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
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/22/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of implied language “Provided are”. 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).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20040203324) in view of Moeggenborg (US 20050150598).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches a slurry composition for chemical mechanical polishing (abstract), comprising: an abrasive including particles surface-treated with metal oxide ([0017-0019]), and a metal oxide surrounding at least a portion of an outer surface of the particles ([0017-0019]).
Smith does not explicitly teach the polymeric core being dendrimer particles; however, Moeggenborg teaches a polishing system including a combination of polymeric particles and metal oxide particles ([0010-0012]). Moeggenborg teaches dendritic polymers are desirable as the polymeric particles of the composition with the benefit of slowing removal of the underlying layer and reducing scratching ([0015-0016], [0026]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymer particles of Smith to be dendritic polymers, as taught in Moeggenborg, for the benefit of slowing removal of the underlying layer and reducing scratching.
Regarding Claim 2, Moeggenborg teaches wherein the dendrimer particles are composed of a dendritic polymer, and a generation number of the dendritic polymer is an integer within a range of 2 to 10 ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Moeggenborg teaches end functional groups including amines, amides, carboxylic acids, and hydroxyl groups ([0019]).
Regarding Claim 4, Moeggenborg teaches poly(amidoamine) (PAMAM), polypropyleneimine (PPI), or a combination thereof ([0018]).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith teaches the particle core is 0.05 to 20 micrometers ([0028]). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the particles to be any size taught by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Smith teaches they are all suitable sizes for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the abrasive of Smith with any of the taught particle sizes.
Regarding Claim 6, Smith teaches silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), ceria (CeO2), zirconia (ZrO2), titania (TiO2), or a combination thereof ([0019]).
Regarding Claim 8, Smith teaches the metal oxide is particles having an average size within a range of 5 nm to 100 nm ([0030]). 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the particles to be any size taught by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Smith teaches they are all suitable sizes for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the abrasive of Smith with any of the taught particle sizes.
Regarding Claim 9, Smith teaches wherein the abrasive is included in an amount within a range of 0.1 wt. % to 60 wt. % based on a total amount of the slurry composition. 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the concentration to be any concentration taught by the reference, including those within the claimed range, because Smith teaches they are all suitable for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the abrasive of Smith with any of the taught concentrations.
Regarding Claim 10, Smith teaches the slurry may include an oxidant ([0042]) and an organic acid ([0039]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20040203324) in view of Moeggenborg (US 20050150598) as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Tian (US 20180298234).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith teaches that metal oxide particles are nanoparticles attached to the core with a coverage of at least 20% ([0030]). Smith is silent as to the shape of the metal oxide particles; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine an appropriate shape. Tian teaches irregular-shaped, i.e. nanospikes, oxide abrasive particles are desirable for chemical mechanical polishing compositions (abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the particles of Smith to be irregular shaped particles, as suggested by Tian, because they are known particle shapes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the polishing composition of Smith with irregular shaped particles as in Tian.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights