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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, and 6-20 are have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection is persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-17, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 16, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to “Zhao does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Lefevre… However, that paragraph of Zhao does not disclose or suggest any geometrical structure that exhibits a volume increase or decrease in the direction from the first surface toward the second surface. Nor does it describe any structural change, cross-sectional area relationship, or volumetric gradient relevant to the claimed window structure…without providing any teaching related to volume gradients or surface-area ratios.”, the examiner disagrees.
Zhao, figure 13, and similar to figure 2 of the instant application, teaches a geometrical structure that exhibits a volume decrease in the direction from the first surface toward the second surface and a similar volume gradient. The gradient of figure 13 shows the volume gradient for collecting excess slurry (109). Which is the similar intent as disclosed in paragraph 0042 of the instant application: “The debris includes pieces of the polishing layer removed by a conditioner or the like, remnants of the polishing slurry, and the like.”. Lefevre’s void opening is in the limitation’s width range of 50 µm to less than 300 µm (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51 of Lefevre). Lastly, while Lefevre and Zhao do not specifically teach the ratios and formulas of the instant application, with the given disclosure of Lefevre and Zhao, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to refine the prior art’s teachings through routine experimentation and reach similar calculations.
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, 3, 6, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1).
Referring to claim 1: Lefevre et al. teaches a polishing pad (100 Figs. 1A and 1B) including: a polishing layer (104 top and bottom Fig. 1A) including a first surface (128 Fig. 1A) that is a polishing surface and a second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A) that is a rear surface thereof, and containing a first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) penetrating from the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) to the second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A); a window (112 Fig. 1A) disposed in the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A); and
a void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A; “a perimeter 122 of the window 112 is reduced in size at all portions of the perimeter by an amount approximately in the range of 5-15 mils relative to a perimeter 124 of the first opening 106” Col. 4, lines 48-51) between a side surface (124 Fig. 1A) of the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) and a side surface (122 Fig. 1A) of the window, wherein an opening (opening between 128 and 126 Fig. 1A) of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A) is contained between the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) and an uppermost end surface (126 Fig. 1A) of the window (112 Fig. 1A), and wherein the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A) has a width of
50 µm to less than 300 µm (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51).
But is silent on:
wherein the void has a volume gradient that increases or decreases in a direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a ratio of an area of a lowermost end surface of the window to an area of an uppermost end surface of the window is 0.950 or more and less than 1.000 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient increases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein the ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a value of the following Equation 1 is 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm:
[Equation 1]
W x (1 - D),
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Zhao et al. teaches the similar configuration void (void between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) has a volume gradient (volume gradient between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) that increases or decreases (shown in Fig. 13) in a direction from the similar configuration first surface (first surface of 102b Fig. 13) to the similar configuration second surface (second surface of 102 Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the volume gradient as taught by Zhao et al. for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050; less than 1.000; or more than 1.050 when the void in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface; further, the prior art teaches the downward angled or sloped window.
Therefore, modifying the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window which accomplishes the intended function while minimizing the cost of used material.
Lefevre et al. teaches W is a width (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51) in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A), but is silent on a value of the following Equation 1 is 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm:
[Equation 1]
W X (1 - D),
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Lefevre et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an equation which falls in the range of 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the volume ratio value of the window to the volume of the first through-hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a range of 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm which achieves the recognized result of defect prevention and the like through loading of the debris, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 3: Lefevre et al. teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on an angle formed between the side surface of the first through-hole and the side surface of the window is more than 0° and 60° or less.
Zhao et al. teaches an angle formed between the similar configuration side surface of the first through-hole (first through-hole which accommodates window 302c Fig. 13) and the similar configuration side surface (surface of 102 Fig. 13) of the window (302c Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the volume gradient as taught by Zhao et al. for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: is more than 0° and 60° or less; is 60° or more; or equal to 60°; further, the prior art teaches the angled or sloped window.
Therefore, modifying the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have the angle more than 0° and 60° or less, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have the window angle more than 0° and 60° or less for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window which accomplishes the intended function while minimizing the cost of used material.
Referring to claim 6: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the loading amount in the void is more than 0.1 mg and 1.00 mg or less.
Zhao et al. teaches wherein there’s loading amount (loading amount made by the shaped window “A shaped optical window may be attached to the polishing pad or the support layer in any way which enables the optical window to reduce the amount of slurry that may accumulate on a surface of the shaped optical window” Col. 8, lines 53-57) in the void (void between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the loading amount in the void as taught by Zhao et al. for the purpose of minimizing the amount of unnecessary particulates on the polishing surface and improving the clarity of the optical transmission (Col. 8, lines 58-60 of Zhao et al.).
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: a loading amount in the void is more than 0.1 mg and 1.00 mg or less; less than 0.1 mg; or more than 1.00 mg; further, the prior art teaches a loading amount in the void.
Therefore, modifying the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a loading amount in the void is more than 0.1 mg and 1.00 mg or less, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a loading amount in the void is more than 0.1 mg and 1.00 mg or less for the purpose of having a loading amount adequate for clearing the top surface, preventing damage, and improving the clarity of the optical transmission device.
Referring to claim 7: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the first surface (128 Fig. 1A; “The polishing side 128 may have grooves 105 formed therein.” Col. 9, lines 33-34) includes at least one groove (105 Fig. 1A), and the groove has a depth of 100 µm to 1,500 µm (“the polishing layer 104 has a thickness (T) approximately in the range of 2-50 mils” Col. 9, lines 12-13; “In one such embodiment, the grooves 105 are formed to a depth (D) of approximately 10%-60% of a total thickness (T) of the polishing layer 104.” Col. 5, lines 49-51; (25)*(10%) = 2.5mils; 2.5mils =101.6 µm) and a width of 0.1 mm to 20 mm (“Individual grooves 105 may be from about 2 to about 100 mils wide at any given point on each groove” Col. 7, lines 13-14; 50mils = 1.27mm).
Referring to claim 18: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, further including a support layer (102 and 118 Fig. 1A) which is disposed on the second surface side (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A) of the polishing layer (104 top and bottom Fig. 1A) and contains a second through- hole (108 Fig. 1A) connected to the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A), wherein the support layer (102 and 118 Fig. 1A) includes a third surface (102 Fig. 1A) of the polishing layer side and a fourth surface (118 Fig. 1A) that is a rear surface thereof, the second through-hole (108 Fig. 1A) is smaller than the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A), and the window (112 Fig. 1A) is supported by the third surface (102 Fig. 1A).
Referring to claim 19: Lefevre et al. teaches a polishing pad (100 Figs. 1A and 1B) including: a polishing layer (104 top and bottom Fig. 1A) including a first surface (128 Fig. 1A) that is a polishing surface and a second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A) that is a rear surface thereof, and containing a first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) penetrating from the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) to the second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A); and a window (112 Fig. 1A) disposed in the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A), wherein a void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A; “a perimeter 122 of the window 112 is reduced in size at all portions of the perimeter by an amount approximately in the range of 5-15 mils relative to a perimeter 124 of the first opening 106” Col. 4, lines 48-51) is contained between a side surface (124 Fig. 1A) of the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) and a side surface (122 Fig. 1A) of the window, wherein an opening (opening between 128 and 126 Fig. 1A) of the void is contained between the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) and an uppermost end surface (126 Fig. 1A) of the window (112 Fig. 1A) and a width (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51) in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A).
But is silent on:
wherein the void has a volume gradient that increases or decreases in a direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a ratio of an area of a lowermost end surface of the window to an area of an uppermost end surface of the window is 0.950 or more and less than 1.000 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient increases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein the ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a value of the following Equation 1 is more than 0.00 µm to 15.00 µm or less:
[Equation 1]
W x (1 - D)
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Zhao et al. teaches the similar configuration void (void between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) has a volume gradient (volume gradient between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) that increases or decreases (shown in Fig. 13) in a direction from the similar configuration first surface (first surface of 102b Fig. 13) to the similar configuration second surface (second surface of 102 Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the volume gradient as taught by Zhao et al. for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050; less than 1.000; or more than 1.050 when the void in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface; further, the prior art teaches the downward angled or sloped window.
Therefore, modifying the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window which accomplishes the intended function while minimizing the cost of used material.
Lefevre et al. teaches W is a width (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51) in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A), but is silent on a value of the following Equation 1 is more than 0.00 µm and 15.00 µm or less:
[Equation 1]
W X (1 - D)
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Lefevre et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an equation which falls in the range of more than 0.00 µm and 15.00 µm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the volume ratio value of the window to the volume of the first through-hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a range of 0.00 µm to 15.00 µm or less which achieves the recognized result of defect prevention and the like through loading of the debris, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), as applied above in claim 7, and in further view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2008/0125020 A1)
Referring to claim 8: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 7, wherein the first surface (128 Fig. 1A; “The polishing side 128 may have grooves 105 formed therein.” Col. 9, lines 33-34) includes a plurality of grooves (105 Fig. 1A), but is silent on the plurality of grooves include concentric circular grooves, and a distance between adjacent two grooves of the concentric circular grooves is 2 mm to 70 mm.
Jiang et al. in an analogous polishing pad teaches a similar configuration plurality of grooves include concentric circular grooves (Fig. 2 “A structure of a polishing pad is shown in FIG. 2, wherein the polishing surface has a structure of concentric circle-shaped emboss.” [0005]; “Preferably, the emboss area is composed of individual annular grooves.” [0058]), and a distance between adjacent two grooves of the concentric circular grooves is 2 mm to 70 mm (“the minimum distance between adjacent grooves is preferably greater than 0.05 mm, more preferably 0.05 mm to 100 mm,” [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the concentric grooves and their spacing as taught by Jiang et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having the appropriate depth roughness and their spacing which is adequate for polishing the intended workpiece.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Fruitman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,685,537 B1)
Referring to claim 9: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the Shore D hardness of the first surface of the polishing layer is less than or equal to the Shore D hardness of the uppermost end surface of the window.
Fruitman et al. in an analogous polishing pad wherein the Shore D hardness of the first surface of the polishing layer is less than or equal to the Shore D hardness of the uppermost end surface of the window (“The window material 400 is preferably selected to form a window 700 with about the same hardness as the polishing pad 100, e.g. about 35 to 55 on a shore "D" gauge for conventional polishing pads 100.” Col. 5, lines 50-53; “The hardness of the window 700 and polishing pad 100 are preferably within about +/-10 on the shore "D" gauge of each other.” Col. 5, lines 62-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the shore less than or equal hardness as taught by Fruitman et al. for the purpose of having hardness levels which wear equally and/or prevent damage to the workpiece.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Wiswesser (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0033758 A1).
Referring to claim 10: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the Shore D hardness of the uppermost end surface of the window is 50 to 75.
Wiswesser teaches wherein the Shore D hardness of the uppermost end surface of the similar configuration window is 50 to 75 (“The material may have a hardness between 40 and 80 Shore D.” [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the hardness as taught by Wiswesser for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an appropriate hardness adequate for polishing the workpiece while preventing unintentional damage.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of YUN et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0164483 A1)
Referring to claim 11: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 30°C of the first surface of the polishing layer is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 30°C of the uppermost end surface of the window.
YUN et al. in an analogous polishing pad teaches wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 30°C of the similar configuration first surface of the polishing layer (“The polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 45 Shore D to 65 Shore D in the temperature range of 30° C. to 70° C.” [0023]) is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 30°C of the similar configuration uppermost end surface of the window (“The window may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 75 Shore D in the temperature range of 30° C. to 70° C.” [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the hardness values as taught by YUN et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an appropriate hardness adequate for polishing the workpiece while preventing unintentional damage.
Referring to claim 12: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 11, wherein the difference between the Shore D wet hardness values measured at 30°C of the first surface of the polishing layer (“The polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 45 Shore D to 65 Shore D in the temperature range of 30° C. to 70° C.” [0023] of YUN et al.) and the uppermost end surface of the window (“The window may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 75 Shore D in the temperature range of 30° C. to 70° C.” [0013] of YUN et al.) is more than 0 and 15 or less.
Referring to claim 13: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 50°C of the first surface of the polishing layer is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 50°C of the uppermost end surface of the window.
YUN et al. in an analogous polishing pad teaches wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 50°C of the first surface of the polishing layer (“In addition, the polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 60 Shore D at a temperature of 50° C.” [0024]) is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 50°C of the uppermost end surface of the window (“In addition, the window may have a wet hardness of 56 Shore D to 68 Shore D at a temperature of 50° C.”[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the hardness values as taught by YUN et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an appropriate hardness adequate for polishing the workpiece while preventing unintentional damage.
Referring to claim 14: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 13, wherein the difference between the Shore D wet hardness values measured at 50°C of the first surface of the polishing layer and the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 0 and 15 or less (“In addition, the polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 60 Shore D at a temperature of 50° C.” [0024]; “In addition, the window may have a wet hardness of 56 Shore D to 68 Shore D at a temperature of 50° C.”[0014] of YUN et al.).
Referring to claim 15: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 70°C of the first surface of the polishing layer is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 70°C of the uppermost end surface of the window.
YUN et al. in an analogous polishing pad teaches wherein the Shore D wet hardness measured at 70°C of the first surface of the polishing layer (“The polishing layer may have… Further, the polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 45 Shore D to 55 Shore D at a temperature of 70° C” [0024])
is less than the Shore D wet hardness measured at 70°C of the uppermost end surface of the window (“Further, the window may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 66 Shore D at a temperature of 70° C.” [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the hardness values as taught by YUN et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an appropriate hardness adequate for polishing the workpiece while preventing unintentional damage.
Referring to claim 16: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 15, wherein the difference between the Shore D wet hardness values measured at 70°C of the first surface of the polishing layer (“The polishing layer may have… Further, the polishing layer may have a wet hardness of 45 Shore D to 55 Shore D at a temperature of 70° C” [0024] of YUN et al.) and the uppermost end surface of the window (“Further, the window may have a wet hardness of 50 Shore D to 66 Shore D at a temperature of 70° C.” [0014] of YUN et al.) is more than 0 and 15 or less.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2) and Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of YUN et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0389033 A1), herein referred to as “YUN et al. II”.
Referring to claim 17: Lefevre et al. as modified teaches the polishing pad of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the window includes a non-foamed cured product of a window composition comprising a first urethane-based prepolymer.
YUN et al. II in an analogous polishing pad teaches wherein the similar configuration window includes a non-foamed cured (“non-foam”; “curing agent” [0080]) product of a window composition comprising a first urethane-based prepolymer (“urethane-based prepolymer” [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the hardness values as taught by YUN et al. II for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an appropriate window composition adequate for light transmission while preventing unintentional damage to the workpiece.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,868,185 B2), Zhao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,641,470 B1), and Birang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,893,796 A).
Referring to claim 20: Lefevre et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device (Col. 1, lines 15-18), the method comprising steps of: providing a polishing pad (100 Figs. 1A and 1B) including a polishing layer (104 top and bottom Fig. 1A) including a first surface (128 Fig. 1A) that is a polishing surface and a second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A) that is a rear surface thereof, containing a first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) penetrating from the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) to the second surface (second surface which contacts 116 Fig. 1A), and including a window (112 Fig. 1A) disposed in the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A); and polishing the polishing target while rotating the polishing pad under pressurized conditions after disposing the polishing target on the first surface so that a surface to be polished of a polishing target and the first surface are in contact with each other, wherein the polishing target includes a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, lines 15-26),
the polishing pad includes a void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A; “a perimeter 122 of the window 112 is reduced in size at all portions of the perimeter by an amount approximately in the range of 5-15 mils relative to a perimeter 124 of the first opening 106” Col. 4, lines 48-51) between a side surface (124 Fig. 1A) of the first through-hole (106 Fig. 1A) and a side surface (122 Fig. 1A) of the window (112 Fig. 1A), an opening (opening between 128 and 126 Fig. 1A) of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A) is contained between the first surface (128 Fig. 1A) and an uppermost end surface (126 Fig. 1A) of the window (112 Fig. 1A), and wherein the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A) has a width of 50 µm to less than 300 µm (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51).
But is silent on polishing the polishing target while rotating the polishing pad and specifically the polishing target relative to each other; and
wherein the void has a volume gradient that increases or decreases in a direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a ratio of an area of a lowermost end surface of the window to an area of an uppermost end surface of the window is 0.950 or more and less than 1.000 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient increases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein the ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 when the void is a structure in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface,
wherein a value of the following Equation 1 is 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm:
[Equation 1]
W x (1 - D),
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Birang et al. in an analogous a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device (Col. 1, lines 13-16) and teaches wherein polishing the polishing target while rotating the polishing pad and specifically the polishing target relative to each other (Col. 1, lines 42-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for manufacturing a semiconductor of Lefevre et al. with the simultaneous rotation method as taught by Birang et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate process for manufacturing a semiconductor device which increases the overall efficiency.
Zhao et al. teaches the similar configuration void (void between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) has a volume gradient (volume gradient between 709 and sidewall of 102b Fig. 13) that increases or decreases (shown in Fig. 13) in a direction from the similar configuration first surface (first surface of 102b Fig. 13) to the similar configuration second surface (second surface of 102 Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with the volume gradient as taught by Zhao et al. for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050; less than 1.000; or more than 1.050 when the void in which the volume gradient decreases in the direction from the first surface to the second surface; further, the prior art teaches the downward angled or sloped window.
Therefore, modifying the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre et al. as modified to have a ratio of the area of the lowermost end surface of the window to the area of the uppermost end surface of the window is more than 1.000 and less than 1.050 for the purpose of having an alternate shaped window which accomplishes the intended function while minimizing the cost of used material.
Lefevre et al. teaches W is a width (“5-15 mils” (=127-381µm) Col. 4, lines 48-51) in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void (void between 122 and 124 Fig. 1A), but is silent on a value of the following Equation 1 is more than 0.00 µm and 15.00 µm or less:
[Equation 1]
W X (1 - D)
in Equation 1, W is a width in micrometer (µm) of the opening of the void, and D is a unitless volume ratio value calculated by dividing the volume of the window by the volume of the first through-hole in the polishing layer.
Lefevre et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an equation which falls in the range of 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the volume ratio value of the window to the volume of the first through-hole, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a range of 5.00 µm to 9.00 µm which achieves the recognized result of defect prevention and the like through loading of the debris, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723