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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/22/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Fig. 1), claims 1-19, in the reply is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by KR 101034236 B1 (machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, KR 101034236 B1 discloses a device 610 comprising:a polymeric pad 613 (PVA, page 18) having a top surface and a bottom surface 613a; a frame body 612, wherein at least a portion of the frame body extends between the top surface and the bottom surface of the polymeric pad; and a coupling member (top of 611) extending from at least a portion of the frame body (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 2, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the coupling member is configured for coupling the device to an apparatus (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 6, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad is configured for at least one of cleaning, polishing, or brushing a surface of a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 7, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad comprises a plurality of surface structures 613b extending from the bottom surface of the polymeric pad (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 8, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the plurality of surface structures is integral with the polymeric pad (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 9, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad comprises at least one of a planar bottom surface, a planar top surface, or any combination thereof (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 13, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad has a disc shape (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 14, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the frame body has a disc shape (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 15, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the frame body comprises a plurality of through- holes in a surface of the frame body (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 16, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the frame body and the coupling member are a single unitary structure (Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 17, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad is integrally formed with the frame body (Fig. 15; pg. 18). Furthermore, the claimed phrase " integrally formed " is being treated as a product-by-process limitation and since it has been held that a product-by-process limitation is not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited, therefore, the reference' s product meets the claimed structural limitations. Using broadest reasonable interpretation the coupled pad and body can be considered as an integral formation since there is no specific structural requirements in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101034236 B1.
Re Claim 18, KR 101034236 B1 does not disclose a diameter of the polymeric pad is 1 mm to 450 mm. Given this extremely wide range, it is likely that the pad is within this range. It would be obvious to make the diameter within this large range in order to be optimized for polishing a desired sized object and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and further it would have been obvious to adjust the diameter since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101034236 B1 in view of Prasad (PGPub 2006/0052040).
Re Claim 19, KR 101034236 B1 does not disclose a porosity of the polymeric pad is 50% to 99%. It is well known to have varying degrees of porosity for desired applications and depending on the component being cleaned and its specifications. Further, Prasad teaches porosity of a polymeric pad is 50% to 99% (para. 46; abstract). It would be obvious to make the porosity within this range, as taught by Prasad, in order to be optimized for polishing a desired object and since porosity and pore size can be readily controlled by selecting the concentration polymer resin in the polymer solution, selecting of the solvent based on the solubility parameters of the polymer in the solvent polarity of solvent, selecting the conditions for phase separation (e.g., the temperature), and the like (para. 58) and also since it would have been obvious to adjust the porosity since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101034236 B1 in view of Valentini (PGPub 2021/0308824).
Re Claim 3, KR 101034236 B1 does not disclose the coupling member comprises a clamp configured for clamping the device to an apparatus. However, Valentini teaches coupling member comprises a clamp configured for clamping the device to an apparatus (para. 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a clamp, as taught by Valentini, for the purpose of providing an alternative coupling connection that is well known in the art and in order to effectively hold the component for use.
Re Claim 4, KR 101034236 B1 does not disclose the coupling member comprises a fastener configured for fastening the device to an apparatus. However, Valentini teaches coupling member comprises a fastener 32 configured for fastening the device to an apparatus (Fig. 5-7, 21). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a fastener, as taught by Valentini, for the purpose of providing an alternative coupling connection that is well known in the art and in order to effectively hold the component for use and that is easy to disconnect.
Re Claim 5, KR 101034236 B1 does not disclose a magnet configured for coupling the device to an apparatus However, Valentini teaches a magnet 32/34 configured for coupling the device to an apparatus (Fig. 5-7, 21; para. 62, 87). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a magnet, as taught by Valentini, for the purpose of providing an alternative coupling connection that is well known in the art and in order to effectively hold the component for use and that is easy to disconnect.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101034236 B1 in view of Park (KR 20090021117 A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 10, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the polymeric pad comprises a first polymeric material (PVA; Fig. 15; pg. 18), wherein the frame body comprises a second polymeric material (Fig. 15; pg. 18), but does not disclose the second polymeric material is different from the first polymeric material. However, Park teaches frame body comprises a second polymeric material, the second polymeric material is different from a first polymeric material of a pad (“The hard resin layer constituting the fastener support layer 2 is a polyurethane resin, a polypropylene resin, a polyester resin, a polyamide resin, a melamine resin, an epoxy resin, or the like.”; pg. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a second polymeric material is different from the first polymeric material, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing durability for the structure and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 11, KR 101034236 B1 discloses the first polymeric material comprises at least one of polyvinyl alcohol, polysulfone, polyether sulfone, polyaryl sulfone, nylon, polyamide, fluoropolymer, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyethylene, polypropylene, cellulose, acetate, or any combination thereof (PVA; Fig. 15; pg. 18).
Re Claim 12, Park teaches the second polymeric material comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, copolymers thereof, or any combination thereof (page 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, copolymers thereof, or any combination thereof, as taught by Park, for the purpose of providing durability for the structure and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights