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 of Group I in the reply filed on February 20, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the term “booster” is indefinite. “Booster” does not have a clear definition in the art as to its function, and therefore it is not clear which compounds constitute a booster.
In claim 10, the preamble is not linked to the body of the claim. It is therefore unclear how the body of the claim relates to the preamble.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to disclose or suggest a method of manufacturing a chemical mechanical polishing slurry, the method comprising mixing a first precursor including cerium and a second precursor in an aqueous solution; forming nanoclusters including cerium by a synthesis reaction between the first precursor and the second precursor; and forming the chemical mechanical polishing slurry by mixing a pH control agent, deionized water, an inhibitor, and/or a dispersant with the nanoclusters, as in the context of claim 1.
The closest prior art is Christou et al (US 11,505,470 B2), Plissonneau et al (WO 2022/189597 A1) and Estes et al (cited by applicant in the IDS). Christou discloses cerium oxide nanoclusters for medical technologies (Section “Pharmaceutical Formulations and Routes of Administration” beginning at col. 22, line 31), but fails to recognize their use in chemical mechanical polishing. Plissonneau discloses mixing a first precursors including cerium (page 3, line 13) and a second precursor (page 3, line 14) in an aqueous solution (page 3, line 12); forming particles including cerium oxide (page 13, lines 6-9); and forming the chemical mechanical polishing slurry by mixing a pH control agent (page 14, line 31), and/or a dispersant (page 14, line 32) with the cerium oxide particles (page 14, lines 22-30). However, Plissonneau fails to disclose that the cerium-containing particles are nanoclusters. Estes discloses a method of forming nanoclusters, comprising mixing a first precursor including cerium (page 6, line 31) and a second precursor (glycine, page 6, line 33) in an aqueous solution (page 6, line 33); forming nanoclusters including cerium by a synthesis reaction between the first precursor and the second precursor (Results, page 10). However, Estes also fails to recognize an application in chemical mechanical polishing. There is no motivation to combine the teachings of Christou, Estes and Plissonneau to arrive at the invention as in the context of claim 1 because there is no teaching that nanoclusters made for medicine are applicable to chemical mechanical polishing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-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, 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713