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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 Feb 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 the claim recites “an unfilled polishing layer material of the polishing pad has a tensile modulus greater than 400 MPa”. It is unclear what is meant by “an unfilled polishing layer material of the polishing pad. Claim 1, from which claim 12 depends, recites defines the polishing pad as having a polishing layer with several materials, including being filled with microelements. It is unclear if claim 12 is defining a second polishing layer of the same pad, or if it is defining a material property of the claimed polishing layer material. Applicant’s original specification at page 14, lines 20-21 explicitly distinguishes a filled and unfilled polishing pad from each other, describing that a filled pad is porous and an unfilled pad is non-porous. As claim 1 defines the polishing pad as being porous, it is completely unclear how claim 12, which defines a material property of “an unfilled polishing layer” is intended to define the filled, porous pad of recited in claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al (US 2015/0306731, previously cited) in view of Bajaj et al (US 2016/0136787, previously cited) and further in view of Yeh et al (US 2015/0059254, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Qian teaches a CMP polishing pad having a low damping component for polishing a substrate chosen from at least one of a memory and a semiconductor substrate ([0004]) comprising: a polishing layer adapted for polishing the substrate which is a polyurethane reaction product of a thermosetting reaction mixture comprising a curative mixture of 4,4'-methylenebis(3-choro-2,6-diethylaniline) (MCDEA) and 4,4'-methylene-bis-o-(2-chloroaniline) (MbOCA) ([0039]; curative can be MCDEA, MbOCA or “mixtures thereof”), a polyisocyanate prepolymer having an unreacted isocyanate (NCO) concentration of from 8.6 to 11 wt.% ([0033]; 8.95 to 9.25 wt% fully encompassed by claimed range) and formed from a mixture of an aromatic diisocyanate and an alicyclic diisocyanate ([0031]; several aromatic and alicyclic diisocyanates are listed and can include “mixtures thereof”), with the aromatic diisocyanate including toluene diisocyanate ([0031]), and the alicyclic diisocyanate including H12MDI ([0031]; “4,4′-dicyclohexylmethane diisocyanate” is synonymous with H12MDI), a polyol of polytetramethylene ether glycol (PTMEG), polypropylene glycol (PPG), or a polyol blend of PTMEG and PPG as reactants ([0032]; PTMEG and PPG are both listed as potential polyol alternatives), and fluid filled microelements ([0041]), wherein the fluid filled microelements are incorporated into the polishing layer at 0.75 to 5.0 wt% (table 2 shows several examples where the microelement mixture (“pore former”) wt% is within the claimed range), and wherein the polyurethane reaction product in the polishing layer has a shore D hardness according to ASTM D2240-15 (2015) of from 50 to 60 ([0043]; Shore D hardness of 40-60, overlapping the claimed range. “in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” MPEP 2144.05 I), further wherein the polyurethane reaction product in the polishing layer has a shear storage modulus (G') at 40 °C of from 70 to 500 MPa ([0046-0047]; shear storage modulus overlaps claimed range, but measured at lower temperature), and, still further wherein the polishing layer has a damping component (G"/G' measured by shear dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA), ASTM D5279-08 (2008)) at 40 °C of from 0.06 to 0.13 (table 3 lists several examples of G’ and G’’ which fall within the claimed range (e.g. ex. 1: 6.1 MPa /64 MPa = 0.095), as measured at 40 degrees C).
Qian does not explicitly teach a particular weight ratio of MCDEA to MbOCA from 4:6 to 1:1. However, as Qian teaches the usage of MCDEA or MBOCA and mixtures thereof ([0039]), Qian implicitly discloses a ratio range from 1:0 to 0:1, which encompasses the claimed range. “In the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05 I). As each of these materials performs the same function as a curative for the polymer mixture, a person having ordinary skill could easily mix them in a suitable ratio based on the availability of the materials and the teachings of Qian that they may be mixed with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a weight ratio of MCDEA to MbOCA of from 4:6 to 1:1 in order to provide an effective curative for the polymer mixture as taught by Qian.
Qian does not explicitly teach a particular wt% of the toluene diisocyanate and H12MDI based on a total weight of the diisocyanate mixture before curing. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). In paragraph [0031], Qian identifies toluene diisocyanate and H12MDI and “mixtures thereof” among a list of usable elements to form the polymer polishing pad. As Qian is concerned with controlling the physical properties of the polishing pad ([0010]), a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to experiment with the constituent parts of the polishing pad to arrive at the desired polishing pad properties, which can be tuned based on the desired cut rate, reduction in defects, and conditionability ([0053], [0021]). Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range and there is no indication that the particular wt% of constituent diisocyanate components has an unexpected effect on the resulting polishing pad. Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed wt% of toluene diisocyanate and H12MDI, as this is a known diisocyanate mixture as taught by Qian ([0031]), and the particular percentages of these constituents would be routinely optimized to arrive at the desired cut rate, reduction in defects, and conditionability ([0053], [0021]).
While Qian’s storage modulus and damping component overlap or fall within the claimed ranges, Qian does not measure these properties at the temperatures claimed. However, Bajaj teaches a CMP polishing pad and establishes that temperatures have a direct effect on the storage modulus (fig 5C, [0146], storage modulus measured over a range of 30-90 °C, which encompass the claimed temperature) and damping component ([0145], damping component “tan δ” varies between temperatures of 30-90 °C, which encompass the claimed temperature), the storage modulus in turn effecting pad performance and in particular planarity and polishing efficiency ([0141-0142]), and the damping component having a direct effect on the polishing effects of the pad which can lower dishing and increase planarization efficiency ([0145]). It is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions through routine experimentation, particularly when the parameters are recognized as results effective variables in the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 II). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to establish the storage modulus and damping component taught by Qian at 65 °C and 50 °C respectively, as it is known that the temperature has a direct effect on these properties, and Bajaj establishes the storage modulus and damping component as results effective variables which directly affect the pad’s planarity, efficiency and dishing ([0141-0142], [0145]). Further, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed ranges.
Qian does not teach a porosity from 47% to 53%. Yeh teaches a chemical mechanical polishing pad having a porosity of 0.25% to 60% ([0011]), fully encompassing the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). Additionally, Yeh establishes that porosity is a results effective variable which affects the pad’s ability to transfer polishing fluids during polishing ([0011]). It is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions through routine experimentation, particularly when the parameters are recognized as results effective variables in the prior art (MPEP 2144.05 II). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at a pad density from 47% to 53% in the pad of Qian, as this range is fully encompassed by the density range disclosed by Yeh and the density can be selected by a person having ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired polishing fluid transfer as taught by Yeh ([0011]). Further, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4-5 Qian, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Qian further teaches the polyisocyanate prepolymer has an unreacted isocyanate (NCO) concentration from 8.6 to 10.3 wt.% of the polyisocyanate prepolymer ([0033]; 8.95 to 9.25 anticipates this range), and wherein the polyol used to form the polyisocyanate prepolymer is chosen from (i) PTMEG, (ii) PPG or (iii) a polyol blend of PTMEG and PPG in a ratio of PTMEG to PPG of from 1:0 to 1:4 ([0032]; PTMEG and PPG are each listed as alternatives); wherein the stoichiometric ratio of the sum of the total moles of amine (NH2) groups and the total moles of hydroxyl (OH) groups in the reaction mixture to the total moles of unreacted isocyanate (NCO) groups in the reaction mixture ranges from 0.90:1 to 1.20:1 ([0040]; 0.85 to 1.15 overlaps the claimed range; several examples listed in table 2 within the claimed range; e.g. ex 5 at 1.05).
Regarding claim 8 Qian, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Qian further teaches the polishing pad or polishing layer has a density of 0.55 to 1.17 g/cm3 ([0042]; 0.7 to 1.1 g/cm3 fully encompassed by claimed range).
Regarding claim 9 Qian, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Qian further teaches the polishing layer comprises a polyurethane reaction product having a hard segment (special definition in applicant’s specification page 6, 4th paragraph includes “diol, glycol, diglycol, diamine, triamine or polyamine, diisocyanate, triisocyanate, or reaction product thereof” and “excludes polyethers or polyglycols having three or more ether groups, such as polytetramethylene glycols or polypropylene glycols”) from 45 to 75% based on a the total weight of the thermosetting reaction mixture ([0035]; 10 to 60 wt%, overlapping the claimed range; the polyol curative constitutes the hard segment as disclosed by it consisting of diols [0032]). “In the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Further, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11 Qian, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Qian further teaches the polyisocyanate prepolymer has an unreacted isocyanate (NCO) concentration from 8.6 to 10.3 wt.% of the polyisocyanate prepolymer ([0033]; 8.95 to 9.25 anticipates this range), and wherein the polyol used to form the polyisocyanate prepolymer is chosen from (i) PTMEG, (ii) PPG or (iii) a polyol blend of PTMEG and PPG in a ratio of PTMEG to PPG of from 12:1 to 1:1 ([0032]; PTMEG and PPG are each listed as alternatives).
Regarding claim 12 Qian, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Qian further teaches the polishing layer material of the polishing pad has a tensile modulus of 100 to 300 MPa, but is silent as to what this modulus would be if the pad was nonporous (see 112b rejection above; as best can be understood, applicant is attempting to claim what the tensile modulus of the pad would be if it was nonporous). However, it is known to a person of ordinary skill that porosity of the pad effects its mechanical properties. Furthermore, as the claimed tensile modulus of a hypothetical unfilled pad material is a result of the claimed mixture of materials, it appears that any pad having the constituent materials recited in claim 1, would fall within the claimed range of tensile modulus of claim 12 if the microelements filling the material and forming the pores were eliminated. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed tensile modulus greater than 400 MPa, as the material constituents of the pad are rendered obvious as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Again, note that the material property recited in claim 12 does not appear to be a material property of the claimed pad material (see 112b rejection above), and applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 Feb 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 12 defines a tensile modulus of the pad outside the range disclosed by Qian. However, as detailed in the 112b rejection above, claim 12 appears to claim a tensile modulus of an unfilled polishing layer, where the polishing layer of claim 1 is filled with microelements which provide porosity. As such, claim 12 appears to define a tensile modulus of a hypothetical pad if the pad were to be made with all the material constituents of claim 1 except the microelements. Since the prior art as a whole renders obvious the material constituents of claim 1, and the material property recited in claim 12 is a result of this particularly claimed mixture, claim 12 is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues the claim amendments have alleviated the previous rejections under 112b. While the previous rejections has been alleviated, the amendment raises new issues of clarity as detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Qian teaches a preference for the use of either MBOCA or MCDEA, rather than the claimed mixture. While Qian may disclose a preference for the use of particular singular elements, the disclosure of this preference does not negate the explicit teaching of “mixtures thereof” as recited in paragraph [0039] of Qian. “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123). Applicant further argues that Qian does not disclose the claimed mixture of toluene diisocyanate and H12MDI. However, this mixture of diisocyanates is disclosed in paragraph [0031] of Qian as detailed above.
Applicant further argues that tables 4, 6 and 7 of the instant application show improvements in step height, as well as copper and tungsten removal rates. However, the general disclosure of these removal rates is not a showing of criticality for any of the claimed ranges and merely shows the result of combining known materials to achieve an expected change in polishing properties. There is no indication that applicant has achieved any new or unexpected properties or results. The invention merely combines known materials to arrive at a desired physical properties of the polishing pad. As detailed in the rejection above, these materials are already widely known in the art and arriving at particular mixture involves only routine experimentation, as it is known to adjust the physical properties of the polishing pad by altering its constituent components, which achieves the predictable result of adjusting cut rate, reduction in defects, and conditionability as taught by Qian ([0053], [0021]).
Applicant argues that Bajaj does not teach the claimed MCDEA-MbOCA blend. However, Bajaj is not relied upon for this teaching. This is taught by Qian as detailed in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that Yeh describes a tensile modulus rather than a shear modulus (G’) as claimed. However, Yeh is not relied upon to teach a particular shear modulus. The shear storage modulus is rendered obvious by Qian and Bajaj as detailed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights