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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 12, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshino (CN102533127A).
With respect to claims 1, 3, Yoshino describes a polishing composition comprising: abrasive grains including colloidal silica (para 46); one or two or more oxidants including iron chloride (III), ferric nitrate (III), iron (III sulfate, ferric (III) phosphate, iron (III), which provide iron ion in water (para 69, 70); water (para 60); and a pH preferably 2.5 or less, including 1.2 to 2.5 (para 75). The content of oxidant such as iron (III) is from 0.01 wt% or more, which provides 0.01wt% x10000 = 100 ppm (para 71).
With respect to claim 4, the oxidants include hydrogen peroxide.
With respect to claims 6-8, the composition further includes one, or a mixed of two or more acids including organic acids of alpha-methyl phosphono succinic, amino carboxylic acid such as formic acid, aspartic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, oxalic acid, nitryl acetic, maleic, oxaloacetic acid at concentration preferably 0.4-1 wt% (para 63, 65), which would provide claimed he organic acid component includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a divalent organic acid component and a trivalent organic acid component as an organic acid component having no carbon-carbon unsaturated bond.
With respect to claim 9, the composition further include organic solvent (para 61).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, the composition is used for polishing amorphous carbon material (para 79).
With respect to claim 19, the content of the water is from 60-99.4 wt% (para 61), which would provide the organic solvent content in a range of 0.1-95 mass%.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-10, 12, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fu et al. (US 2014/0209566 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 3 Fu describes a CMP polishing composition comprising abrasive grains including silica (para 12), iron ions of Fe3+, which also provides an oxidizing agent, at prefer content of 0.001 wt% or more or 0.001wt% x 10000 = 10 pm (para 17), and a pH in a range of 2-3.5 (para 20).
With respect to claims 6-8, the composition further includes one, or a mixed of two or more acids including organic acids succinic, citric acid, tartaric acid, acetic, at concentration preferably 0.1 wt% or more (para 22, 23), which would provide claimed he organic acid component includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a divalent organic acid component and a trivalent organic acid component as an organic acid component having no carbon-carbon unsaturated bond.
With respect to claims 9, 10, 18 the composition further includes organic solvents such as ethylene glycol, glycerol, diethylene glycol, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether.
With respect to claim 12, it is an intended use of the polishing composition. Since the composition contains the same components. Therefore, it would be capable to use for any amorphous carbon material.
With respect to claim 13, the composition is used in a method for polishing organic polymer materials such as polyimide (para 7, 30), which provides method claim for polishing a carbon material.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 2, Yoshino doesn’t teach the iron content is from 15-250 ppm. Yoshino teaches the content of oxidant such as iron (III) is from 0.01 wt% or more, which provides 0.01wt% x10000 = 100 ppm and 2wt% or less or 20000ppm (para 71), which overlaps claimed range. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use claimed ranges to provide a CMP polishing composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 14, Yoshino teaches the zirconia is one of the abrasives that can be used and the prefer abrasive is colloidal silicon dioxide (para 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the CMP composition doesn’t have to use or contain zirconia.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, even though Yoshino doesn’t teach a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains of 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1; however, the iron (III) ions content is from 0.01 to 2 wt% and the abrasive grain is from 0.001 to 10wt% (para 48, 71). This would provide a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains overlaps that of claimed ratio of 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use claimed ranges of provide a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains overlaps that of claimed 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1. to provide a CMP polishing composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claims 2 and 5, Fu doesn’t teach the Fe3+ has a content in the range of 15-250 ppm or oxidizing agent has a content of 2 wt% or more. However, he teaches the oxidizing agent, including Fe3+ has a content of 0.001 wt% (10ppm) or more and 5 wt% (50,000ppm) or less (para 15, 17), which provides iron ion content and oxidizing agent wt% overlap claimed ranges. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use claimed ranges to provide a CMP polishing composition with expected results.
With respect to claim 14, Fu teaches that “the abrasive particles can be any suitable abrasive particles”, which includes alumina, silica, titania, ceria, zirconia (para 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the CMP composition doesn’t have to use or contain zirconia.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, even though Fu doesn’t teach a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains of 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1; however, the iron (III) ions content is from 0.001 to 5 wt% and the abrasive grain is from 0.01 to 20wt% (para 11, 15). This would provide a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains overlaps that of claimed 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use claimed ranges of provide a mass ratio of the content of iron ions with respect to a content of the abrasive grains overlaps that of claimed 0.004 or more or 0.001 to 0.1. to provide a CMP polishing composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 11, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to claims 6, 9 above, and further in view of KR 102392596B1) (referred below as KR ‘596).
With respect to claims 11, 19, 20 Fu doesn’t teach the organic solvent is at 0.1 to 95 mass% or 1-10 mass % and includes a propylene glycol monopropyl ether. KR ‘596 teaches a polishing composition wherein the organic solvent is from 0.1 parts by mass to 15 parts by mass (page 12). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use such organic solvent at a content of 0.1 to 95 or 1-10 mass % in light of KR ‘596 because KR ‘596 shows it is equivalent to diethylene glycol monoethyl ether (page 12), which is also taught by Fu in para 19 “polyhydric alcohols and derivatives of the same such as ethylene glycol, glycerol, diethylene glycol, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, and the like”.
With respect to claim 17, KR ‘596 further teaches to use organic acids for pH control including glutaric acid, adipic acid, malic acid, which are equivalent to that of acetic or oxalic acid, which is also taught by Fu for pH control (para 21). Therefore, using any of those organic acids for pH control would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to control the pH with expected results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 6/16/2026
Prosecution Insights