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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on March 12, 2026. Claim(s) 1, 5, 12-13 and 15 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claim(s) 24-35 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 12-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 5, 12-13 and 15 filed on March 12, 2026. The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claim 5 have addressed the 112(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previously submitted, and as such the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.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 Ganapathiappan.
Please see the updated rejection set forth, applying Mejean (US PG Pub No. 20160256982) in the rejection.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim rejections under 102: The applicant’s remarks are found persuasive. Ganapathiappan fails to disclose all of the claimed elements as arranged within the claim. The requirement of the claimed element having a shape of one protrusion in one of the pattern units be different than the shape in a different pattern unit, and the requirement of the shapes being at least one of a v-shape, plus-shape, or zig-zag shape structure are not anticipated by Ganathiappan. As such, see the new rejection applying Mejean as a base reference. It is noted that Ganathiappan does provide teaching for the grooves claimed, and motivation that aligns with the claimed intended use.
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, 3-7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mejean (US PG Pub No. 20160256982).
In regards to claims 1 and 3, Mejean discloses
a chemical mechanical polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]: for polishing back surface of a semiconductor wafer) having a pattern structure, comprising:
a polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]) configured to polish a wafer placed thereon; and
PNG
media_image1.png
240
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) formed on the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]) that protrude from an upper portion of the polishing pad,
wherein the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are formed to have a predetermined contact area ratio and a predetermined circumferential length per unit area which correspond to a target polishing characteristic,
wherein the contact area ratio is a value obtained by dividing a total protruding area (Au) of protrusions of the plurality of protrusions included in an inspection area by the inspection area (Ao) in a plan view,
wherein each of the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) protrudes from the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]) along a vertical direction to a free end, and
wherein each of the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) has a constant cross-sectional area in planes perpendicular to the vertical direction from the free end to at least half a vertical length of the protrusion (see fig. 2; showing a constant cross section for the entirety of the height of the abrasive segment; [0046]: For example, as illustrated in Fig. 3, each abrasive segment can have a length 309 and a width 310 as viewed top down),
PNG
media_image2.png
136
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
337
507
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the pad further comprising a plurality of pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) including the plurality of protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]),
PNG
media_image4.png
324
1117
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the plurality of pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) has a sector shape (annular regions 520, 530, and 540, fig. 5) on the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]),
wherein a shape of one protrusion included in one of the plurality of pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) is different from the shape of another protrusion included in another pattern unit (see fig. 5 – ann. 1).
Mejean teaches a plurality of possible shapes for the abrasive articles to be:
[0079-0080]: It will be noted that the difference in the two-dimensional shape of abrasive segments may be based upon size and/or contour of the segment. It will be appreciated that reference herein to a length of an abrasive segment is reference to a diameter for abrasive segments having a circular shape. In accordance with another embodiment, the abrasive segments can have a two-dimensional shape selected from the group consisting of a polygon, an irregular polygon, an ellipse, a circle, a body with one or more arms extending from a central region, a shape with at least one curved section, and a combination thereof.
[0080] In more particular terms, FIGS. 6A-6L include two-dimensional illustrations of various abrasive segments that may be employed in the abrasive articles of the embodiments herein. It should be noted that the abrasive segments illustrated in FIGS. 6A-6L is not exhaustive and other shapes for the abrasive segments may be utilized. It will be appreciate that they may be utilized in various annular regions with various orientations and/or sizes as suitable to facilitate desired performance of the abrasive article.
Therefore, 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 the at least one of the abrasive articles of Mejean to be a plus shape (figure 6F) with regards to a desired shape in adapting the abrasive article, 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), resulting in
each of the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) including a flow resistance structure (the outer wall structure of the protrusion) having at least one of a V-shape structure, a plus-shape structure (see fig. 6F), and a zigzag shape structure,
wherein the circumferential length per unit area is a value obtained by dividing a total circumferential length (L t) of the protrusions included in the inspection area by the inspection area (A o).
Examiner’s Note:
Applicant has essentially claimed that the figure units have dimensionality, and that those dimensions can be related to each other in the form of a ration, and further the density of the figure units on the polishing pad can also be expressed as a ratio. This feature is considered a part of any polishing pad, as it will have at least some concentration of abrasive units with some form of dimensionality. As such, to say that there is a dimensional relationship between the features’ characteristics is considered anticipated.
In regards to claim 4, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 3, but fails to disclose that the contact area ratio is “1.0% to 80.0%, and the circumferential length per unit area is 1mm/mm2 to 250mm/mm2.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II-A (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, assuming there is a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
The applicant has failed to establish the claimed range is critical, as the specification recites:
[93] The contact area ratio may be controlled to be 1.0% to 80.0%, or 1.0% to 30.0%, or
10.0% to 30.0%.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range given that abrasive disks require contact area in order to perform the function of grinding or polishing a workpiece. Too small a contact area yields inefficient results, while too large may be difficult to effectively control the process.
In regards to claim 5, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 1, wherein each of a plurality of the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) includes
at least one type selected from of a single figure part (see Mejean fig. 6F which is plus shaped, like applicant’s fig. 12 examples),
PNG
media_image5.png
112
111
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a continuous figure part (see fig. 6A), and
PNG
media_image6.png
118
113
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a set figure part (see fig. 5 – ann. 3),
the single figure part is surrounded by one single closed curve (see fig. 6F),
the continuous figure part (see fig. 6A) is formed by a continuous line without the single closed curve (does not have the structure of the single figure part fig. 6F) and is composed of a minimum unit of repetition (at least one single line) of the continuous line,
and the set figure part is composed of a set of a plurality of the single figure parts adjacent to each other that is a minimum unit of repetition (see fig. 5 – ann. 3).
PNG
media_image7.png
324
1117
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure (arranged in a pattern) according to claim 5, wherein the single figure part is provided in plural (there are a plurality of abrasive segment types of the form Fig. 6F), and
the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are provided by uniformly and repeatedly arranging the single figure parts of a same shape on the polishing pad (see fig. 5).
In regards to claim 7, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 5, wherein the single figure part is provided in plural, and the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are provided by uniformly and repeatedly arranging the single figure parts of different shapes ([0078-0079]; Mejean teaches using a plurality of shapes of abrasives shown in different annular regions) on the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]).
In regards to claim 9, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 5, wherein the single figure part is provided in plural, and the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are provided by repeatedly arranging the single figure parts of a same shape with different sizes ([0080]: FIGS. 6A-6L is not exhaustive and other shapes for the abrasive segments may be utilized. It will be appreciate that they may be utilized in various annular regions with various orientations and/or sizes as suitable to facilitate desired performance of the abrasive article) on the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]).
In regards to claim 12, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 1, wherein the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) are provided by dividing the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]) into a number of pieces such that a flow direction of a polishing liquid in each of the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) according to a rotation direction of the polishing pad becomes the same in order to achieve uniform polishing in which a polishing characteristic of the wafer satisfies a preset error rate in an entirety of the polishing pad.
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding the affecting of the flow direction of the polishing liquid, the limitation is considered intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). As Mejean as modified has provided the claimed structure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider its configuration capable of performing the desired function.
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, Mejean does not need to explicitly disclose “a wafer…a polishing characteristic of the wafer satisfies a preset error rate.” Mejean’s disclosure does present the structure and configuration capable of polishing a work piece with abrasive members and a fluid, and as such, would be able to produce a workpiece with said characteristics.
In regards to claim 13, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 1, wherein the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are arranged such that polishing liquid flowing according to a rotation direction moves toward an upper portion of the protrusions.
Examiner’s Note: See note in the rejection of claim 12 regarding intended use and anticipated function.
In regards to claim 14, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 5, wherein the protrusions (at least abrasive segment types 521, 531, and 541; fig. 5; [0078-0079]) are arranged to prevent polishing liquid flowing into the set figure part and the continuous figure part from flowing out of the polishing pad (abrasive article 500, fig. 5; [0005]).
Examiner’s Note: See note in the rejection of claim 12 regarding intended use and anticipated function.
Claim(s) 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mejean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganapathiappan (US PG Pub No. 20170230406).
In regards to claim 15, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising “a groove unit” that is formed on the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) and is provided in a groove shape to transfer polishing liquid supplied to the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) to a front surface of the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1).
Ganapathiappan, also a polishing pad with pattern units and protrusions, teaches providing a groove unit formed on the pattern units to solve the same problem:
[0069] Examples of various structural configurations of porous polishing pads that can be used in a polishing apparatus are discussed in conjunction with FIGS. 2A-2K. … The specific examples of different porous polishing pad configurations, shown in FIGS. 2A-2K, are not intended to be limiting as to the scope of the disclosure provided herein, since other similar configurations may be formed by use of the one or more of the additive manufacturing processes described herein.
PNG
media_image8.png
428
614
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[0081] FIGS. 2F-2K are schematic plan views of various polishing pad designs according to implementations of the present disclosure. Each of FIGS. 2F-2K include pixel charts having white regions (regions in white pixels) that represent the first polishing elements 204f-204k, respectively, for contacting and polishing a substrate, and black regions (regions in black pixels) that represent the second polishing element(s) 206f-206k. As similarly discussed herein, the white regions generally protrude over the black regions so that channels are formed in the black regions between the white regions. In one example, the pixels in a pixel chart are arranged in a rectangular array type pattern (e.g., X and Y oriented array) that are used to define the position of the various materials within a layer, or a portion of layer, of an porous polishing pad. In another example, the pixels in a pixel chart are arranged in a hexagonal close pack array type of pattern (e.g., one pixel surrounded by six nearest neighbors) that are used to define the position of the various materials within a layer, or a portion of layer of a polishing pad. Polishing slurry may flow through and be retained in the channels during polishing… In one implementation, the first polishing elements 204f-204k may be thicker than the second polishing element(s) 206f-206k in a direction normal to a plane that is parallel to the plurality of layers of materials so that grooves and/or channels are formed on a top surface of the polishing pad.
[0091] In some implementations, the first polishing elements 204 in an advanced polishing pad are designed such that the total exposed surface area to volume ratio is within a stable region, for example the SAVR is less than 20 mm.sup.−1, and a porosity of the first polishing element 204 is added and/or controlled so that the slurry retention at the top surface 2011 is desirably maintained.
Mejean and Ganapathiappan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, patterned abrasive articles for polishing wafer/substrates.
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 Mejean, adding the grooves a taught by Ganapathiappan to improve functionality and grinding proficiency through slurry retention.
In regards to claim 16, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 15, wherein the groove unit includes a first groove ([0091] of Ganapathiappan) radially formed along borders between the pattern units (see fig. 5 - ann. 1) to guide the polishing liquid in a direction from a center of the polishing pad to an edge of the polishing pad.
In regards to claim 17, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 16, but fails to disclose that the pattern units are formed so that the “number of the first groove is 3 to 12.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II-A , the applicant has failed to establish the claimed range is critical, as the specification recites:
[143] The pattern unit 130 may be formed to have 3 to 12 first grooves 141
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range given that the physical properties of the abrasive disk has an impact on its effectiveness in grinding and polishing workpieces.
In regards to claim 18, Mejean as modified
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 15, wherein the groove unit includes a plurality of second grooves (see fig. 2K of Ganapathiappan) that is formed in a concentric shape forming a concentric circle on the polishing pad to guide the polishing liquid along the concentric shape.
In regards to claim 19, Mejean as modified
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 18, but fails to disclose that the plurality of second grooves “are provided to have an interval of 0.5mm to 5mm.”
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II-A , the applicant has failed to establish the claimed range is critical, as the specification recites: [146] The second groove 142 may be formed in plural, and a plurality of the second grooves
142 may be formed to have an interval of 0.5mm to 5 mm from each other.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range given that the physical properties of the abrasive disk has an impact on its effectiveness in grinding and polishing workpieces.
In regards to claim 20, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 15, wherein the groove unit includes a third groove that is formed inclined with respect to a direction tangential to a rotation direction of the polishing pad (see fig. 2I of Ganapathiappan, with grooves formed inclined to a tangent the direction of rotation).
In regards to claim 21, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 20, wherein the third groove is formed inclined to +45 degrees to -45 degrees with respect to the tangent direction of the rotation direction of the polishing pad.
PNG
media_image9.png
516
965
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 22, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 15, but fails to disclose the groove unit is provided to have a width of 0.1mm to 2.0mm, and is formed to have a depth of 0.05mm to 2.00mm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II-A , the applicant has failed to establish the claimed range is critical.
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range given that the physical properties of the abrasive disk has an impact on its effectiveness in grinding and polishing workpieces.
In regards to claim 23, Mejean as modified discloses
the chemical mechanical polishing pad having a pattern structure according to claim 15, wherein the groove unit is provided to have at least one of a first groove, a second groove, and a third groove (see fig. 2k of Ganapathiappan).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights