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 1-9 in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. In the same reply claim 3 was canceled and claims 1, 4, 5, and 10 were amended. Claim 10 is withdrawn.
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 1–2 and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babu et al. (US 2013/0122705 A1) in view of Motonari et al. (US 2011/0059680 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Babu teaches an additive for chemical mechanical polishing comprising a polymer (P) (paragraph [0009]).
Babu further teaches that the polymer (P) contains structural units (B) derived from vinyl monomers including (meth)acrylic acid amide type monomer (paragraphs [0017], [0128], [0132]).
Babu also teaches that the polymer includes structural units derived from monomers containing one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid group, a phosphoric acid group, a phosphonic acid group, a sulfuric acid group, a sulfonic acid group, and salts thereof (paragraph [0017]).
Babu does not explicitly teach that the total content of structural units derived from monomers containing one or more functional groups selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic acid group, a phosphoric acid group, a phosphonic acid group, a sulfuric acid group, a sulfonic acid group, and salts thereof is 0 to 0.6 mass% in the polymer (P); however, the proportion of such functional monomer units in a copolymer is a result-effective variable that affects properties such as dispersion stability and polishing performance, and selecting an amount within the claimed range would have been a matter of routine optimization (MPEP § 2144.05).
Babu further teaches a dispersity (PDI) of the polymer (P), which is represented by weight average molecular weight (Mw)/number average molecular weight (Mn), as evidenced by a polydispersity index (Mw/Mn) value of 1.60 (paragraph [0164]), thereby teaching a dispersity of 2.0 or less.
Babu, however, does not teach that the structural unit (A) is derived from a vinyl monomer having a -(LO)n–R group, wherein L represents an alkylene group having 4 or less carbon atoms, n represents an integer of 3 to 150, and R represents a hydrogen atom or a monovalent hydrocarbon group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms.
Motonari teaches a vinyl monomer comprising methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate (paragraph [0081]). The instant specification identifies polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate and monomethoxy polyethylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate as specific examples of vinyl monomers having the -(LO)n–R group (paragraph [0019]). The methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate of Motonari corresponds to these monomers, wherein the polyethylene glycol chain comprises repeating –CH2CH2O– units such that L is an ethylene group, n is an integer greater than 3, and the methoxy end group corresponds to R being a methyl group, thereby teaching the claimed vinyl monomer having the -(LO)n–R group
As described in the instant specification, the -(LO)n–R group corresponds to a structure comprising repeating oxyalkylene units (paragraph [0047]). The polyethylene glycol chain of Motonari corresponds to such a -(LO)n–R group.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymer of Babu to include vinyl monomers having a –(LO)n-R group as taught by Motonari in order to provide a polymer having improved solubility and dispersion stability in a chemical mechanical polishing composition, as oxyalkylene-containing polymers are known to enhance compatibility and performance in such compositions (paragraphs [0030], [0053]). See MPEP § 2143 and 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Babu teaches polymer molecular weights within the claimed range (paragraphs [0143], [0150]). Babu further teaches a dispersity (Mw/Mn), thereby relating weight average molecular weight (Mw) and number average molecular weight (Mn) (paragraph [0164]).
Babu does not explicitly disclose a number average molecular weight (Mn) within the claimed range.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a polymer having a number average molecular weight (Mn) within the claimed range, as Mw and Mn are related measures of molecular weight distribution and selection of a specific Mn represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Babu teaches the structural unit (B) is derived from a (meth)acrylic acid amide type monomer (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Motonari teaches an additive according to claim 1 comprising structural units derived from monomers including acrylates, methacrylates, and amide-derived monomers such as acrylamide, methacrylamide, and N-vinylacetamide (paragraph [0028]).
Motonari does not explicitly teach that the structural unit (B) is derived from a monomer having an SP value of 17 to 25 (J/cm³)¹/² as calculated by a Fedors’ estimation method.
However, the monomers taught by Motonari, including acrylates and methacrylates, are known polymer-forming monomers whose solubility parameters are known and may be estimated using group contribution methods such as the Fedors estimation method. Such monomers are known to exhibit solubility parameter values within predictable ranges, including ranges encompassing the claimed range.
Solubility parameter values depend on monomer structure and are used to predict solubility and compatibility of polymer compositions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a monomer for forming structural unit (B) having a solubility parameter within the claimed range of 17 to 25 (J/cm³)0.5, as such selection represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Babu teaches the polymer (P) is a block polymer (paragraph [0118]).
Regarding claim 7, Babu as modified by Motonari teaches the polymer (P) contains a polymer block A and a polymer block B, the polymer block A has the structural unit (A), and the polymer block B has the structural unit (B) (paragraphs [0118], [0119]).
Regarding claim 8, Babu teaches limitation of claim 7 above.
However, Babu does not explicitly teach a ratio (A/B) of the polymer block A to the polymer block B in the polymer (P) is 50/50 to 99.9/0.1 in mass ratio.
Babu teaches that the relative sizes and molecular weights of block A and block B may vary over broad ranges (paragraph [0143]).
It would have been obvious to select a ratio of polymer block A to polymer block B within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, namely the relative proportion of the polymer blocks (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claim 9 recites that the composition is “for chemical mechanical polishing used for.” Such recitation is considered an intended use and does not further limit the claimed composition, as the composition is otherwise fully defined by its components. Therefore, this limitation is not given patentable weight. See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights