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 CRF 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2026 has been entered.
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 11/12/2025, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4, 10, and 14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the terms may be amended as “[[the]]an optically transparent region” in line 11, and “[[the]]a working surface” in lines 13-14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, the phrase “wherein at least 50% of the optically transparent region of the subpad overlays an optically transparent region of the polishing layer” renders claim vague and indefinite. The optically transparent region is not defined for the subpad. In line 8, claim 1 recites “wherein the subpad is optically transparent, meaning that …” Claim does not define a portion/region of the subpad is optically transparent, rather it appears the entire subpad is optically transparent. Thus, for examination purpose the examiner has interpreted at least of 50% of the subpad overlays an optically transparent region of the polishing layer.
Claims 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (KR 20080005573A, hereinafter Prasad), in view of Esteban et al. (TW 201440960A, hereinafter Esteban).
Regarding claim 1, Prasad discloses a polishing pad (fig. 2 and Prasad English translation, p. 5:5-7, polishing pad 10) comprising:
a polishing layer having a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (fig. 2, a polishing layer 12 has a top surface [corresponds to the recited first major surface] and a bottom surface [corresponds to the recited second major surface]); and
a subpad having less than 20 volume % of voids based on the total volume of the subpad (Prasad English translation, p. 4:22-29, layers of the polishing pad, including the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad], can have a void volume of less than 10%. The less than 10% of the void volume is included in the recited less than 20% volume % of voids), having a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (fig. 2, a bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] has a top surface [corresponds to the recited first major surface] and a bottom surface [corresponds to the recited second major surface]),
wherein the subpad is coupled directly to the polishing layer without an additional layer (Prasad English translation, p. 5:7-10 and fig. 2, in one embodiment, the polishing layer 12 is coupled directly to the bottom layer 14 without an adhesive layer); and
wherein the subpad is optically transparent, meaning that at least 80% of light between 400 nm and 750 nm is transmitted through the subpad (Prasad English translation, p. 4:30-39, one or all layers of the polishing pad may be light transmissive. Thus, the subpad may be optically transparent. The optical transmittance can be at least 30% wavelengths of light between 200 nm and 10,000 nm. The at least 30% means equal to or more than 30% (effectively 30-100%). The increased light transmittance will provide more accurate readings from the sensors, thus teaching that the percent amount of light transmittance is a result effective variable. The disclosed specific example of wavelengths of light between 200 nm and 1,000 nm of Prasad overlap the claimed wavelengths between 400 nm and 750 nm. Since the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’s range, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. MPEP 2144.05), and
wherein the polishing layer is optically transparent over a portion of its first major surface; wherein at least 50% of the optically transparent region of the subpad overlays an optically transparent region of the polishing layer such that the polishing pad is optically transparent through the overlaid region in a direction normal to the working surface (Prasad English translation, p. 4:30-32 and fig. 2, one or all layers of the polishing pad may be light transmissive. Thus, the polishing layer 12 may be optically transparent. Because an entirety of polishing layer may be optically transparent, at least a portion of the top surface [corresponds to the recited first major surface] of the polishing layer would be optically transparent. Additionally, because an entirety of the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] may be optically transparent, more than 50% or 100% of the optically transparent bottom layer would overlay the optically transparent polishing layer. Therefore, the polishing pad is optically transparent in a direction normal to a working surface through the overlaid region); and
wherein the polishing pad does not include an aperture for an end point detection window (Prasad English translation, p. 6:43-7:3 and fig. 6, in another embodiment, a polishing layer may include a light transmissive region 32 comprising a first transmissive layer 34 and a second transmissive layer 36. The light transmissive region 32 is optically transparent when used with an endpoint detection system. Thus, the polishing layer without an aperture is used for the endpoint detection), but does not disclose the subpad comprises an acrylate or methacrylate resin.
Esteban teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, the subpad comprises an acrylate or methacrylate resin (Esteban English translation, p. 9:54-55 and fig. 1, backing layer 101 of an abrasive article 100 [corresponds to the recited polishing pad] includes acrylate. Esteban teaches the subpad can be made of the acrylate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad to provide the subpad comprising acrylate as taught by Esteban in order to reduce crystallinity of the backing layer so that the backing layer and a polishing layer are bonded for a long period (Esteban English translation, p. 9:54-56).
Regarding claim 9, Prasad as modified by Esteban teaches the polishing pad as in claim 1, wherein the subpad comprises cavities or voids (Prasad English translation, p. 4:22-29, layers of the polishing pad, including the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad], can have voids).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kobayashi et al. (WO 2006095643A1, hereinafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 5, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a Young's Modulus of between 4000 kPa and 100 kPa.
Kobayashi teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) field of endeavor, the subpad has a Young's Modulus of between 4000 kPa and 100 kPa (fig. 1(A) and Kobayashi English translation, ¶ 0028, elastic modulus of backing 12 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of polishing pad 10 can be greater than 300 psi. 300 psi is 2068 kPa. See the screen capture below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the subpad having the claimed Young’s Modulus as taught by Kobayashi in order to maintain flatness and uniformity so that a polishing layer can perform a polishing operation adequately (Kobayashi English translation, ¶ 0030).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fung et al. (CN 108369904A, hereinafter Fung).
Regarding claim 6, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a Shore A hardness of between 5 and 70.
Fung teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, he subpad has a Shore A hardness of between 5 and 70 (fig. 5 and Fung English translation, p. 10:17-24, back support layer 506 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad 500 may have less than 80 Shore A durometer hardness value).
In applying the range less than 80 (effectively 0-80) Shore A hardness taught by Fung, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to try the values across that range, including the recited 5-70 Shore A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the subpad having the claimed hardness as taught by Fung in order to achieve the desired compressibility for the polishing pad for its optimal polishing operation (Fung English translation, p. 10:21-24).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lehuu et al. (WO 2015153597A1, cited on 08/23/2021 IDS, hereinafter Lehuu).
Regarding claim 7, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad is elastically deformable.
Lehuu teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the subpad is elastically deformable (fig. 10A and p. 33:26-28, polishing pad 50 comprises a polishing layer 10 and a subpad 30; p. 34:3-4, the subpad 30 may be a single layer of a relatively compressible material, e.g., an elastomeric foam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the elastically deformable subpad as taught by Lehuu so that the subpad can provide flexibility to the polishing layer to be able to increase a contact area between the polishing layer and a substrate during a polishing operation. It helps achieving a good polishing rate.
Regarding claim 15, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches that the polishing layer comprises pores and asperities (Prasad English translation, abstract, a skilled artisan would understand that the porous subpad 14 would comprises pores and asperities).
Assuming arguendo, that the subpad would not comprises pores and asperities, Lehuu teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the polishing layer comprises pores and asperities (abstract and p. 8:13-15, working surface (corresponds to the recited polishing layer) of a polishing pad comprises asperities and pores).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the polishing layer comprising pores and asperities as taught by Lehuu in order to achieve the desired topography in the pad surface. Well-engineered topography of the polishing pad produces a high polishing rate and does not require pad conditioning so that the polishing pad has less stops for conditioning out of the polishing operation (Lehuu, p. 8:13-23).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kato et al. (CN 101678527A, hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 8, Prasad as modified by Esteban teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a relaxation modulus of less than 40%.
Specification of the instant application discloses the relaxation modulus represents a time-dependent measure of viscoelastic property (p. 10:27-28).
Kato teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor the subpad has the time-dependent viscoelasticity (Kato English translation, p. 15:1-4, a backing layer [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad has dynamic compression viscoelasticity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subpad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the subpad having the time-dependent viscoelasticity as taught by Kato. The viscoelasticity provides a cushion for the polishing pad allows excellent flatness of a polishing surface and evenness of the film thickness after polishing (Kato English translation, abstract).
Although Prasad as modified by Esteban and Kato still does not disclose the relaxation modulus of the subpad is less than 40%, Kato discloses cushioning helps achieving the excellent flatness of a polished surface, evenness of the film thickness after polishing, and a high polishing rate, thus teaching that the amount of cushioning (equivalent to relaxation modulus) is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subpad of Prasad as modified by Esteban and Kato to provide the relaxation modulus to be less than 40% in order to achieve the effects stated above. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Myers et al. (US 2006/0286906, hereinafter Myers).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a compressibility at 25% deflection of between 25 and 1000 kPa.
Myers teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the subpad has a compressibility at 25% deflection of between 25 and 1000 kPa (fig. 1, Myers discloses a polishing pad comprising a polishing layer 40 and a subpad 70; para. 0017, compressibility of the polishing pad under a load of about 32 kPa will be within the range of about 10-30%. Although Myers does not disclose the compressibility of the subpad only, it teaches the compressibility of the polishing pad including the subpad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the polishing pad having the claimed compressibility as taught by Myers. The desired compressibility would provide deformable polishing pad having suitable resilience (Myers ¶ 0018). This polishing pad would make a large area of surface contact with a substrate for obtaining a good polishing rate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hideyuki et al. (JP 6425973B2, hereinafter Hideyuki).
Regarding claim 12, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the subpad comprises a polymer (Prasad ‘573 English translation, p. 13:22-27, bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad is a thermoplastic elastomer including polyurethane), but does not disclose the polymer has a glass transition below room temperature.
Hideyuki teaches, in a polymer material production field of endeavor and capable of solving problem, the polymer has a glass transition below room temperature (Hideyuki English translation, p. 4:24-26, thermoplastic polyurethane-based elastomers have glass transition temperature below room temperature (e.g., 20oC or less)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the subpad comprising a polymer having the claimed glass transition temperature as taught by Hideyuki. An apparatus made from polymer having the glass transition temperature below room temperature shows excellent impact absorption, flexibility, and shape conformity (Hideyuki English translation, p. 4:24-28). These properties can help the polishing pad to achieve optimal polishing rate because it can make a large contact surface area with a substrate during polishing, and to achieve the durability to last for a long period of polishing operations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Laliberte (US 2,701,191, cited on 08/23/2021 IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad comprises a polymer and a plasticizer.
Laliberte teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the subpad comprises a polymer and a plasticizer (col. 11:41-55, in forming a backing layer [corresponds to the recited subpad], a cement can be used. The cement would be a suitable compounded rubber base [which is polymer] having added plasticizers, agents, and solvents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the subpad comprising a polymer and a plasticizer as taught by Laliberte so that the subpad forms a strong bond with a polishing layer to be used for a stable polishing operation (Laliberte, col. 11:41-55).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Esteban, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sotozaki et al. (US 2018/0290263, hereinafter Sotozaki).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad as modified by Esteban discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly a method of polishing a substrate, the method comprising: providing the polishing pad; providing a substrate; contacting the first major surface of the polishing pad with the substrate; moving the polishing pad and the substrate relative to one another while maintaining contact between the first major surface of the polishing pad and the substrate.
Sotozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a method of polishing a substrate comprising: providing the polishing pad; providing a substrate; contacting the first major surface of the polishing pad with the substrate; moving the polishing pad and the substrate relative to one another while maintaining contact between the first major surface of the polishing pad and the substrate (¶ 0028, a top ring 30/carrier head holds a substrate and rotates. A polishing pad 100 is rotated. The substrate is pressed against the polishing surface 102 of the polishing pad, and maintains contact with the polishing pad during the polishing operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Esteban to provide the method of polishing a substrate as taught by Sotozaki. The substrate polishing method ensures consistent polishing of substrates in order to produce a high number of high-quality wafers ready for next processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Prasad and Esteban do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that he polishing layer is optically transparent over a portion of its first major surface; wherein at least 50% of the optically transparent region of the subpad overlays an optically transparent region of the polishing layer such that the polishing pad is optically transparent through the overlaid region in a direction normal to the working surface; and wherein the polishing pad does not include an aperture for an end point detection window. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant argues Prasad’s core teachings rely on apertures/windows for endpoint detection, and the polishing layer of Prasad requires a window/aperture for an optical endpoint detection. Examiner acknowledges Prasad presents a polishing pad, presented in fig. 3, having an aperture 20 used in the endpoint detection. However, Examiner cited the polishing pad without an aperture, presented in fig. 2, in the rejection of claim 1. Claims of the instant application do not claim a method of the endpoint detection. Claim 16 recites a method of polishing a substrate, not a method of endpoint detection; therefore, there is no need to cite the Prasad’s polishing pad with the aperture for the rejections. The polishing pad without aperture shown in fig. 2 teaches details of the recited polishing pad.
However, Prasad does disclose another embodiment of the polishing pad in fig. 6. The polishing pad includes a light transmissive region 32 comprising the transmissive layers (no aperture) to be used with the endpoint detection system (Prasad English translation, p. 6:43-7:3).
Applicant further argues the Prasad’s polishing layers wherein the one or all layers may be light transmissive do not support the window-type designs. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Because all layers of Prasad’s polishing pad may be light transmissive, Prasad teaches a portion of the polishing layer’s first major surface is optically transparent, and at least 50% of the optically transparent region of the subpad overlays the optically transparent region of the polishing layer.
Applicant also argues Prasad’s at least 30% optical transmittance does not teach the claimed specific high-transmission band and pad architecture. Applicant asserts the claimed design provides evidence of criticality and unexpected operational benefits. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While claim recites the optical transmittance of at least 80%, Prasad teaches the optical transmittance can be at least 30%, thus the Prasad’s range is included in the range of at least 80%. Therefore, the same unexpected operational benefits are expected with the Prasad’s polishing pad.
Applicant argues Esteban is non-analogous art because it is directed to sanding/abrasive articles for wood/metal/composite finishing, and the use of acrylate is for adhesion promotion. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that a substrate in a CMP includes a metal portion. The Esteban reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it teaches the subpad of a polishing apparatus comprises an acrylate (See MPEP 2141.01(a)). Esteban teaches its material property, which is the adhesion promotion by reducing crystallinity, is the motivation to use the acrylate in the subpad and to combine with Prasad to teach the recited polishing pad.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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 at (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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723