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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record namely, Chen US 2011/0081848 known as Chen US‘848, Chen WO2019/012389 known as WO’389, Balagani et al US 2006/0079160, and Zimmer et al US 6,054,183 all fail to teach or suggest that the plurality of protrusions arranged in a micropattern of a plurality of sinusoidal wave patterns across the radial pattern of one or more first portions within the micropattern of the substrate surface of the conditioning head. Note the italicized portion was added by the examiner to clarify here the term substrate refers to the conditioning head as recited in the claims. In this case Fig. 2 of the present invention is used to illustrate the micropattern and micropattern and is compared to Fig. 4A of Chen US‘848, and Figs. 3D and 9A of Balagani et al US 2006/0079160 to show that both prior art teach the shape/configuration/distribution of protrusions.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of present inventio
PNG
media_image2.png
508
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4A of Chen US‘848
PNG
media_image3.png
221
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
490
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3D and 9A of Balagani et al US 2006/0079160
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “approximately” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The “relative term” approximately makes the claims uncertain as the examiner is unsure if the claimed range includes 1-3 microns to read on “approximately 2 microns” or 74-76 microns for “approximately 75 microns” or 96-104 to read upon “approximately 100”. Decimals are not included in the interpretation as the number of protrusions would be conventionally discussed in whole numbers/integers by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In independent claims 1 and 9 it is recited that the plurality of protrusions extends approximately 2 microns to approximately 75 microns from the substrate surface. Independent claim 4 recites that a plurality of protrusions extends approximately 2 to approximately 100 microns from the substrate surface. The protrusion dimensions as recited in the claims was not clarified by the originally filed specification which uses the same language see [0044], [0058], and [0077].
For the purpose of examination the claimed range as recited in claim 1-3 and 9-20 is interpreted as 2-75 microns and in claims 4-8 the claimed range is interpreted as 2-100 microns.
Furthermore, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation each protrusion has a width and length of approximately 10- approximately 100 microns while the claim also recites that the protrusions extend approximately 2 to approximately 75 microns in claim 9 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The protrusions would extend either by width and/or length 2-75 microns according to independent claim 9. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2011/0081848 henceforth known as Chen US’848) in view of Chen et al (WO 2019/012389 henceforth known as Chen et al WO ‘389) .
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Chen US’848 teaches a layered conditioning head (See Fig. 4A, grinding tool 1, [0020] constructed of a substrate 10, abrasive grit 20 [0020], and fixing layer 40 [0026]). The substrate 10 according to [0021] is made of metal materials (silicon is a metal). The second layer comprises a plurality of protrusions ( see the configuration of the grit/protrusions in Fig. 4A above, abrasive grits [0020] that extend 2-100 microns according to [0023] the abrasive grits are formed 2-75 microns, particle size of grits 100nm-500µm microns or 0.1 -500 microns note the claimed range size of protrusions falls within the range taught by the prior art.
Chen fails to teach to teach the substate is specifically made of silicon.
The prior art of Chen et al WO ‘389 teaches a conditioning head (Fig.1A, abrasive article 100, page 6 lines 23-25 see silicon is recited as a material of construction. The motivation to construct the conditioning head of Chen US ‘848 of silicon as it material known by Chen et al WO’389 to possess the chemical and physical properties to withstand the harsh CMP/conditioning environment. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the conditioning head of Chen US ‘848 of silicon as suggested by the prior art of Chen et al WO’389.
Regarding claims 4 and 9: The prior art of Chen US’848 teaches a layered conditioning head (See Fig. 4A, grinding tool 1, [0020] constructed of a substrate 10, abrasive grit 20 [0020], and fixing layer 40 [0026]. First layer 10 has a first layer with carbide ceramic [0021] or a composite of a carbide and a first carbide forming material, a second layer abrasive grits which could be diamond powders, carbide ceramic powders [0023], the second fixing layer 40 is made of metal layer, a ceramic layer, composite material layer [0026]. See Fig. 4A where the second layer is on the first layer. The second layer comprises a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 4A, abrasive grits [0020] that extend 2-100 microns according to [0023] the abrasive first are formed 2-100 microns. See Fig. 4A follow a sinusoidal wave pattern.
Regarding claim 5: See Fig. 4A of Chen US’848 illustrates the first layer 10 and the second layers 20, 40.
Regarding claim 6: See [0021] of Chen US’848 teaches that the first layer is made of carbide ceramic material.
Regarding claim 7: The prior are of Chen US’848 teaches a layered conditioning head of claim 4, but does not specifically disclose where the second carbide forming material comprises at least one silicon, titanium, or molybdenum. The prior art of Chen US’848 does not specifically disclose where the conditioning head comprises these materials of construction is specifically made of silicon, titanium, or molybdenum.
The prior art of Chen et al WO ‘389 teaches a conditioning head (Fig.1A, abrasive article 100, page 7 line 3 see silicon is recited as a material of construction. Chen et al WO ‘389 teaches the ceramic used may include, but not be limited to at least one silicon carbide, silicon nitride, alumina, zirconia, tungsten carbide, and the like, page 10 line 19-21. The motivation to construct the conditioning head of Chen US ‘848 of silicon as it material known by Chen et al WO’389 to possess the chemical and physical properties to withstand the harsh CMP/conditioning environment. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the conditioning head of Chen US ‘848 of silicon as suggested by the prior art of Chen et al WO’389.
Regarding claim 10: The prior art of Chen US’848 alone and in combination with the prior art of Chen et al WO’389 fails to teach the aspect ratio of height to width. The aspect ratio is a dimension that barring a showing of criticality would be optimized without routine experimentation and design choice to ensure enhanced conditioning of the polishing pad. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the aspect ratio.
Regarding claim 13: See Chen US’84 illustrates in Fig. 4A the plurality of protrusions formed in 3 groups that each follow a sinusoidal wave patterns and each pattern comprises at least 6 protrusions.
Claims 2, 8, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2011/0081848 henceforth known as Chen US’848) in view of Chen et al (WO 2019/012389 henceforth known as Chen et al WO ‘389) an as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 13 above, and in further view of Kerprich et al (US 9, 180, 570).
The teachings of the prior art of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 were discussed above.
The combined teachings fail to teach the plurality of sinusoidal wave patterns include at least two sinusoidal wave patterns with a phase offset.
The prior art of Kerprich et al teaches a grooved CMP pad (which can also function as a CMP pad note the difference between the CMP pad and conditioning pad is the type of substrate worked upon usually CMP pad acts upon a semiconductor wafer which the conditioning pad acts on the CMP pad). Nevertheless, the prior art of Kerprich et al teaches primary and secondary groove formations with protrusions formed therefrom that are patterned sinusoidally. See col. 3 lines 39- col. 14 line 16. The pattern and orientation of the grooves/protrusions of the pad are a matter of an optimization and enhance the polishing/conditioning result. See Fig. 4 sinusoidal primary grooves 403 and Fig. 5 sinusoidal grooves 503. Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to pattern/orient the pattern of grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad of Zimmer et al as suggested by the prior art of Kerprich et al. The prior art of Kerprich et al teaches primary and secondary groove formations with protrusions formed therefrom that are patterned sinusoidally. Kerprich et al teaches the offset pattern in col. 10 line 15 – col. 11 line 9. The pattern and orientation of the grooves/protrusions of the pad are a matter of an optimization and enhance the polishing/conditioning result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to pattern/orient the pattern of grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad of Chen US’848and Chen et al WO ‘389 as suggested by the prior art of Kerprich et al.
Claims 3 , 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2011/0081848 henceforth known as Chen US’848) in view of Chen et al (WO 2019/012389 henceforth known as Chen et al WO ‘389) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 13 above, and in further view of Balagani et al US 2006/0079160.
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
The combined teachings of Chen US ‘848 and Chen WO’389 were discussed above.
The apparatus resulting from the combined teachings of Chen US ‘848 and Chen WO’389 fails to teach that the one or more second portions of the macro pattern are disposed closer to the second side of the conditioning head than one or more first portions of the macro pattern and wherein the plurality of protrusions are disposed on the one or more first portions of the macro pattern.
The prior art of Balagani also teaches a conditioning head (see Fig. 6, polishing pad 50, para (0029]) comprising a substrate (58, Fig. 6 - see substrate 58) and a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 6, abrasive particles 54, para [0033]); wherein the plurality of protrusions are arranged in a plurality of sinusoidal wave patterns across at least a portion of the substrate surface (Fig. 6 - see how the protrusions are arranged in a plurality of sinusoidal wave patterns following spokes 70/70b; “the spokes 70 form S-shaped legs 70b that sinuously curve across the surface of the conditioning face forming at least two arcuate shapes 82a,b, a version of which is illustrated in FIG. 6", para [0036)); wherein the substate comprises a first side and an opposing second side (Fig. 6 - see how the substrate 58 comprises a first/upper side and a second/bottom side 64); and wherein the plurality of protrusions extend from the first side of the substrate (Fig. 6); and wherein the substrate further comprises: a macro pattern (70, 78, Fig. 6 - see macro pattern including inner circle 78, and outer regions 70; para [0036]; para [0035)); wherein the macro pattern comprises: one or more first portions (70, Fig. 6 - see first portions 70 arranged on the outer radial portions; "spokes 70", para [0036]); and one or more second portions (78, Fig. 6 - see second portion 78; "inner circle 78", para [(0035]); wherein the one or more second portions of the macro pattern are disposed closer to the second side of the conditioning head than the one or more first portions of the macro pattern (Fig. 6 - see how the first portions 70 are elevated relative to the second portion 78, such that the second portion 78 is located closer to the second/bottom side of the conditioning head); and wherein the plurality of protrusions are disposed on the one or more first portions of the macro pattern (54, 70, Fig. 6 - see how the protrusions 54 are arranged on the first portions 70; para [0036]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the conditioning heads of Chen US ‘848 and Chen et al WO’389 in order to ensure the macro pattern designed as taught by Balagani for Chen's head, in order to have allowed for the optimum ratio of protrusions for various operating conditions of the conditioning head.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 fails to teach a first subset of protrusions in the plurality of protrusions does not have the same cross-sectional shape as a second subset of protrusions in the plurality of protrusions. The prior art of Balagani disclosed a similar conditioning head see Fig. 6, 9A, (B see there are different sizes, shapes and cross-sections of particles 54 see [0033]. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to design the conditioning head of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 with the conditioning head of Balagani to optimize the design to ensure an optimum ratio various protrusions sorted by for example shape in order optimize the desired conditioning to include the type of topography and conditioning fluid distribution.
Claims 12, 15, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2011/0081848 henceforth known as Chen US’848) in view of Chen et al (WO 2019/012389 henceforth known as Chen et al WO ‘389) as applied to claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 13 above, and in further view of Zimmer et al (US 6,054, 183).
The teachings of the prior art of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 were discussed above.
Regarding claim 12: The combined teachings fail to teach the density of the protrusions.
The prior art of Zimmer et al teaches a layered conditioning head 34 comprising: a substrate, wherein the substrate 10 comprises a substrate surface; and wherein the substrate 26 comprises: a first layer, wherein the first layer comprises at least one of: a carbide ceramic, or a composite; wherein the composite comprises a carbide and a first carbide forming material see col 4 lines 13-20; a second layer, wherein the second layer comprises a composite that includes a second carbide forming material, and wherein the second layer is disposed on top of the first layer; and wherein the second layer comprises: a plurality of protrusions (diamond grit) extending approximately 2 to approximately 100 microns from the substrate surface see col. 6 lines 55 -60 the grit is 15-150 microns. See the Figures of Zimmer et al feature a multiple layered pad. The density of distribution of protrusions of the pad of Zimmer et al is deemed a mere matter of optimization without showing the criticality of this processing parameter. The density, pattern, and orientation of the grooves/protrusions of the pad are a matter of an optimization and enhance the polishing/conditioning result. See also the paragraph that joins columns 6 and 7 of Zimmer et al which reinforces that these parameters are part of design choice and would be determined without undue routine experimentation. Zimmer et al does teach the distribution density is 0.1 to 50 grains per mm2.Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad of Zimmer et al as suggested by the prior art of combined teachings of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 yield the optimal distribution density.
Regarding claim 15. The combined teachings fail to teach the conditioning head of claim 9 wherein the macro pattern comprises a radial pattern in which the one or more first portions of the macro pattern extend from a center of the substrate surface and the one or more second portions of the micropattern extend radial from the center of the substrate surface. See the Figures of Zimmer et al to see the macron patterns. Zimmer et al which reinforces that these parameters are part of design choice and would be determined without undue routine experimentation. Zimmer et al does teach the dimensions of the protrusions. Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the present invention to distribute the grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad via optimal dimensions of Zimmer et al as suggested by the prior art of combined teachings of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389 to yield the optimal distribution density.
Regarding claim 16: The combined teachings fail to teach the combined teachings fail to teach the dimensions of the protrusions. See the prior art of Zimmer et al see col. 6 lines 38- col. 9 line 17 The dimensions of the grooves/protrusions of the pad are a matter of an optimization and enhance the polishing/conditioning result. See also the paragraph that joins columns 6 and 7 of Zimmer et al which reinforces that these parameters are part of design choice and would be determined without undue routine experimentation. Zimmer et al does teach the dimensions of the protrusions. Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to distribute the grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad via optimal dimensions of Zimmer et al as suggested by the prior art of combined teachings of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ’389 to yield the optimal distribution density.
.
Regarding claim 20. The combined teachings fail to teach conditioning head of' claim 15, wherein one or more of the plurality of sinusoidal wave patterns is defined by the formula:
Y = A * Sin (B (X-C)) + D;
Wherein
A = amplitude of the wave;
B= the frequency of the wave;
C= the horizontal shift of the wave; and
D= the vertical shift of the wave.
While the combined teachings of Zimmer et al and teachings of the prior art of Chen US’848 and
Chen et al WO ‘389 does not teach the specific sinusoidal wave pattern formula it is known in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art that the pattern and orientation of the grooves/protrusions of the pad are a matter of an optimization and enhance the polishing/conditioning result. Thus, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to pattern/orient the pattern of grooves/protrusions of the conditioning pad of Zimmer et al in the polishing pad resulting from the combined teachings of the prior art of Chen US’848 and Chen et al WO ‘389
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al (US 2012/0220205) teaches a CMP conditioning head with microprotrusions arranged in a curved pattern and irregular patterns see abstract and Fig. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716