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
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, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Kroell (U. S. Patent: 2010/0307068, here after Kroell), further in view of Jung Woon Kim et al (Korean Patent: 101874996, here after Kim).
Claim 1 is rejected. Kroell teaches a surface treatment method of cerium oxide, characterized in that, comprises:
S1: adding a first additive to water (predispersion comprising silicon oxide colloid), stirring uniformly (it is colloid dispersed therefore should be stirred or mixed uniformly), adding cerium oxide particles [0053-0055], and disperse [0055], where dispersing is done in dispersing in energy input unit [0058] such as ultrasound [0060], which in fact are uniformly dispersed (ultrasonic makes uniform disperse particles), and forming a first dispersion solution;
such as ultrasonically dispersing the cerium oxide particles
Kroelll also teaches S2: adding a second additive to the first dispersion solution [0056-0057, 0023, 0048], obviously stirring (uniformly) and repeating the dispersing process [0059 last sentence] e.g. ultrasonically dispersing, until the cerium oxide particles are uniformly dispersed (or homogenized). Kroell teaches applying ultrasonic to polishing dispersion (in step 1, or 2) by using an ultrasound finger, and not by transferring the solution to an ultrasonic tank, however an skill in art knows applying ultrasound to dispersion can be done by a tip type(finger) ultrasonic or bath type (ultrasonic, obviously requires transferring the solution to an ultrasonic tank) as Kim also teaches [page 7 lines 4-7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Kroell where ultrasonic treatments done in ultrasonic bath, because it is a case of substitution of equivalents. The ultrasonic durations are not patentable as it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA1995), and in absence of criticality. Although Kroell does not specifically teach the water is deionized water, however the water should be pure and deionized in order to avoid introducing impurities and cations/anions to the system as Kim also teaches using deionized water for making CMP slurries.
Claim 7 is rejected. Kroell teaches the limitation of claim 1 and teaches surface treatment of the cerium oxide.
Claim 8 is rejected. Kroell teaches application of the cerium oxide for chemical mechanical polishing [0040].
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael Kroell (U. S. Patent: 2010/0307068, here after Kroell), Jung Woon Kim et al (Korean Patent: 101874996, here after Kim), further in view of H. Shida et al (WO 2009/104465, here after Shida), and Mohammed H. Megherhi et al (Taiwanese Patent: 201715014, here after Megherhi).
Claim 2 is rejected. Kroell teaches adding (the first additive) silicon oxide to water and does not teach adding carboxylic acid-based additive. Shida teaches forming polishing dispersion of aqueous colloidal silica [ page 23 paragraph 4], and prior art taught by Shida teach adding water-soluble polymer into polishing aqueous dispersion improves polishing rate [page 2 last paragraph], where water soluble polymer is polycarboxylic acid [page 5 line 4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Kroell where the aqueous dispersion of colloidal silica comprising polycarboxylic acid, because it improves polishing rate. The first additive can be considered as silicon oxide and water-soluble polymer or only water-soluble polymer. Kroell teaches additives to slurry as second additives, but does not teach the second additive is a cation-containing polymer. Megherhi teaches adding cationic organic compound to polishing slurry having improves the polishing rate of abrasive material (ceria or alumina) [page 3 paragraph 6 lines 1-2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Kroell and Shida where a cationic organic compound is added to the polishing slurry, because it improves polishing rate.
Claim 3 is rejected as Shida teaches first additive is polymethacrylic acid [page 5 line 5].
Claim 4 is rejected as Shida teaches the mass percentage content of the first additive is 0.001wt%-1wt% of total mass slurry [page 13 paragraph 2], where Shida teaches content of silica is 1-20% of slurry [page 9 paragraph 7], and Kroell teaches the amount of ceria is 0.1-5% by weight of silica[abstract], claim limitation has been met.
Claim 5 is rejected as Megherhi teaches the second additive is a polyquaternary ammonium salt [page 3 paragraph 7].
Claim 6 is rejected. Megherhi teaches the abrasive particles are 7% of the slurry and cationic compound is 0.5% [page 4 paragraph 2], which in fact meets the claim limitation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights