DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 4, “one either group” should read “one ether group”;
in claim 13, line 1, “at least one selected from” should read “at least one component selected from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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 1-6, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. (WO 2021210310 A1) with reference to US 20230099612 A1 for citations, hereinafter referred to as KAKIMURA.
Regarding claim 1, KAKIMURA teaches a polishing liquid for polishing a member to be polished containing a resin (paragraphs [0009], [0147] and [0491]: a treatment liquid for a semiconductor substrate; the treatment liquid is used a s a polishing liquid; he treatment liquid is useful for a wafer consisting of a silicon-based material, such as a silicon wafer, a silicon carbide wafer, and a resin-based wafer), the polishing liquid comprising abrasive grains containing cerium oxide (paragraph [0328]: examples of the abrasive grains include inorganic abrasive grains such as ceria) and an ether compound having a hydroxy group, wherein the ether compound includes a compound having one ether group (paragraph [0375]: examples of the alkoxyalcohol include 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol).
Regarding claim 2, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the ether compound includes an alkoxy alcohol (paragraph [0375]: examples of the alkoxyalcohol include 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol).
Regarding claim 3, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the ether compound includes an alkoxy alcohol having a molecular weight of less than 200 ((paragraph [0375]: 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol). KAKIMURA teaches alkoxy alcohol having molecular weight of 118.17 g/mol, which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the alkoxy alcohol includes a compound having an alkoxy group having 1 to 5 carbon atoms (paragraph [25]: 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol). KAKIMURA teaches ether compound having an alkoxy group/methoxy having 1 carbon atom, which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the alkoxy alcohol includes 1-propoxy-2-propanol (paragraph [0376]: propylene glycol mono-n-propyl ether).
Regarding claim 6, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the alkoxy alcohol includes 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol (paragraph [25]: 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol).
Regarding claim 8, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the ether compound further includes a polyether (paragraph [0319]: examples of the nonionic surfactant include polyoxyalkylene alkyl ethers, polyoxyalkylene alkenyl ethers, polyoxyethylene alkylphenyl ethers, polyoxyalkylene glycol).
Regarding claim 12, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising an organic acid component (paragraph [0142]: examples of the aliphatic carboxylic acid include oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, pimelic acid, sebacic acid, and maleic acid).
Regrading claim 13, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 1, further comprising at least one selected the group consisting of an ammonium cation and ammonia (paragraph [0391]: an ammonium salt of the inorganic acid).
Claims 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iikura et al. (US 12709699 B2), hereinafter referred to as IIKURA.
Regarding claim 1, IIKURA teaches a polishing liquid (Abstract: a polishing liquid), the polishing liquid comprising abrasive grains containing cerium oxide (Col. 4, lines 63-66: examples of abrasive grains other than the abrasive grains containing a hydroxide of a tetravalent metal element include abrasive grains containing ceria) and an ether compound having a hydroxy group, wherein the ether compound includes a compound having one ether group (Col. 14, lines 59-62: examples of the arbitrary additive include alcohols (such as 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol)).
Please note, that the claims are drawn to a polishing liquid. Furthermore, the phrase “for polishing a member to be polished containing a resin” is a statement of intended use and thus, is not considered as further limiting structurally a polishing liquid. See MPEP §2111.02(II).
Regarding claim 2, IIKURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein the ether compound includes an alkoxy alcohol (Col. 14, line 62: 3-methoxy-3-methyl-1-butanol).
Regarding claim 8, IIKURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein the ether compound further includes a polyether (Col. 9, lines 4-8:examples of non-ionic polymer include a glycerin-based polymer; examples of the glycerin-based polymer include polyglycerol and a polyglycerol derivatives).
Regarding claim 9, IIKURA teaches the polishing liquid of claim 8, wherein the polyether includes polyglycerol (Col. 9, lines 4-8:examples of non-ionic polymer include a glycerin-based polymer; examples of the glycerin-based polymer include polyglycerol).
Regarding claim 10, IIKURA teaches the polishing liquid of claim 8, wherein the content of the polyether is 0.5 to 3% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid (Col. 9, lines 4-8: examples of non-ionic polymer include a glycerin-based polymer; examples of the glycerin-based polymer include polyglycerol; and Col. 12, lines 6-11: the content of the non-ionic polymer is highly preferable 0.5% by mass or more and further preferably 1% by mass of less). IIKURA teaches range which is within and anticipates the claimed range.
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.
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 7, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAKIMURA.
Regarding claim 7, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 2, wherein a content of the alkoxy alcohol is 0.2 to 0.8% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid (paragraph [0381]: the content of the organic solvent is preferably 0.1% to 99% by mass with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid). KAKIMURA teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid of claim 8, wherein the content of the polyether is 0.5 to 3% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid (paragraph [0324]: the content of the surfactant is preferably 0.0001% to 5.0% by mass with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid). KAKIMURA teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing composition liquid according to claim 1, wherein a content of the abrasive grains is 0.5 to 3% by mass on the basis of the total mass of the polishing liquid (paragraphs [0328] and [0345]: examples of the abrasive grains include inorganic abrasive grains such as silica, ceria; the content of the abrasive grains is more preferably 5.0% by mass or less with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid). KAKIMURA teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Regrading claim 14, KAKIMURA teaches the polishing liquid according to claim 1, wherein a pH is 9.00 to 11.00 (paragraph [0403]: the pH of the treatment liquid of the embodiment of the present invention is 6.0 to 13.5). KAKIMURA teaches range which overlaps and renders obvious the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iwano et al. (US 20210017422 A1) discloses a polishing liquid containing abrasive grains, a hydroxy acid, a polyol, and a liquid medium (Abstract), wherein the abrasive grains preferably contain ceria (paragraph [0033]), the polyol preferably contains polyether polyol, and a content of the polyol is preferably 0.05 to 5.0% by mass (paragraphs [0013] and [0015]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights