DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 11/14/2025:
claims 1, 3-11 and 13-19 are currently pending
claims 11 and 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration
claims 1 and 11 are amended
new prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Li and Chen are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 10 are rejected as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20130012108 A1), hereinafter referred to as LI.
Regarding claim 1, LI teaches a composition for preparing a chemical-mechanical polishing pad via photopolymerization and heating (Abstract: the polishing pad includes a porous polishing layer, which includes a crosslinked network comprising a thermally cured component and a radiation cured component), the composition comprising:
a first component (paragraph [0101]: radiation curable resin) comprising:
one or more acrylate-blocked isocyanates (paragraph [0101]: the radiation curable resin can comprise a (meth)acrylate-modified polyfunctional isocyanate material);
one or more acrylate monomers (paragraph [102]: hydroxyalkyl acrylates and
methacrylate); and
at least one photoinitiator (paragraph [105]: the composition which includes the radiation curable composition typically also includes photoinitiator); and
a second component comprising one or more amine curatives (paragraph [0093]: the thermally curable resin composition comprises a second resin having at least two groups that are reactive with isocyanates and/or epoxides (e.g., amino groups)).
While LI is silent with respect to a molar ratio of the first component and the second component being in a range from about 1:0.6 to 1:0.8, LI teaches the composition comprising at least about 10 and up to about 85 weight percent of the radiation curable composition, based on the total weight of the composition; and at least about 15 and up to about 90 weight percent of the thermally curable composition, based on the total weight of the composition (paragraph [107]). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when optimizing the molar ratio of the radiation curable composition to the thermally curable composition of LI based on the weight percent disclosed by LI, so as to be within or overlapping with the claimed range. The rationale for such optimization would have been "obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (E)).
Regarding claim 3, LI teaches the composition of claim 1, further comprising one or more additives comprising one or more of: one or more stabilizers, one or more plasticizers, one or more porogen fillers, and one or more pigments (paragraph [0082]: examples of additives include heat stabilizers, antioxidants, mold release agents, static dyes, pigments).
Regarding claim 8, LI teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more acrylate monomers comprise one or more of isobornyl methacrylate (IBMA), 2-carboxyethyl acrylate (CEA), 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate (HEA) (paragraph [0102]: hydroxyalkyl acrylates and methacrylate (e.g., 2-hydroxyethylacrylate (HEA)).
Regarding claim 10, LI teaches a chemical-mechanical polishing pad comprising polymerized material formed form polymerization of the composition of claim 1 (Abstract: the polishing pad includes a porous polishing layer, which includes a crosslinked network comprising a thermally cured component and a radiation cured component).
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200174367 A1), hereinafter referred to as CHEN, in view of Li et al. (US 20130012108 A1), hereinafter referred to as LI.
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a composition for preparing a three-dimensional object via photopolymerization and heating (see CHEN at Abstract: forming of three-dimensional object in which the polymerizable liquid includes a mixture of a light polymerizable first component and a heat polymerizable second component), the composition comprising:
a first component (see CHEN at paragraph [0023]: the light polymerizable first component) comprising:
one or more acrylate-blocked isocyanates (see CHEN at paragraphs [0023]: the light polymerizable first component comprises a second blocked reactive constituent; [0026]: the second blocked reactive constituent (e.g., ABPU); and [0052]: “ABPU” refers to UV-curable, (meth)acrylate blocked, polyurethane/polyurea);
one or more acrylate monomers (see CHEN art paragraph [0061]: UV-curable diluents (for example monoacrylates)); and
at least one photoinitiator (see CHEN at paragraph [0022]: the polymerizable liquid comprises at least one photoinitiator); and
a second component comprising one or more amine curatives (see CHEN at paragraphs [0012]: a heat polymerizable second component comprising a curative; and [0018]: the curative comprises a polyamine).
While CHEN is silent with respect to a molar ratio of the first component and the second component being in a range from about 1:0.6 to 1:0.8, CHEN teaches composition comprising the first blocked reactive constituent is included in the polymerizable liquid in an amount of from 1, 2, 5 or 10 percent by weight, to 30, 40, or 50 percent by weight, or more (see CHEN at paragraph [0021]); CHEN also teaches the first blocked reactive constituent (e.g., VBPU) and the second blocked reactive constituent (e.g., ABPU) included together in the polymerizable liquid in a weight ratio of from 1:5, 1:10 or 1:20, to 5:1, 10:1 or 20:1 (see CHEN at paragraph [0026]). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when optimizing the molar ratio of the radiation curable composition to the thermally curable composition of CHEN based on the weight percent disclosed by CHEN, so as to be within or overlapping with the claimed range. The rationale for such optimization would have been "obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (E)).
But CHEN fails to explicitly teach a composition for preparing a chemical-mechanical polishing pad.
However, LI discloses the polishing pad includes a porous polishing layer, which includes a crosslinked network comprising a thermally cured component and a radiation cured component (see LI at Abstract). LI also teaches a composition comprising a first component such as radiation curable resin comprising a (meth)acrylate-modified polyfunctional isocyanate material (see LI at paragraph [0101]), hydroxyalkyl acrylates (see LI at paragraph [0102]) and photoinitiator (see LI at paragraph [0105]). LI also teaches the thermally curable resin composition comprising a second resin having at least two groups that are reactive with isocyanates and/or epoxides (e.g., amino groups) (see LI at paragraph [0093]).
Both CHEN and LI disclose compositions comprising similar constituents. Moreover, according to MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (G)): “some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention”.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the composition of CHEN would be suitable for preparing a chemical-mechanical polishing pad as disclosed by LI, since CHEN explicitly teaches that the manufacturing approach utilizing the disclosed dual cure resins is satisfactory for many uses (see CHEN at paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN as modified by LI teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more acrylate-blocked isocyanates comprise an acrylate blocking agent and an isocyanate terminated urethane prepolymer (see CHEN at paragraphs [0024]: the second blocked reactive constituent comprises a blocked polyisocyanate having two or more ethylenically unsaturated end groups; [0026]: the second blocked reactive constituent (e.g., ABPU); and [0052]: “ABPU” refers to UV-curable, (meth)acrylate blocked, polyurethane/polyurea).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN as modified by LI teaches the composition of claim 4, wherein the acrylate blocking agents are selected from 2-(tertbutylamino) ethyl methacrylate (TBEMA) (see CHEN at paragraph [0052]: t-butylaminoethyl methacrylate).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN as modified by LI teaches the composition of claim 4, wherein the isocyanate-terminated urethane prepolymers comprise one or both of one or more aromatic prepolymers and one or more aliphatic prepolymers (see CHEN at paragraph [0034]: the group comprising an aliphatic, aromatic or mixed aliphatic and aromatic groups).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN as modified by LI teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the one or more acrylate-blocked isocyanate comprises a polyisocyanate (see CHEN at paragraph [0024]: the second blocked reactive constituent comprises a blocked polyisocyanate).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN as modified by LI teaches the composition of claim 1, wherein the at least one photoinitiator comprises diphenylphosphine oxide (TPO) (see CHEN at paragraph [0060]: photoinitiators useful in the present invention include, but are not limited to, diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recited molar ratio range provides unexpected technical advantages, namely preventing surface smearing and minimizing groove depth loss during polishing; and that these advantages are not taught or suggested by LI or CHEN and would not have been expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art (see Remarks received on 11/14/2025 spanning paragraphs on pages 5-6).
However, examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over LI, LI discloses the composition comprising at least about 10 and up to about 85 weight percent of the radiation curable composition, based on the total weight of the composition; and at least about 15 and up to about 90 weight percent of the thermally curable composition, based on the total weight of the composition (see LI at paragraph [0107]). LI also discloses that a crosslinked polyurethane can be prepared by using less than the stoichiometrically required amount of the second resin such that the urethane or urea linkages will react with remaining isocyanates (see LI at paragraph [0072]). Moreover, LI discloses that the molar equivalents ratio of isocyanate groups and optional capped isocyanate groups to isocyanate-reactive groups in the first and second resins, respectively, can be from 0.7:1.0 to 1.3:1.0 (or 1.43:1 to 1:0.77) (see LI at paragraph [0096]). Thus, based on the disclosure of LI regarding the equivalents ratio of isocyanate groups to isocyanate-reactive groups in the first and second resins including ratio of 1:0.77, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when modifying the composition of LI by adjusting a molar ratio of the first component and the second component to be within the claimed range.
In response to the Applicant’s argument regarding the disclosure in Specification describing that “the consistent and stable porous structure may facilitate and improve PE performance” (see Specification at paragraph [0039]), it is noticed that LI discloses porous polishing pads with a polishing layer having a thermally cured component and a radiation cured component and methods of making such polishing pads; that the pores are incorporated into the polishing layer through the use of polymer particles, and the control over pore size and distribution may be advantageous, for example, for the polishing performance of the polishing pad (see LI at paragraph [0004]).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., preventing surface smearing and minimizing groove depth loss during polishing) are not recited in the rejected claim.
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over LI in view of CHEN is maintained.
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 ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights