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 .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 02/24/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Response to Arguments
The Appeal Conference determined that the rejection erred in arguing both inherency and applying obviousness under 103 in regards to inherency. The rejection asserted that surface texture is inherent as a surface roughness of zero is purely theoretical. As such, and putting aside the 35 USC 112(b) interpretation of the ISRM limitation, the prior art of Saikin would teach all the limitations of the claim and inherently possess the limitation that it did not expressly disclose. The main reference would inherently have the texture and, thus, would anticipate the claimed invention. Therefore, a new rejection is provided herein under 35 USC 102 (see below), additionally providing evidence supporting inherency.
Regarding the specific arguments made in the Appeal Brief, they are addressed here:
(A) Applicant argues that Saikin (US-2007/0037488) teaches away from roughening the window. Applicant cites that a reference “teaches away” when it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the path taken by the inventor.” Applicant argues that Saikin expressly identifies surface roughness on a CMP window as a cause of degraded optical performance and teaches its removal by laser ablation.
In response, Applicant is arguing that Saikin teaches removing roughness and, because of this, Saikin’s window has no roughness. However, the examiner contends that both can be true, that you can reduce roughness AND also have a roughness.
To be clear, the claim is directed to an apparatus (a “window” in claim 1, and a CMP “pad” in claim 11), thus the claims do not require a method step of “roughening.” Rather, it is interpreted that the claim merely requires a roughened surface and this statement is merely a functional statement requiring that of the claimed structure. Therefore, whether or not Saikin teaches “roughening” is moot if the reference of Saikin discloses the claimed roughness which is considered any roughness.
The Examiner does not disagree with the assertion that Saikin teaches “smoothing.” However, Saikin does this in order to achieve a certain desired roughness (roughness being a measure, wherein even “smooth” surfaces are capable of having a roughness). Saikin teaches that the “roughness” of “about 10 to about 100 microns” that occurs after slicing a window section from a polyurethan block scatters the light to an undesirable degree and, therefore, teaches smoothing it to a degree that is acceptable.
It is important to note that “smoothing” does not inherently mean to create a surface without any roughness. Rather, it is simply taking a surface with one roughness, and reducing the roughness. Saikin even states that the goal is to achieve a “desired removal of surface roughness R” rather than a zero surface roughness R (“[r]ather, laser 51 can be moved to achieve, for example, the desired removal of surface roughness R”) [Saikin; paragraph 0025]. Saikin teaches that the goal is to reduce the scattering of light from roughness, and not completely eliminate it (“Because window 30 includes the laser-ablation treated surface 50, light loss due to scattering from roughness R on window lower surface 34 is greatly diminished.”) [Saikin; paragraph 0036].
Saikin continues that “[a] problem with such windows arises when they have surface roughness. For example, polyurethane windows are typically formed by slicing a section from a polyurethane block. Unfortunately, the slicing process produces surface imperfections or roughness R on either side of the window 1 in polishing pad 10, as shown in FIG. 1. The depth of the roughness ranges from about 10 to about 100 microns. The roughness on the bottom surface scatter the light used to measure the wafer surface topography, thereby reducing the signal strength of the in-situ optical measurement system. The roughness on the upper surface do not tend to scatter light as much as the bottom surface roughness due to the presence of a liquid slurry and proximity of the upper surface to the wafer.” [Saikin; paragraph 0008].
Contrast that to Applicant’s invention, which “roughens” the surface to be “1 to 50 micrometers, or in some cases, in a range from about 2 to 10 micrometers” [Application Publication; paragraph 0037]. Applicant is “roughening” a surface to “about 2 to 10 micrometers,” and Saikin is “smoothing” a surface to less than “about 10 to about 100 microns.”
The main difference is, as Applicant argues, is that the prior art is smoothing (i.e. making smoother) and the applicant is roughening (i.e. making rougher). However, and this cannot be stated enough, this is not a method claim and, therefore, doesn’t require the step of “roughening.” At best, one can claim a method through product-by-process claiming. A product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made, is proper.Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 1354, 117 USPQ2d 1733, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); and In re Steppan, 394 F.2d 1013, 156 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1967). See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Even so, MPEP 2113.I. states: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
In short, is the claimed “window” (claim 1) or the claimed “polishing pad” (claim 11) structurally different than the prior art’s respective “window” or “polishing pad?”
The claim merely requires a roughness and does not require a specific roughness. The terms “rough” and “smooth” are relative, as demonstrated above where the “smoothing” process of Saikin would yield a value of roughness that the Applicant considers “rough.”
One also knows, as evidenced in the rejection below, that surfaces inherently have a roughness, which even Saikin acknowledges (“roughness R can arise from any number of other sources, such as inherent material roughness, not polishing the window material, improperly polishing the window material, etc.”) [Saikin; paragraph 0023]. In other words, one can measure a roughness and that value will always be greater than zero. Frictionless materials only exist in a theoretical sense and do not exist in the real world. Therefore, the surface that forms the repeated patterned features inherently has a roughness and one occurring naturally would be considered “random” as it occurs without a definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
Given this, it is not accurate to say that the prior art’s repeated patterned features are not rough. As the claim is to a structure, and not a method, then the phrase “are randomly roughened” is considered functional, rather than a required method step, and only require the surface to be roughened. As such, the prior art is considered to anticipate the claim.
Applicant argues that the Rejection of Claims 1 and 11 Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is Improper because the standard under 112(b) has been met. Applicant defines the ISRMMAX-MIN characteristic as “a difference between a maximum percent intensity and a minimum percent intensity measured across a surface of a wafer comprising a reflective material.”
The measurement of intensity measured across the surface of the wafer is measured using a spectrophotometer at 633 nm and a person of ordinary skill could replicate this measurement using commercially available equipment and the described wavelength.
Applicant states that the specification defines the endpoint for the “useful lifetime” measurement as “The end of the pad life may be defined as when the pad wear was such that 20% of the initial groove depth was remaining.” [Appellant’s specification; paragraph 0053].
Applicant provides data in Figure 6C regarding these measurements and the pads used.
Appellant argues that this would inform one of ordinary skill in the art about the claimed “window.”
In response, the claim requires “wherein a ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window changes by less than 25% over a useful lifetime of a CMP pad including the window.” Applicant states in both the argument and the specification that the ISRMMAX-MIN characteristic as “a difference between a maximum percent intensity and a minimum percent intensity measured across a surface of a wafer comprising a reflective material” [emphasis added]. In the arguments, the window is not even mentioned in how one determines the ISRMmax-min. As best understood, ISRM is a type of reflectance measurement, but the claim seemingly requires this to be a reflectance of the window, while the arguments and specification argue that this is a reflectance of the wafer.
Applicant does not even state that the measurement is taken through the window, let alone of the window. Therefore, this seems to be a function of the wafer using a vague method of just measuring it at two random points and determining a difference between them.
Additionally, Applicant states that “[p]revious windows may cause variability in the intensity of light measured at different regions of a wafer's surface even when material has not been removed (see FIG. 1C and corresponding description below)” [emphasis added] [Application Publication; paragraph 0005], wherein ISRMmax-min is a way to determine the variability of light. However, the examiner will note that variations of intensity are not solely a result of the window, but also of the surface of the wafer.
Applicant’s device is to a window in a CMP pad. Applicant explains CMP thusly: “Chemical mechanical planarization (CMP), which is sometimes alternatively referred to as chemical mechanical polishing, is one method of planarization. This planarization method typically involves a substrate being mounted on a carrier head. The exposed surface of the substrate is typically placed against a polishing pad on a rotating platen. The carrier head provides a controllable load (e.g., an applied force) on the substrate to push it against the rotating polishing pad. A polishing liquid, such as slurry with abrasive particles, can also be disposed on the surface of the polishing pad during polishing.” [emphasis added] [Application Publication; paragraph 0003]. This establishes that the wafer changes during polishing, caused by the polishing pad being placed against it and rotated.
Applicant mentions that a window is introduced to enable in situ monitoring of the polishing process (“In some cases, a CMP pad may include a window to enable in situ monitoring of the polishing process. For example, a laser light may be passed through the window, reflected off of the material being removed via CMP, and the intensity of the reflected light may be used to determine when the etching process is complete.”) [emphasis added] [Application Publication; paragraph 0004].
As Applicant acknowledges, a surface of a wafer comprises reflective material (“a surface of a wafer comprising a reflective material”) [Application Publication; paragraph 0008]. The CMP process removes reflective material from the wafer during polishing and “the surface of the wafer may be scanned to determine if a reflective material is removed from specific regions of the wafer”) [emphasis added] [Application Publication; paragraph 0005]. This means that not only does the reflectivity change, but it changes at specific regions. Measure at one region where the reflective material is removed, and it will be different than a region where reflective material isn’t removed. Measure at a region where the reflective material isn’t removed, and it will (possibly, but not inherently depending on manufacture) be the same as another region where reflectivity isn’t removed.
The point is that the wafer is an indeterminate variable, as well as the measurement methods used to determine the difference in reflectance. One wafer may yield a completely different result than another in regards to reflectivity, and measuring at a different location (or locations) can yield a completely different result in regards to reflectivity. A wafer in one stage of polishing (or unpolished for that matter) may yield completely different results. This indeterminateness, or inability to determine whether or not the prior art meets the claimed functional structure, results in an issue of indefiniteness.
This, along with the fact that the measure is a measure of the wafer, and not of the claimed window, results in indefiniteness and, for these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
Lastly, the claimed measurement “over a useful lifetime of a CMP pad including the window” is indefinite in its own right. As established above, the claim is to the product, structure, and/or apparatus, and not in the use. The argument, as understood by the examiner, is that one would easily tell the difference between a window that met this function and one that didn’t’ by simply putting it in a CMP pad (arguably any CMP pad), using it as intended until the CMP pad reached the end of it’s life, measuring the ISRM characteristic of the window at that time, and then seeing if the ISRMmax-min changes by less than 25%.
While that may be the case, the MPEP requires us to be able to determine what the claimed structure is. In short, what structure did Applicant use or invent in order to assure that this function happens. Perhaps it’s the material, or the shape, or even the method of use (which typically would be claimed using method claims as opposed to structural claims), etc. Whatever it is, that must be clear.
The Applicant has not made clear what that structure is, resulting in an indefinite structural definition of the functional requirement. While, occasionally, this may rise to the level of a 112(a) written description rejection, Applicant has argued that this structure is adequately described and is, according to the Appeal Brief, in response to the question asked by the examiner, which was “What structure does Applicant use or modify in order to take a window, such as shown in the prior art, to make it have the ISRM value which Applicant considers new and novel” (Final OA, page 6), Applicant replies that “[t]he answer is stated in the claims and described throughout the specification. The structure is: a controlled texture surface comprising repeated patterned features (such as crosshatch patterns, rounded ridges, or similar regularly spaced raised features, per Appellant’s FIGS. 3A-3G and dependent claims 4-6, 14-16), wherein those patterned features are randomly roughened (i.e., subjected to a deliberate roughening process such as sanding, treatment with a conditioner, or sandblasting, per paragraph [0037] of Appellant’s specification).” [Appeal Brief 02/24/2026; page 16, second to last paragraph].
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to mean, as the examiner has interpreted previously, that if you have “a controlled texture surface comprising repeated patterned features (such as crosshatch patterns, rounded ridges, or similar regularly spaced raised features, per Appellant’s FIGS. 3A-3G and dependent claims 4-6, 14-16), wherein those patterned features are randomly roughened (i.e., subjected to a deliberate roughening process such as sanding, treatment with a conditioner, or sandblasting, per paragraph [0037] of Appellant’s specification),” then you have the claimed functional structure. In short, if the prior art possesses those structures, then anticipates the claimed functional structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed “wherein an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] a CMP pad including the window” equates to a capability of the structure of the window. In other words, Applicant is implying that Applicant’s structure, the structure of a “window for a chemical mechanical planarization pad’ possesses this capability. The issue is two-fold.
The first is that this is a function of a window installed in a CMP, while the claim itself is merely to “[a] window” for a CMP pad. Therefore, arguably, it would be impossible for this capability to be achieved without a pad within which the window is installed and, therefore does not seem to be a structural capability of the window, but, rather, a capability of the window plus the pad.
The second is that this is functional statement requiring a structure capable of performing this function. It is not readily understood what structure is required to achieve “an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] a CMP pad including the window” without the benefit of Applicant’s specification and, therefore, one must analyze the specification of Applicant to determine what this function structure is.
Applicant is reminded that MPEP 2173.05(g) discusses functional limitations, the particularly importance items are:
“[a] functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step”; and
“[n]otwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite.
Turning now to the specification, to portions pertinent to an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25%, the Applicant states:
A measured ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic of the window may be less than a threshold value (e.g., 1%, 0.5%, or 0.3%). The ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic may be a difference between a maximum percent intensity and a minimum percent intensity measured across a surface of a wafer comprising a reflective material. The ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic of the window may change by less than the threshold amount (e.g., 5%, 10%, 25%, or 50%) following use of the CMP pad for chemical mechanical planarization of one or more wafers for a period of time (e.g., at an end of a useful lifetime of the CMP pad). [Application Publication; paragraph 0011];
“All pads described above” and “[t]he ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic was calculated for the four windows and is shown below in the Table. A second ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic measurement was taken on the same pads at the end of pad life. The ISRM.sub.max-min characteristic was again calculated and is shown below in TABLE 1.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0066] (TABLE 1 is also included in paragraph 0066].
In analyzing these paragraphs, Applicant is not specific on what structure(s) are responsible for the ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25%. Adding to the first point above, Applicant cites the pads as being, at least in part, responsible for the functions.
As this is a structural claim, Applicant must show how the claimed invention differs structurally from the prior art to obtain a patent. Since the Examiner cannot determine how the claimed pad, specifically a pad wherein an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] a CMP pad including the window, differs from “a window for a chemical mechanical planarization pad, the window comprising a material transmissive to light, wherein a first surface of the window has a controlled texture surface comprising repeated patterned features, wherein the repeated patterned features are randomly roughened”, then for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the claimed structure of claim 1 to simply be “a window for a chemical mechanical planarization pad, the window comprising a material transmissive to light, wherein a first surface of the window has a controlled texture surface comprising repeated patterned features, wherein the repeated patterned features are randomly roughened.”
Regarding claim 11, the claimed “wherein an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] a CMP pad including the window” is indefinite for reasons previously discussed in relation to claim 1. While this claim is to a “pad”, the function is still drawn to the window (“wherein a ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window”) [emphasis added] and all of the same issues of indefiniteness regarding claim 1’s use of this claim language are therefore pertinent to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim. As such, the examiner will consider the structure of claim 11 to require all of the positively claimed structure and “wherein an ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window change by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] a CMP pad including the window” is not considered to include any additional structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salkin (US-2007/0037488), as evidenced by (“Quality & Control: Surface Roughness Testing”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Salkin (US-2007/0037488) discloses a window (window 301) for a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) pad (polishing pad 100, presumed to be numeral ‘101’ in Figure 3), the window (window 301) comprising a material transmissive to light (Salkin describes numeral 301 as a “window” throughout), wherein a first surface of the window has a controlled texture surface (surface of micro-lenses 5) comprising repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) (Fig. 3), wherein the repeated patterned features are randomly roughened (the inherent roughness of the surface of the patterned features would be randomly, that is occurring without a pattern or plan, roughened, that is having a surface roughness).
As to inherent roughness of a surface, “Quality & Control” states that “there’s no such thing as “zero” surface roughness (i.e, a surface that is completely flat)” and “every project will have some level of surface roughness to measure.” [page 2]. Additionally, Salkin teaches that that materials have an “inherent material roughness” (“roughness R can arise from any number of other sources, such as inherent material roughness”) [Salkin; paragraph 0023]. Therefore, since Salkin inherently has a roughness on all surfaces, including the patterned features, then Salkin discloses “repeated patterned features” wherein the features are inherently “randomly roughened” as claimed.
As to “wherein a ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window changes by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] the CMP pad”, this is interpreted under 35 USC 112(b) as not further limiting to the claim and, therefore, since the prior art discloses all other claimed structural limitations, then the prior art is considered to read on the prior art.
Regarding claim 2 (Previously Amended), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 1, wherein the first surface is a bottom surface pad which does not contact a substrate being planarized during a CMP process using the CMP pad (101) (Fig. 3) (Figure 4 shows how the sensor is on the opposite side of the substrate and, therefore, the bottom in Figure 3 is considered the bottom in view of Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 1, wherein the repeated patterned features are configured to diffuse light passing through the window (Fig. 3). Light diffusion is considered to take place when light hits an uneven surface. Since the prior art shows an uneven surface, then it therefore is considered “configured to diffuse light passing through the window” as claimed.
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 1, wherein the repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) comprise regularly spaced raised features (micro-lenses 5) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 4, wherein the repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) comprise rounded ridges (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 2, wherein a second surface opposite the first surface (surface with micro-lenses 5) corresponds to a top surface (Fig. 3), the top surface is capable of contacting a substrate being planarized during a CMP process using the CMP pad (Figure 4 shows how the sensor is on the opposite side of the substrate and, therefore, the bottom in Figure 3 is considered the bottom in view of Figure 4), wherein the top surface has a roughened texture corresponding to an average surface roughness in a range from about 1 to about 50 micrometers (“depth of the roughness ranges from about 10 to about 100 microns”) [Salkin; paragraph 0008]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 11 (Previously Presented), Salkin discloses a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) pad (polishing pad 100, presumed to be numeral ‘101’ in Figure 3) comprising: a top surface which contacts a substrate (wafer W) being planarized during a CMP process using the CMP pad (Figure 4 shows how the sensor is on the opposite side of the substrate and, therefore, the bottom in Figure 3 is considered the bottom in view of Figure 4); a bottom surface opposite the top surface (Fig. 3); and a window (window 30) that allows light to pass between a top side of the CMP pad associated with the top surface and a bottom side of the CMP pad associated with the bottom surface (Fig. 4 shows how light passes through), the window comprising a material transmissive to light (Fig. 4), wherein a first surface of the window has repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) (Fig. 3). Salkin fails to disclose wherein the repeated patterned features are randomly roughened.
However, it is obvious that the prior art window of Salkin, and all of its surfaces including the surfaces of the repeated patterned features, would have a coefficient of friction and would not be completely frictionless (due to unavailability and cost to a completely frictionless surface). A frictionless surface does not currently exist and, therefore, one would not be able to make the prior art of Salkin using a frictionless surface (i.e. a surface having zero roughness) due to unavailability of the material. Furthermore, such a naturally occurring roughness would not be according to any plan, purpose, or pattern and, therefore, would be considered a “random” roughness. Therefore, despite Salkin not discussing the roughness of the surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface would, at the very least, be “roughened” and done so “randomly” according to the naturally occurring roughness.
As to “wherein a ISRMmax-min characteristic of the window changes by less than 25% over a useful lifetime [of] the CMP pad”, this is interpreted under 35 USC 112(b) as non-limiting to the claim and, therefore, since the prior art discloses all other claimed structural limitations, then the prior art is considered to read on the prior art.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein the first surface (surface with micro-lenses 5) of the window (window 30) is a bottom surface that faces the same direction as the bottom surface of the CMP pad (100, 101) which does not contact the substrate (wafer W) being planarized during a CMP process using the CMP pad (100, 101) (Figs. 3 and 4). The Examiner notes that a CMP pad, by itself, has no required orientation and “top” and “bottom”, without additional structure, are merely subjective labels. For example, turning a CMP pad over would mean that the top surface would become the bottom surface and vice versa. At the same time, one observing the pad in it’s initial state could still consider the bottom surface to be the top surface.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein the repeated patterned features are configured to diffuse light passing through the window (Fig. 3). Light diffusion is considered to take place when light hits an uneven surface. Since the prior art shows an uneven surface, then it therefore is considered “configured to diffuse light passing through the window” as claimed.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein the repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) comprise regularly spaced raised features (micro-lenses 5).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein the repeated patterned features (micro-lenses 5) comprise rounded ridges (shown rounded in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein a second surface opposite the first surface (surface with micro-lenses 5) corresponds to a top surface (Fig. 3), the top surface is capable of contacting a substrate being planarized during a CMP process using the CMP pad (Figure 4 shows how the sensor is on the opposite side of the substrate and, therefore, the bottom in Figure 3 is considered the bottom in view of Figure 4), wherein the top surface has a roughened texture corresponding to an average surface roughness in a range from about 1 to about 50 micrometers (“depth of the roughness ranges from about 10 to about 100 microns”) [Salkin; paragraph 0008]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 10, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkin (US-2007/0037488) in view of Guzman (US-2021/0402556).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 4, wherein the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch pattern (i.e. to mark with two series of parallel lines that intersect). While Salkin does not explicitly disclose this, Salkin does state that there is “an array of micro-lenses 5”, with “array” typically meaning a number of elements arranged in rows and columns. Relying on the specification of Salkin, and looking to the teaching of Guzman (US-2021/0402556) one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve found it obvious to arrange the micro-lenses 5 in an array, similar to the array shown in Figures 3A and 3B of Guzman, as such:
PNG
media_image1.png
376
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the prior art would contain a cross-hatch pattern as interpreted here:
PNG
media_image2.png
292
345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 1, but is silent as to wherein: the window has a width and length that is less than the width, wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window; and the repeated patterned features comprise: a first set of regularly spaced raised features parallel to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced raised lines at an angle relative to the first set of regularly spaced raised features.
However, Guzman teaches wherein a window (window 101) has a width and length that is less than the width (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A), wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window (window 101) (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A); and repeated patterned features (projections 103) comprise: a first set of regularly spaced raised features (projections 103) parallel to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced raised lines at an angle (90 degrees) relative to the first set of regularly spaced raised features (Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Salkin discloses the window of Claim 1, but is silent to wherein: the window has a width and length that is less than the width wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window; and the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch texture comprising: a first set of regularly spaced features in the first surface at a first angle relative to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced features in the first surface at a second angle relative to the first set of lines, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle.
However, Guzman teaches a window (window 101) having a width and length that is less than the width wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window (window 101); and the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch texture (i.e. intersecting sets of parallel lines) comprising: a first set of regularly spaced features (projections 103) (marked by grey in Figure 4A below) in the first surface at a first angle (90 degree angle) relative to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced features (projections 103) (marked by white in Figure 4A below) in the first surface at a second angle (90 degrees) relative to the first set of lines (Fig. 4A). Since Salkin discloses “an array of micro-lenses 5”, with “array” typically meaning a number of elements arranged in rows and columns, and Guzman (US-2021/0402556) shows an example of an array, it therefore would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the micro-lenses 5 array of Salkin as shown in Figure 4A of Guzman in order to provide a desired lens stiffness [Guzman; paragraph 0035].
PNG
media_image4.png
339
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Guzman fails to disclose, in this embodiment, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle. However, Guzman shows staggering projections 203 in Figure 5A, which is an alternative to the grid-like layout of the projections 903 in Figure 9. Guzman states that “[w]hile symmetrical patterns are effective, slight offsets from symmetry can also be effective in providing substantially uniform stiffness reduction” [Guzman; paragraph 0035]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching of Guzman, to make the first angle different than the second angle to offset the symmetry to provide substantially uniform stiffness reduction [Guzman; paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, wherein the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch pattern (i.e. to mark with two series of parallel lines that intersect). While Salkin does not explicitly disclose this, Salkin does state that there is “an array of micro-lenses 5”, with “array” typically meaning a number of elements arranged in rows and columns. Relying on the specification of Salkin, and looking to the teaching of Guzman (US-2021/0402556) one of ordinary skill in the art would’ve found it obvious to arrange the micro-lenses 5 in an array, similar to the array shown in Figures 3A and 3B of Guzman, as such:
PNG
media_image1.png
376
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, the prior art would contain a cross-hatch pattern as interpreted here:
PNG
media_image2.png
292
345
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, but is silent as to wherein: the window has a width and length that is less than the width, wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window; and the repeated patterned features comprise: a first set of regularly spaced raised features parallel to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced raised lines at an angle relative to the first set of regularly spaced raised features.
However, Guzman teaches wherein a window (window 101) has a width and length that is less than the width (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A), wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window (window 101) (Figs. 3A, 3B, 4A); and repeated patterned features (projections 103) comprise: a first set of regularly spaced raised features (projections 103) parallel to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced raised lines at an angle (90 degrees) relative to the first set of regularly spaced raised features (Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image3.png
351
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Salkin discloses the CMP pad of Claim 11, but is silent to wherein: the window has a width and length that is less than the width wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window; and the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch texture comprising: a first set of regularly spaced features in the first surface at a first angle relative to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced features in the first surface at a second angle relative to the first set of lines, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle.
However, Guzman teaches a window (window 101) having a width and length that is less than the width wherein the width and the length characterize physical dimensions of the window (window 101); and the repeated patterned features comprise a crosshatch texture (i.e. intersecting sets of parallel lines) comprising: a first set of regularly spaced features (projections 103) (marked by grey in Figure 4A below) in the first surface at a first angle (90 degree angle) relative to a direction of the width of the window; and a second set of regularly spaced features (projections 103) (marked by white in Figure 4A below) in the first surface at a second angle (90 degrees) relative to the first set of lines (Fig. 4A). Since Salkin discloses “an array of micro-lenses 5”, with “array” typically meaning a number of elements arranged in rows and columns, and Guzman (US-2021/0402556) shows an example of an array, it therefore would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the micro-lenses 5 array of Salkin as shown in Figure 4A of Guzman in order to provide a desired lens stiffness [Guzman; paragraph 0035].
PNG
media_image4.png
339
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Guzman fails to disclose, in this embodiment, wherein the first angle is different than the second angle. However, Guzman shows staggering projections 203 in Figure 5A, which is an alternative to the grid-like layout of the projections 903 in Figure 9. Guzman states that “[w]hile symmetrical patterns are effective, slight offsets from symmetry can also be effective in providing substantially uniform stiffness reduction” [Guzman; paragraph 0035]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching of Guzman, to make the first angle different than the second angle to offset the symmetry to provide substantially uniform stiffness reduction [Guzman; paragraph 0035].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR101945874B1 is pertinent to claim 1 (“In this step, one surface of the window is surface-treated. The surface treatment includes a method of performing sandblasting, wrinkle treatment (embossing treatment), etching treatment, corona discharge treatment, laser irradiation treatment or the like on one surface of the window”) (“The surface treatment may be performed such that the surface roughness of the window is 1.0 to 5.0 mu m. Specifically, the surface treatment can be carried out such that the surface roughness of the window is 2.0 to 4.0 mu m.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights