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 .
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 5-16 and 21 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 5, the claim recites “each of the two protruding portions” in line 6. However, there is no antecedent basis for “two protruding portions,” as the claim recites “a plurality of protruding portions” in line 2. It is unclear if “the two protruding portions” is referring to the entirety of the plurality of protruding portions, or to a subset including two of the plurality of protruding portions. For the purposes of this examination, “each of the two protruding portions” will be read as referring to at least two of the plurality of protruding portions.
Claims 6-16 and 21 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 5.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “the two protruding portions” and is unclear for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 7-9, 11, 13-16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu (US 2018/00281148, previously cited) in view of Bajaj (US 2012/0302148, previously cited) and Oh (US 2017/0274498, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Lehuu teaches a polishing pad comprising: a base layer including a plate portion (13), and a plurality of protruding portions (18, 16a) protruding from the plate portion and having the same hardness as the plate portion (integral with plate portion as shown in fig 1B); and a surface layer (22) at least partially covering surfaces of the plurality of protruding portions (as shown in fig 1B), wherein a width of two of the plurality of protruding portions (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) decreases as a distance from the plate portion increases ([0068], [0078] describe tapering width of each of the protruding portions 18 and 16a), wherein the protruding portions include a first protruding portion and a second protruding portion configured to contact one surface of a wafer ([0052]) and spaced apart from each other (see annotated fig 1B below), and a third protruding portion spaced apart from the wafer, and wherein, in across-section of the polishing pad, at a same distance from the one surface of the wafer, a width of a portion of the first protruding portion that does not overlap the third protruding portion (neither the first or third protruding portions overlap the third protruding portion in a vertical direction) is different from a width of a portion of the second protruding portion that does not overlap the third protruding portion ([0078] describes that the width Wd, which is the described “longest dimension” of each of the first and third protruding portions 18 may be different from one another; “the longest dimension may vary between precisely shaped asperities 18”).
Lehuu is silent as to a relative hardness between the surface layer and plurality of protruding portions. Bajaj teaches a polishing pad including a surface layer (including 208, 210 on protrusions in base layer 202; fig 2) harder than a plurality of protruding portions (as discussed in [0031], the hardness of the surface layer is greater than a hardness of the base layer 202 which has the protrusions as shown in fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface layer of Lehuu to be harder than the plurality of protruding portions, as this arrangement is known to provide a combination of good planarization and uniformity as taught by Bajaj ([0020-0022]).
Lehuu does not teach the protruding portions are more elastic than the surface layer. Oh teaches a polishing pad wherein a base layer of the polishing pad (200) is more elastic than a surface layer (250; [0062]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the base layer of Lehuu, (including the protruding portions), more elastic than the surface layer in order to allow greater vertical deflection during grinding as taught by Oh ([0067]).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu as modified further teaches a shore hardness of the surface layer is greater than a shore hardness of the plurality of protruding portions (as described in the rejection of claim 5 above, Bajaj renders obvious the use of a harder surface layer; Bajaj defines this hardness in terms of shore hardness in [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches the surface layer (22) extends conformally along a surface of the base layer (as shown in fig 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches the plurality of protruding portions include a first polyurethane (as described [0117], the polishing layer, which includes the protruding portions as shown in fig 1B, may be formed of a polyurethane). Lehuu is silent as to the exact material of the surface layer 22, but does describe it may be a polymer ([0106]). Bajaj further teaches protruding portions including a first polyurethane ([0039]), and a surface layer including a second polyurethane ([0039]), and wherein the second polyurethane is harder than the first polyurethane ([0031]; obviousness of different hardnesses discussed in the rejection of claim 5 above). It is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second polyurethane in the surface layer of Lehuu, as polyurethane is known to be a suitable material in a surface layer of a polishing pad as taught by Bajaj, achieving the predictable purpose of providing a harder surface layer on the polishing pad.
Regarding claim 11, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Lehuu further teaches the base layer includes a plurality of pores ([0077]).
Regarding claim 13, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches each of the protruding portions is hemispherical ([0076]).
Regarding claim 14, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches the surface layer (22) has a thickness in a range of 0.1 to 100 microns ([0106]; greater than 15 nm and less than 250 nm (0.015 to .25 microns) overlaps the claimed range). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05 I). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface layer to have a thickness between .1 and 100 microns, for the obvious purpose of providing the desired surface properties to the polishing pad.
Regarding claims 15-16, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches the plurality of protruding portions and the surface layer form a plurality of polishing protrusions (as shown in fig 1B), and wherein a diameter of one or more of the polishing protrusions is in a range of 1 to 1000 microns ([0078]; range is anticipated by the disclosed diameter ranges); and wherein a vertical dimension of one or more of the polishing protrusions is in a range of 10 to 1000 microns ([0079]; range is anticipated by the disclosed height ranges).
Regarding claim 21, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches with respect to a bottom surface of the base layer, a height of one of the plurality of protruding portions is less an a height of another of the two protruding portions ([0079]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu, Bajaj, and Oh as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lefevre (US 2013/0137349, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu is silent as to a relative elastic modulus of the plurality of protruding portions and surface layer. Lefevre teaches a polishing pad wherein an elastic modulus of protruding portions is greater than an elastic modulus of the surface layer ([0035]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the elastic modulus of the protruding portions of Lehuu greater than an elastic modulus of the surface layer, as this provides desired polishing characteristics to the polishing pad as taught by Lefevre ([0035]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu, Bajaj, and Oh as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jawali (US 2021/0394333, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Lehuu does not teach the first polyurethane includes a polyether-based polyurethane, or the second polyurethane includes a polyester-based polyurethane. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use”. Jawali teaches that it is known to use polyether-based polyurethanes and polyester-based polyurethanes in polishing pads, stating that combinations thereof are known in the art ([0115]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second polyurethanes of Lehuu from a polyether-based polyurethane, and a polyester-based polyurethane respectively, as both of these materials are known to be suitable for use in polishing pads as taught by Jawali ([0115]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu, Bajaj, and Oh as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Oliver (US 2010/0178853, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Lehuu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Lehuu further teaches the polishing pad further comprises a support layer (17) to support the base layer (fig 2A)> Lehuu does not teach the support layer being softer than the base layer. Oliver teaches a polishing pad comprising a support layer (402) to support a base layer (404; fig 4), and wherein the support layer is softer than the base layer ([0056]; “compressible” relative to the base layer). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the support layer of Lehuu softer than the base layer of, as this helps compensate for variations in pad height as taught by Oliver ([0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the new limitation regarding the relative widths of the first and second protrusions. However, contrary to applicant’s arguments, Lehuu describes the claimed different widths in [0078] and shows the location not overlapping a third protrusion (in a vertical or horizontal direction) in fig 1B.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112a rejections.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights