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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-7 are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8-10 remain pending and have been examined below. The amendment to claim 10 has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the depression area is equal to or greater than (2-pi/2)R^2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), the following limitations are indefinite:
A) the limitation “a maximum radial width (L) of greater than or equal to R and less than or equal to 5R” is indefinite because the maximum radial width (L) is varied based on a variable, which produces an unclear range. The limitation is currently interpreted as [(1 mm) to (3 mm)] <= L <= [ (5 mm) to (15 mm)]. Where it is unclear on if L ranges from [1 mm to 15 mm] or from [3 mm to 5 mm] (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
B) the limitation “a depression area of less than or equal to 2R^2, and the depression area is equal to or greater than (2-pi/2)R^2” is indefinite because it is unclear what the actual range of the depression area is supposed to be, since the term R has a range of 1-3mm. The high end of the depression area is calculated using first equation (2*R^2), and the low end is then calculated using a second equation ((2-pi/2)R^2), this then produces four values which then reads as: [((2-pi/2)(1 mm)^2) to (2-pi/2)(3 mm)^2))] <= depression area <= [(2*(1 mm)^2) to (2*(3 mm)^2)]; which then reads as [0.423 mm^2 to 3.807 mm^2] <= depression area <= [2 mm^2 to 18 mm^2] (emphasis added). Where, it is confusing on what the actual range of the depression area really is. Does the depression area actually range from [0.423 mm^2 to 18 mm^2] or does it range from [3.807 mm^2 to 2 mm^2] (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I))? Further, this second range being is read as: the depression area is greater than or equal 3.807 mm^2 and less than or equal to 2 mm^2 which means that the depression area is in a range that is open ended and is therefore also indefinite for being in a range that is open ended (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(II)).
C) the limitation “a distance (H) of adjacent edges of respective adjacent plurality of circumferential grooves is 0.5-5R” is indefinite because the distance of adjacent edges is varied based on a variable which produces an unclear range. The limitation is currently interpreted as H = [0.5(1 mm) to 5(1mm)] or [.5(3mm) to 5(3 mm)] = [(.5mm) to (5mm)] or [(1.5 mm) to (15 mm)] which can thus produce the ranges of [0.5 mm to 15 mm] or [1.5 mm to 5 mm] (see MPEP 2173.05(c)(I)).
Claims 5 and 8-10 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0347815), alone, hereinafter referred to as Matsuoka.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Matsuoka discloses an endpoint detection window for chemical mechanical polishing [Matsuoka, abstract and fig 5d, 200], wherein a side surface of the window is provided with a plurality of mechanical processed circumferential grooves [Matsuoka, fig 5d, spaced filled into which 3Ca of 3C fills in the voids of 203B. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim in the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. In the instant case, 203 meets the structural limitations and is therefore the same as the claimed invention], and wherein the plurality of circumferential grooves includes a maximum circumferential depression depth (R) [Matsuoka, see annotated fig 5d, item A, which is the radial length of 203Bb] of 0.1 to 0.5 mm [Matuoska, page 8, pp 0144, teaching that the distance at which 203Bb extends is 0.1 to 0.5 mm] and a maximum radial width (L) [Matsuoka, see annotated fig 5d, item B, the vertical spacing between each 203Bb or stated another way, the vertical length of 3Ca] of greater than or equal to R and less than or equal to 5R [Matsuoka, page 8, pp 0144 teaching that the distance of the protruding portion is the same as the groove and these are all the same dimension, which is R], and a depression area of less than or equal to 2R^2 [Matsuoka, page 8, pp 0114 teaching R is 0.1 to 0.5 mm, where the claimed maximum calculated depression area must be less than or equal to 18mm^2 per the requirements of the claim, where R is 0.5mm as taught by the prior art, then the depression area is 0.5mm^2, which overlaps the claimed range], wherein a distance (H) of adjacent edges of respective adjacent plurality of circumferential grooves [Matusoka, see annotated fig 5d, item C, the vertical distance of each 203Bb] is 0.5-5R [Matsuoka, page 8, pp 0114 teaching that the distance of the protruding portion is the same as the groove and these are all the same dimension, which can be 0.5, and per the range of 0.5 *(1mm) = 0.5, the prior art range overlaps the claimed range], wherein a shape of the plurality of circumferential grooves are selected from the group consisting of arc, polygon, and wave shapes [Matsuoka, fig 5d, the shape of the spacing 3Ca is that of a polygon, being a rectangular cutout].
Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose the maximum circumferential depression depth (R) of 1-3 mm as required by the claim, and therefore also does not explicitly disclose the depression area is equal to or greater than (2-pi/2)R^2.
Matsuoka discloses that the maximum circumferential depression depth (R) needs to be optimized to “obtain the effect of preventing the endpoint detection window from being detached [Matsuoka, page 8, pp 0114]”. As shown in figure 5d, the circumferential depth (R) is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the circumferential depth (R) the retention to the pad and holding strength changes which affects the detachment or securing attachment to the polishing pad. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Matsuoka to have a maximum circumferential depth (R) within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment (i.e. the holding/attachment strength of the pad to the window). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Matsuoka by increasing the maximum circumferential depression depth (R) to be between 1 mm and 3 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclose the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]”. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the maximum circumferential depth (R) “may” be within the claimed ranges (applicant’s specification pp [0006]). Further, where it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05(I)), and since the workable range of Matsuoka is now taught to be within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have found the limitation “the depression area is equal to or greater than (2-pi/2)R^2” would now overlap the claimed range.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
1192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 (Previously Presented), Matsuoka as modified further the endpoint detection window of claim 1, wherein the polygon is selected from the group consisting of one or more of a triangle, a rectangle and a zigzag [Matsuoka, fig 5d, the shape of the grooves is a rectangle].
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Matsuoka, as modified further discloses the endpoint detection window of claim 1, wherein a shape of the exposed surface of the window is selected from the group consisting of one or more of a circle, an ellipse and a rounded rectangle [Matsuoka, fig 5c, showing the exposed surface of 200 is a circle].
Regarding claim 9 (Previously Presented), Matsuoka as modified further discloses a chemical mechanical polishing pad with a window, wherein the chemical mechanical polishing pad is provided with the endpoint detection window of claim 1 [Matsuoka, fig 5c, 102], wherein the polishing pad is prepared by integrated pouring [Matsuoka, page 1, pp 0012, pouring and molding the material of 200 into the polishing pad], such that pad resin material fills the plurality of circumferential grooves of the window during molding, forming an embedded mechanical interlock without adhesive [Matsuoka, page 1, pp 0012, since the pad material is poured around the article, the grooves are filled forming an interlock between the groove and the pad and page 2, pp 0013 it is formed without an adhesive] (clm 9)
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), Matsuoka as modified further discloses a preparation method of the chemical mechanical polishing pad with a window of claim 9 [Matsuoka, page 1, pp 0012, pouring and molding the material of 200 into the polishing pad].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued the following points:
A) The applicant has argued that the prior art does not teach the amended range of 1-3mm
B) That Matsuoka only uses surface roughening or simple annular bulges/external threads and does not teach or suggest precisely dimensioned circumferential grooves or the interlock mechanism.
Respectfully the Office disagrees for the following reasons:
A) it is held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to disclose the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05(II)]”. Where in the instant case, the workable ranges have been found to be obvious over the prior art as stated above.
B) MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim in the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. In the instant case, the prior art Matsuoka meets the structural limitations and is therefore the same as the claimed invention. Further the applicant has not actually claimed an interlock mechanism nor states within the claims anything about an interlock mechanism so the Office is not required to show an interlock mechanism that needs to be taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights