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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 6-7 pending. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: consider the use of consistent terminology, either using “solid cylindrical structure” or using “solid cylinder”, as the claim first uses “a solid cylindrical structure”, then later refers to “the solid cylinder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-4, and 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation of “the solid cylinder has the same material as the protruding structures” lacks adequate support in the original disclosure, when combined with the limitations “wherein the protruding structures have less deflection than a solid cylindrical structure of equal initial polishing surface area, the solid cylinder having an equivalent diameter, D wherein D=2*[square root of {(Initial polishing surface area) / pi}]” as [0018] of the disclosure provides for comparison of the compressive modulus to a pad with “solid protrusions [not cylinders] having the same exterior dimensions and the same material used in making the protruding structures disclosed herein”. As noted in the instant specification in [0046], “pads having solid protrusions having the same exterior perimeter even though due to the cavity they would have less polishing surface area”. The specification, in the cited example of [0018] compares the compressive modulus [which the examiner understands to be related to the amount of deflection, given a amount of force], to a structure with the same material and same exterior dimensions, which would result in a solid structure with greater polishing surface area. The specification does not compare the protruding structure to a solid structure that has the same polishing surface area, same height, is a cylinder, and is made of the same material, and therefore, claim 1 also lacks written description for this reason.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 rejected as dependent.
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 1-4, and 6-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the protruding structures have less deflection than a solid cylindrical structure of equal initial polishing surface area, the solid cylinder having an equivalent diameter, D wherein D=2*[square root of {(Initial polishing surface area) / pi}] and the solid cylinder has the same material as the protruding structures and the protruding structures and solid cylinder having a height and the height of the protruding structures equals the height of the solid cylinder”. This limitation makes the claim indefinite because the claimed protrusion is being compared, in a way that is not fully defined. For example, the amount of deflection experienced by the solid structure would be different depending on where the force is applied and how much force is applied to the solid structure. Given that the solid structure and the protruding structure are of different shapes, one could also apply force to a location, for example, in the cavity of the protruding structure, where there is no corresponding location in the solid cylinder, and obtain a deflection of the cylinder at a location where there is no corresponding structure in the solid structure, and the claim does not specify a location or direction where force is applied. Additionally, the amount of force applied would change the amount of deflection, and this relationship is not necessarily linear or proportional, and the claim does not require any specific amount of force, or the same amount of force to be applied. Because materials can be plastically and irreversibly deformed, this could also change the amount of deflection when force is subsequentially applied, and because the claim does not require the solid cylinder to be placed on any base pad or surface, this could also affect the amount of deflection of the cylinder, because the base can affect how much the cylinder moves when force is applied depending on how much the base itself is able to deflect. Because the parameters for comparison of deflection are not fully defined, the boundaries of the functional limitation defining the deflection between the protruding structure and the solid cylinder is not fully defined, and claim 1, as a result is indefinite.
Claims 2-4, 6-7 rejected as dependent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 20110039480 A1) in view of Nakase (JP2018051730A, prev. cited with translation as NPL dated 07/19/2023) and Muldowney (US Pub. 20090047877 A1, prev. cited).
PNG
media_image1.png
898
1183
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig 4 (Choi)
With respect to claim 1, Choi discloses:
A polishing pad useful in chemical mechanical polishing ([0003]) comprising
a base pad having a top side (base pad 210, fig. 4; [0063-0064]),
a plurality of separated protruding structures having a body (ann. fig. 4 above),
where the body has (i) an exterior perimeter surface defining an exterior shape of the protruding structure (ann. fig. 4, above),
(ii) an interior surface defining a central cavity (central cavity 222, fig. 4; [0065]) and
(iii) a top surface defining an initial polishing surface area (ann. fig. 4, above)
wherein the body further has wall openings in it from the central cavity to the exterior perimeter surface (openings 224, fig. 4; [0065]).
Choi does not explicitly disclose dimensions of the openings of the exterior perimeter surface are larger than dimensions of openings to the central cavity, the wall openings are offset from each other in vertical and horizontal directions, wherein the vertical direction is in a z-direction relative to a surface of the base pad and wherein the surface of the base pad is in a x-y plane of the horizontal direction and wherein the protruding structures have less deflection than a solid cylindrical structure of equal initial polishing surface area; the solid cylinder having an equivalent diameter, D wherein D=2*[square root of {(Initial polishing surface area) /pi}] and the solid cylinder has the same material as the protruding structures, and the protruding structures and solid cylinder having a height and the height of the protruding structures equals the height of the solid cylinder.
PNG
media_image2.png
861
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. figs 1-3 (Nakase)
As for the limitation dimensions of the openings of the exterior perimeter surface are larger than dimensions of openings to the central cavity, Nakase in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing pads, teaches of a polishing pad with protruding structures where dimensions of the openings of the exterior perimeter surface are larger than dimensions of openings to the central cavity (ann. fig. 1-3, above). Nakase teaches that this arrangement ([0020]) provides for a concave, convex pattern ([0014]), which provides for an excellent polishing rate and a reduction in “scratches and overpolishing caused by local concentration of the slurry” ([0016])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Choi so that dimensions of the openings of the exterior perimeter surface are larger than dimensions of openings to the central cavity for the purpose of providing excellent polishing with a reduction in scratches and overpolishing.
Muldowney, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches of providing protruding structures (fig. 3, structure above a base pad 340; [0030]) with openings that are offset from each other in vertical and horizontal directions, wherein the vertical direction is in a z-direction relative to a surface of the base pad and wherein the surface of the base pad is in a x-y plane of the horizontal direction (openings shown in fig. 3). Muldowney teaches that this arrangement balances slurry flow, contact area, and debris flow ([0039]), also facilitating effective heat removal and reducing scratching ([0041]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective fling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Choi with wall openings are offset from each other in vertical and horizontal directions for the purpose of providing balanced slurry flow, debris flow, and contact area and to facilitate effective heat removal, reducing scratching.
As for the limitation that the protruding structures have less deflection than a solid cylindrical structure of equal initial polishing surface area, the solid cylinder having an equivalent diameter, D wherein D=2*[square root of {(Initial polishing surface area) /pi}] and the solid cylinder has the same material as the protruding structures, the protruding structures and solid cylinder having a height and the height of the protruding structures equals the height of the solid cylinder, the protruding structure of Choi, as modified, would have this property because of the cavity and openings, consistent with the instant disclosure. In addition, the amount of deflection depends on the force applied, and the protruding structure, given no applied force would deflect less [in that it does not deflect] than a solid structure, having the properties claimed, if force is applied to the solid structure.
In the alternative, Muldowney teaches that stiffness (deformability/deflection) influences the ability to provide low-defect planarization ([0029,0047]). Per MPEP 2144.05 II, having demonstrated that from the prior art that the deflection is a result-effective variable, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have through routine experimentation, optimized the deflection of the protruding structure Choi, and have selected a deflection, including a deflection less than a corresponding deflection of a solid cylindrical structure of equal initial polishing surface area compared to said solid cylinder having an equivalent diameter, D wherein D=2*[square root of {(Initial polishing surface area) /pi}] and the solid cylinder has the same material as the protruding structures, the protruding structures and solid cylinder having a height and the height of the protruding structures equals the height of the solid cylinder, in order to obtain low deflect planarization.
With respect to claim 2, Choi, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: wherein the exterior shape is cylindrical, ellipsoidal, polygonal, of an irregular or regular curved surface (Choi, the exterior shape polygonal)
With respect to claim 3, Choi, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the central cavity has a shape that is cylindrical, ellipsoidal, polygonal, of an irregular or regular curved surface (Choi, the central cavity shape is polygonal).
With respect to claim 4, Choi, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: wherein the base pad and the protruding structure are integral to each other (Choi, fig. 4, above protrusions are fixed to pad as in [0063-0064])
With respect to claim 6, Choi, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however, does not explicitly teach wherein the protruding structure is characterized by a void fraction of 0.1 to 0.96.
Muldowney, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches of a void fraction (and also of a surface-to-volume ration in [0029]), wherein the void fraction (being higher than that of conventional polishing pads) provides for “advantage of improving fluid flow and heat dissipation” ([0029]). Furthermore, Muldowney teaches of “having a high void fraction or percentage of open volume versus solid volume” ([0030]), thus linking void fraction to the percentage of open vs solid volume (also consistent with the instant disclosure). Muldowney discloses that the volume of the polishing pad (influenced by the dimensions of the material occupied by the polishing pad) is a result effective variable ([0039]), and that one would balance that volume to open space as there is an “intrinsic trade-off between these objectives: adding more polishing filaments, or larger filaments, in the available space of polishing texture augments the total contact area, but reduces the open flow area and creates more obstacles to the removal of polish debris by the slurry. In addition, reducing the cross-section of the polishing filaments [essentially the solid volume of the protrusion] acts to reduce the propensity of the wafer to hydroplane on the pad and reduces stiction between the polishing pad and wafer.”, and that “Polishing pads designed for high contact area typically occupy 40 to 80 percent of the polishing pad volume measured above its base layer.” ([0039]).
Per MPEP 2144.05 II, having demonstrated that from the prior art that the void fraction is a result-effective variable, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have through routine experimentation, optimized the dimensions of the protruding structure of Choi, to obtain a desired void fraction, including a void fraction within the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.96, for the purpose of controlling the effects of slurry/fluid flow and heat dissipation, as well as controlling the effects of hydroplaning.
With respect to claim 7, Choi, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches: having one or three central cavities for each protruding structure (Choi, there is one central cavity in ann. fig. 4)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection (responses, page 4-5), the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the 13 USC 112(b) rejection (response, pages 6), the examiner’s position is that the claims have still yet to define the exact boundaries of the conditions where the comparison between the solid cylinder and the protruding structure is compared for the purpose of evaluating deflection. The examiner also respectfully submits that a solid structure having the same height, material, and also having the same initial polishing surface area is not supported by the disclosure, as the disclosure, for structures with the same material, provides for a comparison with the same exterior perimeter, which is inconsistent with having the same polishing surface area - see 112(a) rejections, above. Furthermore, with respect to the cylinder/protruding structure height, the examiner notes that that 0.125 inches ≠ 0.635 cm (referenced in instant spec at [0020]).
Regarding the 103 rejection (pages 6-7; which are noted to be substantially the same as the arguments dated 12/23/2024 with the exception of some additional arguments at the end directed towards the alleged advantages of the instant invention), the applicant takes the position that Choi lacks the mechanical rigidly of the claimed invention, given that the structure would bend when rotated against a wafer, as the instant invention would be more rigid compared to a solid structure. Given the 112(b) rejection above, the examiner respectfully submits that this argument could not be understood, and there is no evidence to support the applicant’s argument. Regarding Nakase, the examiner respectfully submits that the reference is used to teach the limitation of “dimensions of the wall openings of the exterior perimeter surface are larger than dimensions of the wall openings to the central cavity”. Regarding Muldowney, the reference is use to teach about how stacked openings permit slurry flow. The examiner respectfully submits that the combined teaching result in a polishing pad that meets the claimed limitations, including the functional aspects of the claim regarding the solid cylindrical structure. The examiner also respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments amount to attacking each reference individually, rather than the combined teachings of each reference. While the applicant suggests that the combined teachings don’t have the advantageous effects of the claimed invention, the examiner’s position is that the combined teachings of the references result in a polishing pad that meets the claimed limitations, as the side wall openings and central cavity would have provided the structure necessary to do so; and because the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723