS document).
Regarding Claim 1, Yassin teaches a polishing slurry composition (The preamble "a polishing slurry composition" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus 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. 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. Page 2, column 2, lines 8-19 Teaches a composition formed during the creation of the metal-organic frameworks), comprising
an abrasive (Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 Composition includes metal-organic frameworks, which can be consider an abrasive); and
water (Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 Composition includes water), wherein
the abrasive includes a cerium-based metal organic framework (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise cerium),
the cerium-based metal organic framework has a three-dimensional (3D) network structure including a plurality of cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks are a 3D network structure that are UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of cerium atoms),
each of the plurality of cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters includes six cerium atoms and a plurality of organic linkers (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed are UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephthalate), and
each of the plurality of organic linkers are connected between two corresponding cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters among the plurality of cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed comprise a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid, BDC-2), such that each organic benzodicarboxylic linker can connect two nanoclusters).
Regarding Claim 3, Yassin teaches wherein, in the cerium-based metal organic framework, each of the plurality of organic linkers has a plurality of anionic functional groups and is chemically bonded to at least two cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters among the plurality of cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters through the plurality of anionic functional groups (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid, BDC-2), such that each negatively charged carboxylic group can bond to a cerium nanocluster).
Regarding Claim 4, Yassin teaches wherein, in the cerium-based metal organic framework, each of the plurality of organic linkers comprises substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl, substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 heteroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroalkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroalkynyl, substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkenyl, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aromatic ring system (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid), which could be considered a substituted C8 aromatic ring system).
Regarding Claim 5, Yassin teaches wherein, in the cerium-based metal organic framework, each of the plurality of organic linkers comprises a carboxylate obtained from at least one of benzene-1,4-dicarboxylic acid, 5-bromoisophthalic acid, 2-hydroxyterephthalic acid, 2,5- dihydroxyterephthalic acid, 5-cyano-1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 2,5-diaminoterephthalic acid, 5-ethynyl-1,3-benzenedicarboxylic acid, 4,4'-biphenyldicarboxilic acid, 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid, 9,10-anthracenedicarboxylic acid, 2,2-diamino-4,4’- stilbenedicarboxylic acid, 2,2-dinitro-4,4-stilbenedicarboxylic acid, 1,3,5-tricarboxybenzene, biphenyl-3,4',5-tricarboxylic acid, 1,3,5-tris(4-carboxyphenyl)benzene, 2,4,6-Tris(4-carboxyphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine, 1,3,5-tris(4-carboxy[1,1’-biphenyl]-4-yl)benzene, biphenyl-3,3,5,5’-tetracarboxylic acid, 1,2,4,5-tetrakis(4-carboxyphenyl)benzene, 1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane-N,N',N'',N'''-tetraacetic acid, and 1,1,2,2-tetra(4-carboxylphenyl)ethylene (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid), which can be considered equivalent to benzene-1,4-dicarboxylic acid).
Regarding Claim 9, Yassin teaches wherein a content of the abrasive is in a range of 0.1 wt% to 2 wt%, based on a total weight of the polishing slurry composition (Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24. One of the compositions formed included 0.548g cerium (IV) ammonium nitrate dissolved in 1.8mL (1.8g) of water mixed with 0.249g of terephthalic acid (0.166g*1.5 to achieve the Ce/linker ratio of 1.5) dissolved in 7.3g of DMF. This mixture had an achieved yield of 24%. This can be considered to have formed 0.19128g ( [0.548+0.249]*0.24=0.19128g) of metal-organic framework material, in a composition of 9.897g. Therefore the composition comprised 1.93% by weight abrasive (0.19128/9.897=0.0193) ).
Regarding Claim 10, Yassin teaches a polishing slurry composition (The preamble "a polishing slurry composition" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus 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. 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. Page 2, column 2, lines 8-19 Teaches a composition formed during the creation of the metal-organic frameworks) comprising:
an abrasive (Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 Composition includes metal-organic frameworks, that can be considered the abrasive); and
water (Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 Composition includes water), wherein
the abrasive including a cerium-based metal organic framework having a three-dimensional (3D) network structure (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed are UiO-66-type that have a 3D structure),
the cerium-based metal organic framework includes a bonding structure represented by General formula 1,
[General formula 1]
{[Ce6]-L}n
wherein, in General formula 1, [Ce6] is a cerium hexanuclear nanocluster including six cerium atoms and a plurality of oxygen atoms, L is an organic linker, and n is an integer of 2 or more (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type that have a 3D structure with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate. The metal-organic framework includes multiple nanoclusters where each nanocluster must have at least one organic linker in order to be connected to the other nanoclusters and be considered a part of the metal-organic framework).
Regarding Claim 11, Yassin teaches wherein, in the cerium-based metal organic framework, each of the plurality of organic linkers comprises substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 alkynyl, substituted or unsubstituted C1 to C20 heteroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroalkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted C2 to C20 heteroalkynyl, substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted C3 to C20 cycloalkenyl, or a substituted or unsubstituted C6 to C30 aromatic ring system (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid), which could be considered a substituted C8 aromatic ring system).
Regarding Claim 12, Yassin teaches wherein, in the cerium-based metal organic framework, the organic linker comprises an aromatic ring (Page 2, column 1 lines 6-22 and Page 2, column 2, lines 56-60 and Page 3, column 1, lines 1-24 The metal-organic frameworks formed UiO-66-type with hexanuclear clusters of that comprise 6 cerium atoms, with a plurality of organic linkers that comprise terephtalate (benzodicarboxylic acid), which could be considered a substituted C8 aromatic ring system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yassin in view of Smolders et al (Smolders et al. 'A precursor method for the synthesis of new Ce(iv) MOFs with reactive tetracarboxylate linkers' Royal Society of Chemistry, 00, 2013, pp. 1-5, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 2, Yassin teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Yassin fails to teach wherein, each of the plurality of cerium hexanuclear nanoclusters has a composition represented by Formula 1: [Formula 1] [Ce6Ox(OH)8-x(NH3CH2COO)8]Ay, wherein, in Formula 1, x is an integer of 4 to 8, y is an integer of 1 to 8, and A comprises at least one of carboxylate, nitrate, amino acid salt, and a chlorine (Cl) ion.
Smolders teaches the formation of cerium based metal-organic frameworks (Page 2, column 1, lines 1-7). Smolder teaches that the metal-organic frameworks are formed from preexisting hexanuclear cerium clusters that have the formula [Ce6O4(OH)4(NH3CH2COO)8(NO3)4(H2O)6Cl8H2)] (Page 2, Column 2, lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Yassin by utilizing the hexanuclear cerium clusters taught by Smolder as the basis for the formation of the metal-organic frameworks, as taught by Yassin. With this modification the cerium hexanuclear clusters would meet all the limitations of claim 3, while the composition formed by the method of modified Yassin would meet all the limitations of claim 1.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Smolders teaches the use of preexisting hexanuclear cerium clusters that can be used in the formation of metal-organic frameworks and Yassin teaches a method of forming metal-organic frameworks that creates a composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 13 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Yassin et al. and Smolders et al. as outlined in the rejections above.
Both Yassin and Smolders fail to teach compositions that include a dispersant, a pH adjuster, a corrosion inhibitor or a polishing booster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights