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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 05, 2024 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on December 05, 2024 . The claim set the RCE depends upon were filed 11/20/2024. Under the AFCP 2.0, it was deemed the claims were changed such that the two hours allotted would not have been substantial enough to review the claims in their entirety and required further search and consideration.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 11 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 7, 10, and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 13-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11 filed on December 05, 2024.
The cancellation of claims 10 and 12 removes subject atter in question, and as such the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims have addressed the 112(a)/(b) rejection previously submitted, and as such the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Esteban (US PG Pub No. 20160001423).
Please see the new rejection set forth within this action, depending upon Esteban in view of Amano (US PG Pub No. 20040003895).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, page 2, line 5 : ”a shortest distance between two adjacent protrusion pattern among…”
For clarity of record, the limitation would read better as “two adjacent protrusion patterns”.
Similar recitations appear in claims 2, 4, 5 and 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteban (US PG Pub No. 20160001423) in view of Amano (US PG Pub No. 20040003895).
In regards to claim 1, Esteban discloses
a polishing pad (abrasive product 100, fig. 8-15, 17a-17e, 19a-19e, [0084-0088], [0102]) comprising:
a support layer (foam layer 123, fig. 8); and
a pattern layer (backing layer 101, abrasive layer 111, fig. 8) disposed on one surface of the support layer (foam layer 123, fig. 8), and including a plurality of sub-patterns (repeating unit RU4, fig. 19a-19e),
PNG
media_image1.png
384
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the plurality of sub-patterns (repeating unit RU4, fig. 19a-19e) defines a plurality of protrusion pattern (repeating pattern RP7, RP8; fig. 19a-19e; [0102]), each protrusion pattern includes at least five sub-patterns (repeating unit RU4, fig. 19a-19e),
[0095] An abrasive product surface may comprise repeating units of abrasive zones 118, where repeating unit boundaries opposite to each other may have congruent curvature to form a complementary pair to fit the repeating units together in a pre-emptying manner. The phrase “repeating units of abrasive zones 118” refers to repeating units which may comprise abrasive zones 118 and that the abrasive zones 118 may be surrounded by channel portions 221, 222. Advantageously, the abrasive zones 118 have congruent shapes in order to obtain channel portions 221, 222 comprising substantially constant widths. The repeating units may vary. Advantageously the repeating units on the abrasive product surface 110 comprise self-similar or a congruent shapes. The repeating unit may comprise an abrasive zone 118 separated by channel portions 221, 222 from another repeating unit. The repeating units may be provided, for example, by designing patterns comprising congruent or self-similar shapes. Congruent in here refers to figures or objects which have the same shape and size. A mirror image of a shape may as well be used when the basic geometric shape is not symmetric. A mirror image of a shape is also congruent to the original shape. Two congruent shapes can be transformed into each other by isometric operations, such as a combination of translations, rotations and reflections…
[0102] A non-limiting example of a repeating network pattern RNP4 comprising angularity is shown in FIGS. 19a to 19e, which also is an example of a network comprising a fractal like pattern. In this example, a cross may be used as a basic geometric shape SH4 to obtain a repeating unit RU4. The basic geometric shape SH4 and repeating unit RU4 may comprise the same shape. The basic geometric shape SH4 is similar to the repeating pattern RP7 and to the repeating network pattern RNP4. In this case the network is formed by joining repeating patterns RP8 together in a pre-emptying manner. In particular, the repeating pattern RP8 is formed of a five adjoined units of the repeating pattern RP7. Respectively, the repeating pattern RP7 is formed of a five adjoined repeating units RU4, showing the fractal behaviour of the network comprising repeating units RU4. Another example of a network of repeating network pattern RNP2 comprising angularity is shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, which are also an example of a network comprising fractal behaviour. The repeating network pattern RNP2 comprises a repeating pattern RP4 of hexagonal shapes, which hexagonal shapes may be found in a smaller scale inside the repeating pattern RP4. Angularity may in this context be contemplated as a special example of curvature to avoid linear interference.
the plurality of protrusion patterns are regularly arranged (see fig. 19d, 19e), [0102]),
sub patterns included in each protrusion pattern are regularly arranged such that each protrusion pattern has an 'X' shape (see fig. 19c).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Esteban fails to explicitly disclose the following limitations:
an arrangement direction (see fig. 19d – ann. 1) of the plurality of protrusion pattern intersects an arrangement direction of the sub-patterns (see fig. 19d – ann. 1) included in each protrusion pattern, in the arrangement direction of the sub-patterns, a sub-pattern having a '+' shape and a sub-pattern having 'x' shape are alternately arranged,
a first protrusion pattern among the plurality of protrusion pattern includes a first sub-pattern and a second sub-pattern closest to and apart from the each other among all sub-patterns in the first protrusion pattern group,
the first sub-pattern is located in a center of the 'X' shape of the first protrusion pattern,
a shortest distance between two adjacent protrusion pattern among the plurality of protrusion pattern is greater than a maximum length of each sub- pattern,
a shortest distance between two adjacent sub-patterns among the sub-patterns included in each protrusion pattern is shorter than the maximum length of each sub-pattern,
the first sub-pattern includes a 1-1st extension portion extending in a first extension direction and a 1-2nd extension portion extending in a second extension direction intersecting the first extension direction to form the '+' shape,
the second sub-pattern includes a 2-1st extension portion extending in a third direction and a 2-2nd extension portion extending in a fourth direction intersecting the third direction to form the 'x' shape, and
each of the third direction and the fourth direction intersects the first extension direction and the second extension direction.
However, firstly, Esteban establishes the geometric shapes and arrangements are non-limiting:
[0095… Advantageously the repeating units on the abrasive product surface 110 comprise self-similar or a congruent shapes. The repeating unit may comprise an abrasive zone 118 separated by channel portions 221, 222 from another repeating unit. The repeating units may be provided, for example, by designing patterns comprising congruent or self-similar shapes… Two congruent shapes can be transformed into each other by isometric operations, such as a combination of translations, rotations and reflections…
Esteban, in figures 19a-19e discloses an abrasive zone in a ‘+’ shape, but not an ‘x’ shape. However, a skilled artisan would recognize a ‘x’ shape would be achieved through a rotation of a ‘+’ shape. RP7 shows a pattern involving repeating a unit, but is silent to the units repeating in the arrangement direction with ‘+’ and ‘x’ alternating.
Amano, which discloses an abrasive pad for a CMP, discloses abrasive articles with “[0039]… both "cross" shape 41 and an "x" shape 42 three-dimensional elements. The three-dimensional elements are set out in a pattern of rows.”
PNG
media_image3.png
382
912
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It 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 to modify shape of abrasive zones of Esteban and provide a combination of both ‘+’ and ‘x’ shaped units as taught by Amano, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B)
Further, to arrange the abrasives alternatively has not been shown to modify the operation of the device. As such, the alternating arrangement of ‘+’ and ‘x’ shaped abrasives, their particular placement is held to be an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
As such, Esteban as modified would therein have a first protrusion pattern (one RP7) comprising at least two adjacent sub-patterns (abrasive zones, at least one ‘x’ and other ‘+’). While Esteban is silent to disclose that “a shortest distance between two adjacent protrusion pattern among the plurality of protrusion pattern is greater than a maximum length of each sub-pattern” and “a shortest distance between two adjacent sub-patterns among the sub-patterns included in each protrusion pattern is shorter than the maximum length of each sub-pattern, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to adjust the relative distance between protrusion patterns would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to the limitation indicating the intersection of 1-1st, 1-2nd, 2-1st, and 2-2nd extension portions and corresponding directions, the examiner recognizes the limitations as detailing that the ‘+’ shaped sub-pattern and ‘x’ shape sub-pattern are arranged such that a line passes through both of their centers, and extending lines from their “legs” would intersect:
PNG
media_image4.png
423
847
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Again, rearrangement (rotation) of units is considered by Esteban, shown alternating in an arranging direction by Amano, and considered within the abilities of a skilled artisan.
In regards to claim 2, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the arrangement direction of the plurality of protrusion pattern, the arrangement direction of the sub-patterns included in each protrusion pattern, and an outer direction from a center of the polishing pad intersect each other (see fig. 19d – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
437
1193
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 2, but fails to disclose that “in a unit inspection area in a plan view, a polishing area occupied by the sub-patterns is about 5.0% to about 40.0% with respect to a total area, and a circumferential length per unit inspection area formed by planar circumferences of the sub-patterns is 1.0 mm/mm2 to 50.0 mm/mm2.”
Though Esteban fails to explicitly disclose this unit range, the range of 1.0 mm/mm2 to about 50.0 mm/mm2 is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result.
In this case, the recognized result is that polishing surface area efficiency. Too large a unit area would result in large protrusions and result in large but inaccurate polishing surface distribution; too little a unit area means many small protrusions that may be brittle and easily worn down, resulting in frequent changing of polishing pad abrasives.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a length per unit area between 1.0 mm/mm2 to about 50.0 mm/mm2 as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range:
page 21 of specification: Further, in a unit area(1 mm2) in plan view, the circumferential length per unit area formed by the planar circumference of the protrusion pattern151 may be about 1.0 mm/mm2 or more and 250.0 mm/mm2 or less (that is, about 1.0 mm/mm2 to about 250.0 mm/mm2), or about 1.0 mm/mm2 or more and 200.0 mm/mm2 or less, or about 1.0 mm/mm2 or more and 150.0 mm/mm2 or less, or about 1.0 mm/mm2 or more and 100.0 mm/mm2 or less, or about 1.0 mm/mm2 or more and 50.0 mm/mm2 or less.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05(II), it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying circumferential length per unit area to have a length per unit area within the claimed range, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Though Esteban fails to explicitly disclose this base thickness, the range of 1.0 mm to about 3.0 mm is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result.
In this case, the recognized result is that polishing efficiency. To great of a thickness of the base could be obstructive to the protrusions making contact with the workpiece to be polished, causing it to be ineffective in polishing; too thin of a base would fail to provide adequate support for the protrusion portions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a base thickness ranging between 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range:
Page 19 of specification: A maximum thickness T13o of the base130may be within a range of about 0.01 mm to 3.0 mm, or about 0.1 mm to 2.5 mm, or about 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm, or about 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05(II), it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying a first portion height to be within the claimed range, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 4, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the shortest distance between the two adjacent protrusion pattern is greater than a minimum width of the first sub-pattern.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to adjust the relative distance between protrusion patterns relative to the size of a sub-pattern would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 5, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose that the shortest distance between the two adjacent protrusion pattern is smaller than a maximum length of the first protrusion pattern.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to adjust the relative distance between protrusion patterns relative to the size of a sub-pattern would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 6, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose that the shortest distance between the first sub-pattern and the second sub-pattern is smaller than the minimum width of the first sub pattern.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As such, to adjust the relative distance between sub-patterns relative to the width of a sub-pattern would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 8, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the first sub-pattern has a recessed portion defined by the 1-1st extension portion and the 1-2nd extension portion in a plan view, and the 2-1st extension portion of the second sub-pattern extends toward the recessed portion of the first sub-pattern (see fig. 19d/8 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
571
1143
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the second sub-pattern is disposed in a first sub-pattern arrangement direction from the first sub-pattern (see fig. 19d – ann. 2),
the first protrusion pattern further includes a third sub-pattern disposed in a second sub-pattern arrangement direction from the first sub-pattern (see fig. 19d – ann. 2),
the second sub-pattern arrangement direction intersects the first sub-pattern arrangement direction (see fig. 19d – ann. 2),
PNG
media_image7.png
526
1108
media_image7.png
Greyscale
the plurality of protrusion pattern further includes a second protrusion pattern disposed in a first pattern arrangement direction from the first protrusion pattern and a third protrusion pattern disposed in a second pattern arrangement direction from the first protrusion pattern, and the second pattern arrangement direction intersects the first pattern arrangement direction (see fig. 19d – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
526
1108
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 11, Esteban discloses
the polishing pad of claim 9, wherein the plurality of protrusion pattern further includes a fourth protrusion pattern disposed in the first pattern arrangement direction from the third protrusion pattern, and
in a plan view, at least portion of the second protrusion pattern is disposed between the first protrusion pattern and fourth protrusion pattern (see fig. 19e – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image9.png
473
812
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the pattern layer (backing layer 101, abrasive layer 111, fig. 8) further includes
a base (backing layer 101, fig. 8-9) connecting at least some of the plurality of protrusion patterns,
an upper surface of the base has a trench (at least one of openings 201, 202, channels 221, 222, opening 226), the trench includes:
a plurality of first trenches extending in a radial direction from a center of the polishing pad in a plan view, a plurality of second trenches arranged concentrically with respect to the center of the circular polishing pad in the plan view, and
a third trench connecting two adjacent first trenches among the plurality of first trenches and intersecting at least two of the plurality of second trenches ([0102] states the arrangement of ru4 as shown is nonlimiting, and employing rp (shown in fig. 13) is an alternate considered by Esteban).
PNG
media_image10.png
545
1010
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 15, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 14, , but fails to explicitly disclose “a width of each of the plurality of second trenches is greater than a width of the third trench.”
Esteban discloses “abstract: the abrasive zone are surrounded by interconnected channel portions comprising first channel portions with a first transverse dimension td1 and second channel portions with a second transverse dimension td2 larger than the first transverse dimension td1.”
Given there are a finite number of possibilities (first trench wider than the second, second trench wider than the first, or trenches being equal in width), it would be obvious try second trenches with widths wider than third trenches.
In regards to claim 16, Esteban as modified discloses
a polishing device (at least abrasive product 100, fig. 8-15, 17a-17e, 19a-19e) including the polishing pad (abrasive product 100, fig. 8-15, 17a-17e, 19a-19e, [0084-0088], [0102]) of claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteban et. al. (US PG Pub No. 20160001423) and Amano (US PG Pub No. 20040003895) in further view of Fujitani (US PG Pub No. 20080064302)
In regards to claim 13, Esteban as modified discloses
the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the pattern layer (backing layer 101, abrasive layer 111, fig. 8) further includes a base (backing layer 101, fig. 8) connecting some of the plurality of protrusion patterns, an upper surface of the base has a trench (recessed areas 201, 202, 203; see fig. 8-9), but fails to disclose “a depth of the trench increases toward an outer direction of the polishing pad.”
Fujitani and Esteban are considered analogous to the claimed apparatus as they are in the same art of polishing pads with abrasive articles disposed on a base surface with trenches. Fujitani teaches:
[0035] From a center 30c of the polishing pad 30 toward an outer edge thereof, a depth of the pad groove 32 increases. That is, in the vicinity of the center 30c of the polishing pad 30, the pad groove 32 has a depth D2, in a middle portion between the center 30c and the outer edge, the pad groove 32 has a depth D3, and in the outer edge, the pad groove 32 has a depth D4. As shown in FIG. 5B, when a surface of any pad grooves 32 is viewed in section, it is understood that the pad grooves 32 has an inclined surface 32a' toward the outer edge of the polishing pad 30 with the center 30c of the polishing pad 30 being a highest point….
[0037] As described above, the polishing pad 30 has a structure in which the depth of the pad groove 32 increases from the center 30c toward the outer edge. Accordingly, with a centrifugal force caused by rotation of a polishing platen 4 and also with a function of the inclined surface 32a' of the pad groove base portion 32, a slurry 16 and shavings produced by the polishing pad 30 can easily be discharged. The outer edge of the polishing pad 6 corresponds to lower portions of the inclined surface 32a', so the slurry 16 and the shavings flow toward the outer edge. When the slurry 16 and the shavings are easily discharged, anew slurry 16 supplied from a slurry nozzle 14 is supplied to a polishing surface of a wafer 12, thereby making it possible to prevent generation of micro scratches. Note that, in addition to the pad grooves 32 formed in the polishing pad 30, holes may further be formed therein.
PNG
media_image11.png
278
803
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Esteban with the teachings of Fujitani and increase the depth of the trenches moving radially outward in order to assist discharging shavings and slurry easily and preventing micro scratches (Fujitani [0037]), improving the wafer production and preventing early deterioration of the polishing pad.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723