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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2025 and 06/18/2025 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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are 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.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite wherein the fluoropolymer particles “provide similar COF for silica polishing”. This language is found to be vague and indefinite because 1) “COF” is an abbreviation and it appears from the Examples that it refers to coefficient of friction, and 2) it is vague, based on the claimed language, as to what limitation this added recitation was meant to add. In the Remarks (see page 5), Applicant has stated “the COF remained about the same for all polishing conditions with the silica-based slurry and either increased or left COF unchanged with high downforce for ceria-based slurries. In no instance, did the fluoro-containing polishing pad act as a lubricant sufficient to reduce COF”. Thus, it appears that with the added limitation, Applicant meant to indicate that the coefficient of friction of the fluoropolymer particles do not change when a silica-based slurry is utilized; nevertheless, this conclusion is made based on the remarks but the amended recitation is vague and does not imply such a meaning.
The amended recitation is vague because it is not clear as to what the coefficient of friction is “similar” to. Also, the recitation of “for silica polishing” implies that this is referring to polishing a workpiece comprising silica, not polishing a workpiece using a silica based slurry.
The amendment added at the end of the language of claim 1 is vague and indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art do not disclose or suggest a polymer-polymer composite polishing pad useful for polishing or planarizing a substrate of at least one of semiconductor, optical and magnetic substrates, the polymer-polymer composite polishing pad comprising the following:
a polishing layer having a polishing surface for polishing or planarizing the substrate;
a polyurethane matrix forming the polishing layer, the polymer matrix having a tensile strength; and
fluoropolymer particles embedded in the polyurethane matrix, the fluoropolymer particles are hydrophobic and comprise 2 to 30 volume percent of the polymer-polymer composite polishing pad and have a tensile strength lower than the tensile strength of the polyurethane matrix wherein diamond abrasive materials cut the fluoropolymer particles and a thin film covering at least a portion of and less than the entire polishing surface of the polishing layer and the thin film having a zeta potential more negative than the polyurethane matrix at a pH of 7 and wherein the polishing surface has a fluorine concentration measured by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy in atomic percent at a penetration depth of 1 to 10 nm of at least twenty percent higher than the bulk fluorine concentration measured with energy-dispersion X-ray spectroscopy at a penetration depth of 1 to 10 µm and the polishing surface is hydrophilic as measured with distilled water at a pH of 7 at a surface roughness of 10 µm rms after soaking in distilled water for five minutes.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731