DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed January 22, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment, filed January 22, 2026.
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 1-5, 28, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0375546).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 28, 32, and 33, Pai teaches a polishing pad comprising a carrier layer (102, i.e. “polishing pad substrate” and/or “pad layer”), an array of protrusions (104 and upper parts of 102; i.e. “first protrusion” and/or “first polishing structure”, “second protrusion” and/or “second polishing structure”, “third protrusion” and/or “third polishing structure”, etc.) on the carrier layer, and grooves (106; i.e. “first groove”, “second groove”, etc.) adjacent the sides (i.e. “first side”, “second side”, etc.) of and separating the protrusions (Figs. 2, 5; Abstract; par. 27). Each protrusion (i.e. including a “first protrusion” and “first polishing structure”) includes a single continuous central region (104 i.e. “first material”) that is laterally surrounded by a single continuous peripheral region (upper part of 102, i.e. “second material”) extending continuously along a lateral perimeter of the first region and the protrusion (Fig. 5).
The teachings of Pai might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a polishing pad with central and peripheral regions that vary in composition, porosity, pore size, and hardness as claimed. However, Pai does teach that the central region, which he refers to as “embedded sections” and peripheral regions can be made of the same or different polymers and can vary from each other in at least one major property, including in hardness, pore size, porosity, and/or pore density (par. 27). Pai also teaches that the central regions may have a greater hardness than the carrier, which includes the peripheral regions (par. 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the central and peripheral regions in the protrusions of Pai’s polishing pad to respectively have different compositions, different hardnesses, including wherein the central region has a greater hardness than the peripheral region, different porosities, and different pore sizes because Pai explicitly teaches doing so to be appropriate. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure either of the central or the peripheral regions on Pai’s protrusions to have a greater/lower porosity and/or pore size, including in any direction, including wherein the central region/first material has smaller first porosity (i.e. and a smaller pore concentration and smaller first hollow volume) and smaller first pores along any direction than the second porosity (i.e. and second pore concentration and second hollow volume) and pore second sizes of peripheral region/second material, because Pai teaches to vary the values between the two regions and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are only two possibilities for each type of variation, i.e. wherein the central region has a lower first porosity than the second porosity of the peripheral region or wherein the central region has a greater first porosity than the second porosity of the peripheral region, and wherein the central region has smaller first pores than the second pores of the peripheral region or wherein the central region has larger first pores than the second pores of the peripheral region.
Regarding claims 2 and 31, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to configure the different regions/materials in the protrusions on the prior art polishing pad to have different hardnesses, including wherein the central region/first material has a greater hardness than the peripheral region/second material.
The teachings of Pai differ from the current invention in that the relative hardnesses of the different regions/materials is not disclosed. However, as the Pai renders obvious making the second hardness less than the first hardness, a ratio that amounts to the second hardness being “less” than the first, i.e. a ratio of less than 1, including just less than 1, covers and/or is sufficiently close to and renders obvious the claimed range, which extends from 0.05 to 0.95. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 1-7, 28, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khana (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0187693) in view of Jawali (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0394333) and/or Pai.
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Khana teaches a polishing pad comprising a carrier layer (203, i.e. “polishing pad substrate” and/or “pad layer”), an array of protruding polishing elements (204a; i.e. “first protrusion” and/or “first polishing structure”, “second protrusion” and/or “second polishing structure”, “third protrusion” and/or “third polishing structure”, etc.) on the carrier layer, and channels (218; i.e. “first groove”, “second groove”, etc.) adjacent the sides (i.e. “first side”, “second side”, etc.) of and separating the protrusions (Figs. 2A-2E; Abstract; par. 25-27). Each protrusion (i.e. including a “first protrusion” and “first polishing structure”) includes a single continuous central region (B, 212; i.e. “first material”) that is laterally surrounded by a single continuous peripheral region (A; i.e. “second material”) extending continuously along a lateral perimeter of the first region and the protrusion (Figs. 2A-2E).
The teachings of Khana might be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly exemplify a polishing pad with central and peripheral regions that vary in composition and hardness as claimed. However, Khana’s peripheral regions comprise polymer including regions (A) of relatively high porosity and the central regions (B) comprise a polymer having relatively low porosity (par. 27-29). Jawali teaches a similar polishing pad with protruding polishing elements that include regions of high and low pore densities (Abstract; Figs. 3A-C, 4A). Jawali equates storage modulus, E’, to a measure of hardness and teaches to configure the different-porosity regions in his polishing elements to have different storage moduli, E’, including wherein the low-pore density regions have a relatively high storage modulus and the high-pore density regions have a relatively low storage modulus (par. 81). Jawali also demonstrates that pad materials with different pore densities have different hardnesses (Tables 2, 3), and teaches adjusting the dimensions of the high- and low-porosity regions of his polishing elements to tune the hardness of his polishing pad (par. 98). Therefore, as evidenced by Jawali, who demonstrates that regions of different porosities have different hardnesses and that less-porous regions have a higher storage modulus, E’, and, correspondingly, higher hardness than more-porous regions, the central and peripheral regions of Khana’s product have different hardnesses, wherein the central region has a higher hardness than the peripheral region. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate distribution of porosity, elastic moduli, and hardness regions, including selecting to make the peripheral regions of the protrusions to have a higher porosity and lower hardness and to selecting to make the central regions of the protrusions to have a lower porosity and higher hardness because Jawali establishes that such a relationship exists between low- and high-porosity materials and teaches to tune the hardness properties of polishing pads similar to that of Khana, including by adjusting the distribution of protrusions and differing porosity regions, and in order to achieve the required/desired properties, including hardness distribution and polishing characteristics, that are required/desired of the polishing pad for its intended application.
Pai further teaches configuring polishing elements on a polishing pad to have central regions with a greater hardness and peripheral regions with a lower hardness to provide better planarization performance and a lower defect rate (par. 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the central regions of the polishing elements on Khana and, optionally, Jawali’s polishing pad to have greater hardnesses and the peripheral regions to have lower hardnesses in order to achieve better planarization performance and a lower defect rate during use.
Regarding claims 2 and 31, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to configure the different regions/materials in the protrusions on the prior art polishing pad to have different hardnesses, including wherein the central region/first material has a greater hardness than the peripheral region/second material.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the relative hardnesses of the different regions/materials is not disclosed. However, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to configure the different regions of the prior art product have different storage moduli, E’, in view of Jamali’s teachings. As noted above, Jawali equates to storage modulus to hardness and discloses configuring different structures in a polishing pad such that the central/first material storage modulus-to-peripheral/second material storage modulus ratio is more than 2:1, or even much larger ratios (par. 81, 82). Jawali also exemplifies polishing pad materials with hardnesses ranging from 27 to 66 Shore D and with hardnesses ranging from 8 to 37 Shore D (Tables 2, 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art product such that the central/first material regions of the protrusions have a greater hardness than the peripheral/second material regions, including configuring the central/first material regions to have a first hardness of 66 Shore D and the peripheral/second material regions to have a second hardness of 27 Shore D, thereby achieving a second-to-first hardness ratio of about 0.41, or including configuring the central/first material regions to have a first hardness of 37 Shore D and the peripheral/second material regions to have a second hardness of 8 Shore D, thereby achieving a second-to-first hardness ratio of about 0.22, because Jawali teaches making the central/first material regions to have a much higher storage modulus than the peripheral/second material regions and equates storage modulus to hardness, thereby effectively teaching that the central/first material regions should have a greater hardness than the peripheral/second material regions, and discloses that such hardness values are appropriate and useful for such polishing products. Additionally, as the prior art renders obvious making the second hardness less than the first hardness, a ratio that amounts to the second hardness being “less” than the first, i.e. a ratio of less than 1, including just less than 1, covers and/or is sufficiently close to and renders obvious the claimed range, which extends from 0.05 to 0.95. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Khana discloses that the protrusions on his polishing pad are formed by depositing a continuous phase polymer with a sacrificial material that is removed to form the pores that are present in the peripheral regions/second material of the final product (par. 27). During use, the sacrificial material dissolves with exposure to a polishing fluid thus forming voids, which facilitates transport of liquid and abrasives to the surface that is to polished (par. 21). As such, the first polymer-containing material present in the central regions of Khana’s protrusions has a different composition from the second polymer-containing material present in the peripheral regions of the protrusions both at formation and during use. Given that the claim only requires material compositions to be “different”, any difference at all in composition meets the claim requirement. Therefore, as Khana makes no disclosure of perfectly purifying the disclosed polishing material between uses, it is more likely than not that there is at least some difference in composition of the more-porous second material in the peripheral regions than the less-porous first material in the central regions, due to more/some sacrificial material, polishing liquid, or abrasives remaining behind in the greater porosity of the second material/peripheral regions after use and rinsing. Additionally, on a volume basis, the two regions of Khana’s protrusions have different material compositions because one region includes more pores and, therefore, if in a dry state, more air than the other.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Khana may be considered to differ from the current invention in that the pores in the central region are not explicitly taught to be smaller than the pores in the peripheral region. However, although Khana discloses that the low-porosity central region may have a very low level of porosity (par. 28), as Khana only teaches using a sacrificial material to form pores in the peripheral region but makes no disclosure of including the sacrificial material in the central regions (par. 27), the pores in the central region are expected to be smaller in all directions than those in the peripheral regions. Additionally, Khana only depicts pores (210), which are deliberately made with the sacrificial material, being present in the peripheral regions (Figs. 2A-E; par. 27). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from this depiction that the pores in the central region are likely of a much smaller scale than the pores that are depicted, which Khana teaches may range in size from 50 to 250 µm in a direction parallel to the major surface of the polishing pad (par. 30). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the pores that are present in the central regions of Khana’s protrusions to be smaller than those in the peripheral regions because, Khana implies that the central first pores are smaller than the peripheral second pores, including substantially smaller, by not depicting the pores as being present. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the pores in the central region to be as small as possible, including substantially smaller than the deliberate pores in the peripheral region in all directions, because Khana teaches that the porosity in the central regions should be very low (par. 28) and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that configuring pores to be smaller in any/all directions is a clear method of decreasing overall porosity, as is intended by Khana.
Regarding claims 5, 32 and 33, Khana’s polishing elements each comprise a central region (i.e. “first material”) comprising a polymer with relatively low porosity and a peripheral region (i.e. “second material”) comprising a polymer with relatively high porosity and (par. 27-29). Therefore, the first material comprises a “first hollow-containing polymer” including a “first concentration of pores”, a “first volume density of first pores”, and a “first volume of a first hollow”, and the second material comprises a “second hollow containing polymer” including a “second concentration of pores”, a “second volume density of second pores”, and a “second volume of a second hollow”, wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration, the first volume density is less than the second volume density, and the first volume is less than the second volume.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Figures 2B-E and discussed by Khana, the protrusions include a first overall width, which Khana refers to as “W(1)” and ranges from about 250 µm to 10 mm, the central region has a second width, which Khana refers to it as “W(3)”, and the peripheral region has a third width, which Khana refers to as “W(2)”, ranges from about 50 µm to 10 mm, and is 90 % or less or even 50 % or less of the width of the central region (Figs. 2B-E, par. 26, 29). The instantly claimed width ratios are encompassed or overlapped and rendered obvious by Khana. See MPEP 2144.05. For example, Khana renders obvious a protrusion having an overall first width of 2 mm, a central region second width of 1 mm, and a peripheral region third width of 500 µm, which has a second-to-first width ratio of 0.5 and a third-to-first width ratio of 0.25.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that none explicitly teaches including a second peripheral region laterally surrounding the peripheral region that has a hardness of less than the peripheral region. However, as discussed above, the prior art renders obvious configuring the different regions of his product to have different hardnesses, including configuring the peripheral regions to have a lower hardness than the central regions. Jawali teaches accomplishing this variation in properties by varying the pore densities within the different regions (par. 81, 82). Khana further that his product may include one or more relatively high-porosity regions and one or more relatively low porosity regions disposed adjacent to the relatively high porosity regions (par. 62), thereby rendering obvious making products with three or even four regions of different pore densities, teaches that that the high- and low-porosity regions may alternate within a protrusion (par. 34), and teaches that the protrusions/polishing element may have various shapes and may may comprise any combination of the pore arrangements shown in Figs. 2B-2I (par. 35).. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art product such that it has protrusions/polishing elements including at least three different regions of varying pore densities, wherein the different regions also vary in hardness (as discussed above), because Khana teaches that the product
can include “one or more” of the high- and low- porosity regions and the prior art renders obvious varying the hardnesses of the different regions for the reason discussed above. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the product such that a region (i.e. “second peripheral region”) that laterally surrounds at least a portion of at least one of the “peripheral regions” discussed above has a pore density that achieves a third, lower hardness than the second hardness of the peripheral region because Khana teaches making the protrusions to have alternating regions of high- and low- porosities and renders obvious a product having three or more regions of different pore densities and, therefore, different hardnesses, teaches structures wherein the higher-pore density, less-hard regions surround lower-pore density, more-hard regions (discussed above), thereby teaching that such an arrangement of pore density regions and hardnesses is appropriate for his product, and teaches that the different regions can have a variety of different shapes, thereby rendering obvious adjusting the shapes of the regions as desired/required for the intended polishing pad requirements and application, and because configuring the second peripheral region to have a lower third hardness than the peripheral region’s second hardness is a selection from a very limited number of choices (three choices: the hardnesses are the same, the second hardness is greater than the third, or the third hardness is greater than the second).
Regarding claim 30, the teachings of Khana might be considered to differ from the current invention in that relative widths his protrusions in the structure discussed above are not taught. However, as no specific dimension/direction is claimed, the “width” of a protrusion may be considered the distance across a protrusion in any direction. A shown in Figure 2A, the protrusions (207) in the outermost circle, any of which may be considered a “first protrusion”, are longer (i.e. have a greater “width”), than the protrusions in the adjacent, next-outermost circle. Khana also explicitly teaches that the widths of protrusions may vary across a polishing pad (par. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the widths of the protrusions across the prior art polishing pad discussed above, wherein protrusions with a greater width are considered “first protrusions” and protrusions with a smaller width are considered “second protrusions”, because Khana explicitly teaches varying the widths of the protrusions and in order to adjust the properties of the polishing pad as required/desired for a given polishing application. Additionally, as no criticality has been established, the recited relative dimensions are a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khana in view of Jawali and/or Pai, and further in view of Chopra (US PG Pub. No. 2001/0029157). Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khana in view of Jawali and/or Pai, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Chopra.
Regarding claims 21, 26, and 29, as discussed above, Khana discloses a polishing pad comprising a pad layer and an array of protruding polishing structures (i.e. “first polishing structure”, “second polishing structure”, “third polishing structure”), which each necessarily have a height (i.e. “first height”, “second height”, “third height”, etc.) and width (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, “third width”, etc.), that are separated from each other by grooves and that each include a relatively low-porosity central region laterally surrounded by a relatively high-porosity peripheral region. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Jawali and/or Pai to configure the central and peripheral regions to have different hardnesses. Therefore, the prior art teaches or renders obvious a polishing pad with the features of claims 1 and 28 that are repeated in claim 21.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the polishing pad discussed above is not taught to have protruding polishing structures with different heights as claimed. However, Chopra also teaches a polishing pad including protruding polishing structures, wherein some polishing structures have a first average height and others have a second average height that is less than the first average height (par. 11, 34). Although Chopra does not explicitly teach heights for the protrusions in the disclosed polishing structure, Figures 6A and 6B depict taller first protrusions (380) with a height that is about twice that of shorter second protrusions (382) (Figs. 6A-6B). Chopra discloses that such an arrangement allows the protrusions of greater heights, which are located at an interior region of the pad, to exert more force and remove material more aggressively than the protrusions of lesser heights (par. 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art polishing pad of Khana and Jawali and/or Pai to include protrusions/polishing structures of different heights, including wherein some (e.g. “first”) protrusions/polishing structures have a height that is about twice that of other (e.g. “second”) protrusions/polishing structures, in order to provide the pad with the ability to exert more force and to remove material more aggressively in some areas than others and because Chopra implies that such proportions are appropriate for a polishing structure that can be used in this manner. The structure rendered obvious by the prior art achieves a value of about 0.5 with the mathematical expression of claim 26 and, therefore, meets the claim requirements.
Regarding claims 22-24, as discussed above, the prior art polishing pad includes multiple protrusions, including “first”, “second”, and “third” protrusions that are separated from each other by grooves. As shown in Figure 2A, the protrusions are arranged in discontinuous concentric circles, wherein one “circle” of protrusions is spaced further apart from another circle of protrusions than the protrusions in a single circle are spaced apart end-to-end from each other (Fig. 2A). As no direction or geometric arrangement is claimed, the spacings between circles of protrusions is considered herein to be the “first distance” and the end-to-end spacings is considered herein to be the “second distance”. Therefore, if the two protrusions (i.e. protrusions in the outermost and next-inward circles) that are separated by channel 218 are considered the “first polishing structure” and the “second polishing structure”, and an adjacent protrusion in one of those circles is considered the “third protrusion”, then the first protrusion is separated from the second protrusion by a “first distance” that is different and greater than the second distance separating the second and third protrusions (Fig. 2A).
Although Khana does not discuss ratios of the first and second distances, Khana does depict a particular arrangement of protrusions (207) with different spacings therebetween (Fig. 2A). As shown in Figure 2A, the shortest, “second distance” between adjacent protrusions (207) in the outermost circle is about ¼ of the “first distance” between the adjacent circles of protrusions (Fig. 2A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a polishing pad with protrusions arranged as depicted by Khana, including spacing the protrusions such that the second distance is about ¼ of the first distance, because Khana’s depiction of such an arrangement suggests that such an arrangement is appropriate for his product. Therefore, the value achieved when the difference between first distance, d1, to the second distance, d2, is divided by the first distance, d1, is about (i.e. (d1-d2)/d1, or 1-.25/1) is about 0.75.
Khana also teaches that the protrusions may have a width of about 250 µm to 10 mm, such as about 250 µm to 5 mm, and a pitch of 0.5 to 5 mm (par. 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a polishing structure with the lower limits of Khana’s width and pitch ranges because he explicitly teaches each as appropriate. Therefore, a polishing structure that is formed with the lower limits of Khana’s taught width and pitch ranges would have a “first distance” (i.e. calculated by subtracting the lower limit of width from the lower limit of pitch) of 250 µm. With the relative proportions rendered obvious by Khana, as discussed above, the “second distance” in such a structure is calculated to be about range from about 62.5 µm. It also would have been obvious to configure the second distances (i.e. end-to-end spacings) to be greater than the size of pores (210), which may range in size from 50 to 500 µm (par. 30), because Khana clearly depicts such an arrangement, thereby implying such an arrangement is appropriate Additionally, as no criticality has been established, the recited relative dimensions are prima facie obvious selections of dimension that do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claims 25 and 30, the teachings of Khana might be considered to differ from the current invention in that relative widths his protrusions are not taught. However, as no specific dimension/direction is claimed, the “width” of a protrusion may be considered the distance across a protrusion in any direction. As noted above, it would have been obvious to configure a polishing pad to have the arrangement of protrusions, including protrusion sizes and spacings, depicted in Figure 2A because Khana implies that such an arrangement is appropriate. Therefore, if the longest dimension of the depicted protrusions is considered the “width”, then Khana teaches and renders obvious a first protrusion having a greater width than a second protrusion, as well as protrusions having relative widths falling within the claimed range. For example, the protrusions (207) in the second circle from the outside have a width that is about 2/3 of that of the protrusions in the outermost circle in Fig. 2A, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the protrusions in a polishing pad to have such relative proportions, which meet the claimed mathematical expression, because Khana implies such proportions are appropriate.
Khana also explicitly teaches that the widths of protrusions may vary across a polishing pad (par. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the widths of the protrusions across the prior art polishing pad discussed above, including varying the widths such that the second protrusions to have widths that meet the claimed mathematical expression, because Khana explicitly teaches varying the widths of the protrusions and in order to adjust the properties of the polishing pad as required/desired for a given polishing application. Additionally, as no criticality has been established, the recited relative dimensions are a prima facie obvious selection of dimension that does not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 27, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the height and widths of protrusions on a product including the combined teachings of the cited art is not explicitly disclosed. However, Khana discloses that the protrusions on his product may have a width of 250 µm to 10 mm (par. 26). Khana also teaches that the pad may have an overall thickness, T(3), of 5 to 30 mm and that the protrusions may have a thickness, T(1), which is their overall height in the vertical direction and includes a portion extending into the pad layer, of 1/3 to 2/3 of the thickness of the pad, which equates to a protrusion thickness in the range of about 1.67 to 20 mm (par. 25; Fig. 2A). Khana also exemplifies a pad having protrusions with a height, H, of a portion extending above the pad that is half of the height of the pad, which equates to a height in the range of 2.5 to 15 mm (par. 25; Fig. 2A). As the claim does not specify if the claimed “heights” refer to the height of a protrusion that extends above the pad layer or to the overall height of a protrusion, including any portion that extends into the pad layer, either of Khana’s protrusion thickness, T(1), or height, H, qualifies as the “height” of polishing pad structures in the context of the claims. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art pad to include protrusions (i.e. “first polishing structure”, “second polishing structure”, etc.) having widths (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, etc.) in the range of 250 µm to 10 mm, to include overall protrusion heights, T(1) (i.e. “first height”, “second height”, etc.), in the range of 1.67 to 20 mm, and/or to include heights, H (i.e. “first height”, “second height”, etc.), of the protrusions extending above the pad layer that are in a range of about 2.5 to 15 mm because Khana teaches that such proportions are appropriate for his product. As previously noted, it would have been obvious to configure the polishing pad to include protrusions/polishing structures with varying heights for the reasons discussed above. The instantly claimed dimensions are overlapped and rendered obvious by Khana. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai, and further in view of Chopra. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pai, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Chopra.
Regarding claims 21, 26, and 29, as discussed above, Pai discloses a polishing pad comprising a pad layer and an array of protruding polishing structures (i.e. “first polishing structure”, “second polishing structure”, “third polishing structure”), which each necessarily have a height (i.e. “first height”, “second height”, “third height”, etc.) and width (i.e. “first width”, “second width”, “third width”, etc.), that are separated from each other by grooves and that each include a relatively low-porosity central region laterally surrounded by a relatively high-porosity peripheral region. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Pai to configure the central and peripheral regions to have different hardnesses. Therefore, the prior art teaches or renders obvious a polishing pad with the features of claims 1 and 28 that are repeated in claim 21.
The teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that the polishing pad discussed above is not taught to have protruding polishing structures with different heights as claimed. However, Chopra also teaches a polishing pad including protruding polishing structures, wherein some polishing structures have a first average height and others have a second average height that is less than the first average height (par. 11, 34). Although Chopra does not explicitly teach heights for the protrusions in the disclosed polishing structure, Figures 6A and 6B depict taller first protrusions (380) with a height that is about twice that of shorter second protrusions (382) (Figs. 6A-6B). Chopra discloses that such an arrangement allows the protrusions of greater heights, which are located at an interior region of the pad, to exert more force and remove material more aggressively than the protrusions of lesser heights (par. 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art polishing pad of Pai to include protrusions/polishing structures of different heights, including wherein some (e.g. “first”) protrusions/polishing structures have a height that is about twice that of other (e.g. “second”) protrusions/polishing structures, in order to provide the pad with the ability to exert more force and to remove material more aggressively in some areas than others and because Chopra implies that such proportions are appropriate for a polishing structure that can be used in this manner. The structure rendered obvious by the prior art achieves a value of about 0.5 with the mathematical expression of claim 26 and, therefore, meets the claim requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the current 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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights