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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a composition, classified in C11D; 3/30.
II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a method for treating an object to be treated to remove ruthenium, classified in B08B; 3/08.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the product of Group I can be used in a method of cleaning dishware/tableware.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
1) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
2) The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
3) The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries);
4) The prior art applicable to one invention would likely not be applicable to another invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Susan Perng Pan on February 2, 2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
(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.
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 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al (US2017/0275498) in view of Das et al (US2020/0255770).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Tamada et al teach a polishing composition used for polishing an object of polishing having a layer containing a high mobility material with higher carrier mobility than that of Si, the polishing composition comprising: abrasive grains; and at least one salt compound selected from the group consisting of a salt of a monovalent acid, a salt of a divalent acid, a salt of a trivalent acid, and a halide salt. wherein the polishing composition has an electrical conductivity of 1 mS/cm or higher, and a content of hydrogen peroxide of less than 0.1% by mass. See claim 1. The polishing composition has a pH of from 2.5 to 12. See claim 6. The pH can be adjusted by adding an appropriate amount of a pH adjusting agent. The pH adjusting agent that is used as necessary in order to adjust the pH of the polishing composition to a desired value, may be any of an acid or an alkali, and may be any one of inorganic and organic compounds. See para. 48.
It is preferable that the polishing composition of the present invention includes an oxidizing agent containing a halogen atom. When the polishing composition includes an oxidizing agent containing a halogen atom, the polishing speed for a layer containing a high mobility material is further increased. See para. 54. Suitable oxidizing agents include periodic acid, sodium periodate, etc. See para. 55. The lower limit of the content of the oxidizing agent containing a halogen atom in the polishing composition of the present invention is preferably 0.01% by mass (0.1 g/kg) or more, and more preferably 0.05% by mass (0.5 g/kg) or more. As the content of the oxidizing agent containing a halogen atom becomes larger, the polishing speed generated by the polishing composition is increased. Furthermore, the upper limit of the content of the oxidizing agent containing a halogen atom in the polishing composition of the present invention is preferably 10% by mass or less (100 g/kg), and more preferably 5% by mass (50 g/kg) or less. See para. 57. The polishing composition may also include a water-soluble polymer. Specific examples of the watersoluble polymer include, for example, a polystyrene sulfonic acid salt, a polyisoprene sulfonic acid salt, a polyacrylic acid salt, polymaleic acid, polyitaconic acid, polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, polyglycerin, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), a copolymer of isoprenesulfonic acid and acrylic acid, a polyvinylpyrrolidone-polyacrylic acid copolymer, a polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer, a salt of naphthalenesulfonic acid-formalin condensate, a diallylamine hydrochloride-sulfur dioxide copolymer, carboxymethyl cellulose, a salt of carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, pullulan, chitosan, and chitosan salts. In a case in which a water-soluble polymer is added to the polishing composition, surface roughness of an object of polishing after being polished using the polishing composition is further decreased. These water-soluble polymers may be used singly or as mixtures of two or more kinds thereof. Furthermore, the water-soluble polymers described above have a function as polish inhibitors particularly for Poly-Si. The content of the water-soluble polymer in the polishing composition is preferably 0.0001 g/L or more, and preferably 0.001 g/L or more and 10 g/L or less. See paras. 76-81. Note that, the Examiner asserts that many of the polymers as taught by Tamada et al would fall within the broad scope of a “resin containing a nitrogen atom” as recited by instant claim 1. In the polishing composition of the present invention, a dispersing medium or solvent intended for dispersing or dissolving various components is usually used. Examples of the dispersing medium or solvent include organic solvents and water; however, among them, it is preferable that the dispersing medium or solvent includes water. See para. 50.
Tamada et al do not teach the use of a quaternary ammonium salt or a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a quaternary ammonium salt such as tetramethylammonium hydroxide in the composition taught by Tamada et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Das et al teach the use of tetramethylammonium hydroxide as a pH adjuster in a similar composition and further, Tamada et al teach the use of pH adjusters in general.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Tamada et al in view of Das et al suggest a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das et al (US2020/0255770).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Das et al teach a composition, comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of a composition as set forth herein. In one embodiment, the invention provides a composition having a pH of about 1 to about 6, comprising: (a) a cerium-oxygen bond breaking compound; (b) a pH adjustor; [0014] (c) at least one cleaning agent; (d) a ceria complexing compound selected from tartaric acid, acetyl acetone, glutamic acid, adipic acid, betaine, amino tris(methylenephosphonic) acid and nitrilo triacetic acid; and (e) water. See paras. 11-16. The cerium oxygen bond breaking compound can be any conventional compound utilized for effectively breaking the cerium oxygen chemical bond. Such compounds include oxidizing agents, reducing agents, and nucleophilic compounds. See para. 17. As used herein, "oxidizing agents" correspond to compounds that oxidize exposed metal(s) resulting in corrosion of the metal or oxide formation on the metal. Oxidizing agents include but are not limited to periodate, persulfate, etc. Suitable pH adjustors include tetraethylammonium hydroxide, etc. As noted above, the composition comprises at least one cleaning agent. Said cleaning agents are chosen from at least one of (i) one or more water miscible solvent(s), and/or (ii) one or more one polymer(s), and/or citric acid.
Polymers, when present, include, but are not limited to, methacrylic acid homopolymer and copolymers with, for example, acrylamidomethylpropane sulfonic acid and maleic acid; maleic acid/vinyl ether copolymer; poly (vinylpyrrolidone)/vinyl acetate; homopolymers such as phosphonated polyethyleneglycol oligomers, poly(acrylic acid) (PAA), poly(acrylamide), poly(vinyl acetate), poly (ethylene glycol) (PEG), polypropylene glycol) (PPG), poly (styrene sulfonic acid), poly(vinyl sulfonic acid), poly(vinyl phosphonic acid), poly(vinyl phosphoric acid), poly(ethyleneimine), poly(propyleneimine), polyallylamine, polyethylene oxide (PEO), polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP), PPGPEG-PPG block copolymers, PEG-PPG-PEG block copolymers, poly(vinyl alcohol), poly(hydroxyethyl)acrylate, poly(hydroxyethyl)methacrylate, hydroxyethyl cellulose, methylhydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methylhydroxypropyl cellulose, xanthan gum, potassium alginate, pectin, carboxymethylcellulose, glucosamine, poly(diallyldimethylammonium) chloride, PEGylated (i.e., polyethyleneglycol-ated) methacrylate/acrylate copolymers, poly MADQuat and copolymers thereof, dimethylaminomethacrylate polymers and compolymers thereof, trimethylammonium methylmethacrylate polymers and copolymers thereof, and combinations thereof. The copolymers above may be random or block copolymers. When present, the amount of polymer(s) in the composition is in a range from about 0.0001 weight % to about 5 weight %, based on the total weight of the composition. See para. 26.
Das et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Das et al suggest a composition containing a periodic acid, a quaternary ammonium salt, a resin containing a nitrogen atom, a solvent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al (US2017/0275498) in view of Das et al (US2020/0255770); or Das et al (US2020/0255770) as applied to claims 1-9 and 11-15 above, and further in view of WO2020/100924. Note that, Kashiwagi et al (US2022/0002881) is a 371 application of WO2020/100924 and has been used as an English language translation of WO2020/100924.
Tamada et al and Das et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, neither reference teaches the use of orthoperiodic acid in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Kashigawa et al (i.e., WO2020/100924) teach a remover composition which can sufficiently remove ruthenium (Ru) remaining on substrates and can be inhibited from evolving RuO gas. The remover composition, which is for removing ruthenium remaining on substrates, has a pH at 25° C. of 8 or higher and includes one or more pH buffer ingredients. See Abstract. The oxidizing agent used in the remover composition of the present invention is not particularly limited and a periodic acid or a salt thereof is preferred. The periodic acid or a salt thereof includes, for example, an ortho-periodic acid, a sodium ortho-periodate, meta-periodic acid and a sodium meta-periodate, etc. See paras. 19-23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use orthoperiodic acid in the composition taught by Das et al or Tamada et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Kashigawa et al teach the equivalence of orthoperiodic acid to periodic acid or periodate salts as oxidizing agents in a similar composition and further Tamada et al or Das et al teach the use of periodic acids and salts as oxidizing agents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/February 6, 2026