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 1-8, in the reply filed on 11/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes two paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in which a content of a component with a molecular weight (MW) of 700 or more" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this component is the same water-soluble polymer or a different one having a different MW?
Claims 2-8 are directly depends on the claim 1 and therefore, also include such limitation.
For the purpose, of the examination, examiner interprets that the water-soluble polymer having two-different MW being used in the composition.
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.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 2022/0348791).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al disclose a polishing composition comprises abrasive grains, a water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain, a polyvalent carboxylic acid (salt), and an oxidizing agent, and having a pH of less than 6 (abstract); and aforesaid “water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain” resemble as the claimed “removal rate inhibitor”; and the weight-average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain is not particularly limited, and preferably 200 or higher and more preferably 300 or higher; and Moreover, the weight-average molecular weight of the water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain is not particularly limited, and is preferably 3,000 or lower, more preferably lower than 1,000, and still more preferably 800 or lower [0042]; which overlaps a component with MW of 700 or more. And the concentration of the water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain in the polishing composition (mass (g) of the water-soluble polymer having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain in 1 L of the polishing composition) is not particularly limited, and is preferably 0.01 g/L or higher [0053] and such overlaps the claimed range of the component of more than 0% by mass and less than 1% by mass. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al disclose that the water-soluble polymers having no alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include a polyalkylene glycol. The polyalkylene glycol is not particularly limited, and includes, for example, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, etc. and among them, polypropylene glycol is particularly preferred [0039].
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki et al disclose that the polishing composition according to one embodiment of the present invention may further contain a water-soluble polymer having an alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain, to further improve a reduction effect on steps and dishing when polishing an object to be polished containing two or more different materials [0055].
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al disclose that silica with organic acid immobilized on the surface (silica abrasive grains with organic acid immobilized on the surface) is preferred, and colloidal silica with organic acid immobilized on the surface (colloidal silica abrasive grains with organic acid immobilized on the surface) are more preferred [0023]; and aforesaid teaching reads on the “colloidal silica is modified anionically”.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al disclose above that pH of the composition is less than 6 (abstract; [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al disclose that the composition may contain an inorganic salt, like alkali metal salt [0095] which reads on the claimed inorganic salt.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al disclose that the composition may contain a dispersing medium [0122]-[0123].
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al disclose that the object to be polished includes polysilicon using such composition [0135].
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (US 2020/0299543).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a polishing composition comprises an abrasive particle, which is organic acid surface-immobilized silica particles; a wetting agent; and a polishing speed inhibitor for the material having a silicon-silicon bond, wherein the polishing composition has a pH of less than 7 [0023], wherein the polishing composition is used for material having a silicon-silicon bond include polysilicon (Poly-Si) [0018].
Ishida discloses that the composition also includes “wetting agent” comprises a water-soluble polymer having an alcoholic hydroxyl group (-OH) [0037]; Preferable examples of the water-soluble polymer include nonionic water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [0038] and aforesaid polyvinyl alcohol, easily reads on the defect reducing agent.
Ishida further discloses that the composition further includes a “polishing speed inhibitor for a material having a silicon-silicon bond” [0047]; and examples of the polishing speed inhibitor include nonionic compounds such as polypropylene glycol (PPG), polyethylene glycol (PEG), etc. [0048] and aforesaid “polypropylene glycol” reads on the claimed “removal rate inhibitor”, which is a water-soluble polymer having a polyoxyalkylene chain.
Ishida discloses that the lower limit of the weight average molecular weight of the polishing speed inhibitor is not particularly limited as long as it can suppress the polishing speed of the material having a silicon-silicon bond, but is, for example, 100 or more. The upper limit of the weight average molecular weight of the polishing speed inhibitor is preferably 2000 or less, and more preferably 1000 or less, from the viewpoint of suppression of aggregation of organic acid surface-immobilized silica particle [0051]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed range of MW of “200 or more and 600 or less” and the higher limit of the MW is “700 or more”; and the content of the polishing speed inhibitor in the polishing composition can be appropriately adjusted depending on the compound to be used. The content of the polishing speed inhibitor is, for example, 0.1 g/kg to 10.0 g/k and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Ishida teach above that the polishing speed inhibitor include nonionic compounds such as polypropylene glycol (PPG) [0048].
Regarding claim 3, Ishida teach the water-soluble polymer having an alcoholic hydroxyl group (-OH) [0037]; Preferable examples of the water-soluble polymer include nonionic water-soluble polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) [0038] and aforesaid polyvinyl alcohol, easily reads on the defect reducing agent having an alcoholic hydroxyl group in a side chain.
Regarding claim 4, Ishida teach that the organic acid surface-immobilized silica particles are colloidal silica [0025]; and aforesaid teaching reads on the claimed “abrasive grains are anionically modified colloidal silica”.
Regarding claim 5, Ishida teach that the polishing composition has a pH of less than 7 [0023],[0061]-[0064], which overlaps the claimed range of “equal to or greater than 1.0 and less than 5.0”.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida teach that the composition further incudes an inorganic salt [0056]-[0058].
Regarding claim 7, Ishida teach that the composition further incudes a dispersing medium or a solvent [0054]-[0055].
Regarding claim 8, Ishida teach that the composition is used for polishing material having a silicon-silicon bond include polysilicon (Poly-Si) [0018].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713