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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘133 (CN 113122133) in view of Rabnawaz ‘730 (U.S. PGPub 2022/0040730).
Claim 1 – CN ‘133 teaches a polydimethylsiloxane (hereinafter PDMS) superamphiphobic coating (bridging pages 3-4, dynamic amphiphobic coating comprising siloxane polymer; page 5, 5th full paragraph, step S10 recites dimethylsiloxane copolymer), comprising the following raw materials: PDMS (page 5, 5th full paragraph), a sulfhydryl compound (page 5, 5th full paragraph, polymercapto resin; sulfhydryl, mercapto, and thiol are all synonymous terms; alternatively, bridging pages 3-4, sulfhydryl expressly recited), fluorinated acrylate (page 6, 6th full paragraph, fluorine-containing acrylate), and an initiator (bridging pages 5-6, photoinitiator). CN ‘133 does not fairly teach or suggest the use of hydroxyl PDMS or a curing agent. Rabnawaz ‘730 is drawn to amphiphobic coatings (e.g. PG 0111) and discloses that hydroxyl PDMS (PG 0088, hydroxy-functional PDMS) and curing agents (PG 0097, reactions catalysts to encourage crosslinking) are conventional elements of amphiphobic coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 to use hydroxyl PDMS and a curing agent in its composition as suggested by Rabnawaz ‘730, as the selection of materials expressly disclosed as suitable for a purpose is held as prima facie obvious.
Claim 2 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a mass ratio of the hydroxyl PDMS, the sulfhydryl compound, and the curing agent is (1- 3):1:(0.1-0.4); and a mass ratio of the sulfhydryl compound, the fluorinated acrylate, and the initiator is 1:(0.6-3):(0.01-0.3). The claimed elements are all disclosed as present in the combination of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as discussed above; selection of any particular ratio between disclosed components is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 6 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 1, wherein on the basis of a mass of the hydroxyl PDMS being 100%, a mass of the sulfhydryl compound is 1%-10%, a mass of the fluorinated acrylate is 2%-20%, a mass of the initiator is 0.01%-1%, and a mass of the curing agent is 10%-30%. The claimed elements are all disclosed as present in the combination of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as discussed above; selection of any particular ratio between disclosed components is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 10 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious a preparation method of the PDMS superamphiphobic coating according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest a method comprising the following steps: (1) preparing a mixed solution I using the hydroxyl PDMS, the sulfhydryl compound, the curing agent, and a solvent I, applying the mixed solution I on a surface of a substrate, and allowing for curing; and (2) preparing a mixed solution IT using the fluorinated acrylate, the initiator, and a solvent II, immersing the substrate cured with the mixed solution I prepared in the step (1) in the mixed solution II, and performing irradiation aging to obtain the PDMS superamphiphobic coating. The composite steps with different combinations of chemicals are disclosed at Page 7 of CN ‘133, steps S30, S40, and S50; it is well settled in the art that changes in the sequence of adding ingredients in a composition or in the sequence of process steps is prima facie obvious. See further MPEP 2144.04(IV)C.
Claim 14 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious a PDMS preparation method of the PDMS superamphiphobic coating according to claim 6, but does not expressly teach or suggest a method comprising the following steps: mixing the hydroxyl PDMS, the sulfhydryl compound, the fluorinated acrylate, the initiator, and a solvent to obtain a mixed solution; performing irradiation on the mixed solution; adding the curing agent to obtain a coating solution; applying the coating solution on a surface of a substrate; and allowing for curing to obtain the PDMS superamphiphobic coating. The composite steps with different combinations of chemicals are disclosed at Page 7 of CN ‘133, steps S30, S40, and S50; it is well settled in the art that changes in the sequence of adding ingredients in a composition or in the sequence of process steps is prima facie obvious. See further MPEP 2144.04(IV)C.
Claim 16 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS preparation method of claim 14, wherein the hydroxyl PDMS accounts for 9%-20% of the solvent by weight; and/or, the sulfhydryl compound accounts for 0.4%-1% of the solvent by weight; and/or, the fluorinated acrylate accounts for 0.5%-2% of the solvent by weight. The claimed elements are all disclosed as present in the combination of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as discussed above; selection of any particular ratio between disclosed components is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 17 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS preparation method of claim 14, wherein the preparation method further comprises: a curing condition comprises curing at room temperature for 8-12 h (CN ‘133 Page 7, 5th full paragraph, 10-20 hours overlaps 8-12 hours; selection of the portion of the range commensurate with the claimed invention is held as prima facie obvious).
Claim 18 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS preparation method of claim 10, wherein the sulfhydryl compound comprises trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) (CN ‘133 pages 7-8, Example 1); the curing agent comprises butanone (Rabnawaz ‘730 PG 0097); the fluorinated acrylate comprises 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluorooctyl acrylate (CN ‘133 Page 6, 6th full paragraph, 1H,1H,2H,2H-perfluoro acrylic acid octyl ester); the initiator comprises benzophenone (CN ‘133 bridging pages 5-6, benzoin compounds comprise benzophenone); the substrate is selected from glass sheets (Page 7, Step S30 paragraph); and the solvent is selected from one or more of N,N- dimethylformamide, tetrahydrofuran, and acetone (CN ‘133 Page 5, 2nd full paragraph, list of solvents).
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as applied to claims above, and further in view of WO ‘089 (WO2020/160089).
Claim 3 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 2, but do not expressly teach or suggest wherein the raw materials for preparing the PDMS superamphiphobic coating further comprise filler particles, and a mass ratio of the hydroxyl PDMS to the filler particles is 1: (0.5-2.5). WO ‘089 discusses formation of amphiphobic coatings (PG 0082) comprising PDMS and discloses that filler particles can be desirably added to further modify amphiphobic properties of these coatings (PG 0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 to include filler particles in the coating, as CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 want to form PDMS amphiphobic coatings and WO ‘089 teaches the inclusion of filler particles to further modify the amphiphobic properties of said coatings. Differences in e.g. concentration are held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 4 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 3, wherein the filler particles comprise micron-sized particles and nano-sized particles (WO ‘089 PG 0090, micron scale and nano scale particles); the micron-sized particles have a particle size of 2-10 microns, and the nano-sized particles have a particle size of 10-30 nm (selection of particle sizes commensurate with e.g. the desired thickness of the coating is held as prima facie obvious); and the micron-sized particles and the nano-sized particles are each independently selected from one or more of TiO2 and A1203 (WO ‘089 PG 0090).
Claim 5 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 4, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the PDMS superamphiphobic coating has a water contact angle of 132 to 154 degrees and an oil contact angle of 114 to 129 degrees. Rabnawaz ‘730 discloses the use of materials specifically tailored to improve the contact angle properties of omniphobic coatings (PG 0091); therefore, modification of the contact angle by e.g. filler selection is established as result-effective and routine experimentation.
Claim 7 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 1, but do not expressly teach or suggest wherein the raw materials for preparing the PDMS superamphiphobic coating further comprise filler particles, and a mass ratio of the hydroxyl PDMS to the filler particles is 1 : (0.1-1). WO ‘089 discusses formation of amphiphobic coatings (PG 0082) comprising PDMS and discloses that filler particles can be desirably added to further modify amphiphobic properties of these coatings (PG 0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 to include filler particles in the coating, as CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 want to form PDMS amphiphobic coatings and WO ‘089 teaches the inclusion of filler particles to further modify the amphiphobic properties of said coatings. Differences in e.g. concentration are held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 8 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 7, wherein the filler particles comprise micron-sized particles and nano-sized particles (WO ‘089 PG 0090, micron scale and nano scale particles); preferably, the micron-sized particles have a particle size of 5-15 pm, the nano-sized particles have a particle size of 10-30 nm (selection of particle sizes commensurate with e.g. the desired thickness of the coating is held as prima facie obvious), and a mass ratio of the micron-sized particles to the nano-sized particles is 1 : (1-5) (changes in concentration are prima facie obvious); and preferably, the micron-sized particles and the nano-sized particles are each independently selected from one or more of the following: TiO2 and A1203 (WO ‘089 PG 0090).
Claim 9 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 8, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the PDMS superamphiphobic coating has a water contact angle of 145 to 159 degrees and an oil contact angle of 134 to 149 degrees. Rabnawaz ‘730 discloses the use of materials specifically tailored to improve the contact angle properties of omniphobic coatings (PG 0091); therefore, modification of the contact angle by e.g. filler selection is established as result-effective and routine experimentation.
Claim 11 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the preparation method of claim 10, but do not expressly teach or suggest wherein the raw materials for preparing the PDMS superamphiphobic coating further comprise filler particles; in the step (1), the mixed solution I is prepared using the hydroxyl PDMS, the sulfhydryl compound, the filler particles, the curing agent, and the solvent I; and the filler particles account for 5%-20% of the mixed solution I by weight. The claimed elements are all disclosed as present in the combination of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as discussed above; selection of any particular ratio between disclosed components is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 12 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 / CN ‘291 renders obvious the preparation method of claim 11, wherein the hydroxyl polydimethylsiloxane accounts for 10%-20% of the solvent I by weight; the fluorinated acrylate accounts for 20%-30% of the mixed solution IT by weight; and the initiator accounts for 0.1%-3% of the mixed solution II by weight. The claimed elements are all disclosed as present in the combination of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as discussed above; selection of any particular ratio between disclosed components is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Claim 13 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 / CN ‘291 renders obvious the preparation method of claim 12, wherein in the step (2), an aging condition comprises aging at a temperature of 40-60 *C for 1-5 h (Rabnawaz ‘370 PG 0098).
Claim 15 – CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 / CN ‘291 renders obvious the preparation method of claim 14, but do not expressly teach or suggest wherein the raw materials for preparing the PDMS superamphiphobic coating further comprise filler particles; the preparation method further comprises: adding the filler particles after the step of performing irradiation on the mixed solution and before the step of adding the curing agent; and preferably, the filler particles account for 1%-3% of the mixed solution by weight. WO ‘089 discusses formation of amphiphobic coatings (PG 0082) comprising PDMS and discloses that filler particles can be desirably added to further modify amphiphobic properties of these coatings (PG 0090). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 to include filler particles in the coating, as CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 want to form PDMS amphiphobic coatings and WO ‘089 teaches the inclusion of filler particles to further modify the amphiphobic properties of said coatings. Differences in e.g. concentration are held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection. Selection of any order of performing steps is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of WO ‘089 (WO2020/160089).
Claim 19 - CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 1, but do not specifically teach or suggest wherein said coating is used in cleaning of a planarization device during a chemical-mechanical planarization process. WO ‘683 discloses the use of a PVA brush with a PDMA solution to clean CMP devices ( PG 0105, “Alternatively, the cleaning method of the PVA brush 100 according to the embodiment of the present invention may include the steps of preparing the PVA brush 100, cleaning the inside of the PVA brush 100 with the cleaning solution 200 containing the organic material, Removing the siloxane compound 110a and removing the impurities 110b in the PVA brush 100 by applying vibration to the PVA brush 100. [ Accordingly, organic materials such as silicon in the PVA brushes 100 and impurities in the form of particles can be easily removed. As a result, it is possible to provide a cleaning method of a PVA brush capable of improving the yield of a product obtained in a chemical mechanical planarization process, a semiconductor process, and a display process.”; PG 0113, “According to one embodiment, the cleaning solution 200 may comprise an organic material. For example, the organic material may be THF (tetrahydrofuran), or TMAH (tetramethylammonium hydroxide). According to one embodiment, the siloxane compound 110a may be polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 to use the compound to clean a CMP device as suggested by WO ‘583, as selection of a material designated suitable for a purpose is prima facie obvious.
Claim 20 - CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 renders obvious the PDMS superamphiphobic coating of claim 10, but do not specifically teach or suggest wherein said coating is used in cleaning of a planarization device during a chemical-mechanical planarization process. WO ‘683 discloses the use of a PVA brush with a PDMA solution to clean CMP devices ( PG 0105, “Alternatively, the cleaning method of the PVA brush 100 according to the embodiment of the present invention may include the steps of preparing the PVA brush 100, cleaning the inside of the PVA brush 100 with the cleaning solution 200 containing the organic material, Removing the siloxane compound 110a and removing the impurities 110b in the PVA brush 100 by applying vibration to the PVA brush 100. [ Accordingly, organic materials such as silicon in the PVA brushes 100 and impurities in the form of particles can be easily removed. As a result, it is possible to provide a cleaning method of a PVA brush capable of improving the yield of a product obtained in a chemical mechanical planarization process, a semiconductor process, and a display process.”; PG 0113, “According to one embodiment, the cleaning solution 200 may comprise an organic material. For example, the organic material may be THF (tetrahydrofuran), or TMAH (tetramethylammonium hydroxide). According to one embodiment, the siloxane compound 110a may be polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of CN ‘133 / Rabnawaz ‘730 to use the compound to clean a CMP device as suggested by WO ‘583, as selection of a material designated suitable for a purpose is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights