DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-19 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the independent claims overlap in scope. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Groups I, II and III have been fully considered and are found persuasive. The restriction requirement between Groups I, II and III as set forth in the Office Action mailed on 09/17/2025 is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuda et al. (US 20210277272 A1), hereinafter referred to as YASUDA.
Regarding claim 1, YASUDA teaches a membrane coating compound for a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (paragraph [0010]: a wafer-retaining elastic film of a CMP device includes: a film body comprised of an elastomeric material; and a coating layer), the membrane coating compound comprising a functional group capable of hydrogen bonding (paragraph [0018-19]: the coating layer contains a polymeric binder including epoxy resin).
Regarding claim 8, YASUDA teaches a membrane structure for a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (paragraph [0010]: a wafer-retaining elastic film of a CMP device), the membrane structure comprising:
a membrane; and
a coating layer on a surface of the membrane, a wafer being fixable on the coating layer (paragraph [0010]: a wafer-retaining elastic film of a CMP device includes: a film body comprised of an elastomeric material; and a coating layer),
wherein the containing layer includes a compound including a functional group capable of hydrogen bonding (paragraph [0018-19]: the coating layer contains a polymeric binder including epoxy resin), and
wherein the wafer is fixable by hydrogen bonding between the compound of the coating layer and the wafer (paragraphs [0017]: the surface of a coating layer serves as a wafer suction surface; and [0019]: epoxy resin).
Regarding claim 9, YASUDA teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 8, wherein the coating layer is on a portion of the surface of the membrane (paragraph [0017]: it is suitable that the coating layer be formed so as to cover the outer peripheral surface).
Regarding claim 10, YASUDA teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 9, wherein the coating layer is at an outer edge of the membrane (paragraph [0017]: it is suitable that the coating layer be formed so as to cover the outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical portion continuously with the surface on the wafer retaining side of the circular portion).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (KR 100576822 B1) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as HAN.
Regarding claim 20, HAN teaches a polishing apparatus for a chemical mechanical polishing process in which a wafer is holdable under pressure on the polishing apparatus (see HAN at paragraph 4, p. 3: a polishing pad and a rotatable platen, rotatably installed on the upper side of the platen, provided with a plurality of holes in the air supply and vacuum suction therein; a carrier head main body and a bottom surface of the carrier head main body, wherein an opening for exposing the hole is formed, a membrane buffering the wafer adsorbed and fixed to the bottom surface, and a wafer installed and fixed to the bottom of the membrane), the polishing apparatus comprising:
a carrier;
a membrane below the carrier (see HAN at paragraph 4, p. 8: a membrane installed on a bottom surface of the carrier head body);
a coating layer between the membrane and the wafer (see HAN at paragraph 1, p. 7: the membrane protective film is provided on one surface of the membrane in contact with the back surface of the wafer); and
a spindle mechanism that is coupled to the carrier and is rotatable (see HAN at paragraph 3, p. 8: a carrier head body rotatably installed on an upper side of the platen)
wherein the coating layer includes a compound including a functional group capable of hydrogen bonding (see HAN at paragraph 2, p. 7: polyester, polyurethane).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUDA in view of Ryu et al. (Polydopamine surface chemistry: a decade of discovery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 7523-7540), hereinafter referred to as RYU.
Regarding claim 2, YASUDA teaches the membrane coating compound for the CMP process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the functional group capable of hydrogen bonding, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a functional group having a catechol structure.
However, RYU discloses that polydopamine (PD) is a uniquely adaptable and simple surface functionalization method (see RYU at 1. Introduction, left column, 1st paragraph, p. 7523). RYU also discloses that the widespread adoption of PD originates from its simplicity, low cost and adaptability in a variety of science and applied engineering contexts; in its simplest manifestation coating an object with PD involves nothing more than simply immersing it in an aqueous alkaline solution of dopamine for adjustable period of time; that the composition and properties of the coating is highly tailorable, therefore, giving rise to the tremendous versatility and broad range of applications; and that Dopamine·HCl is a commercially available and relatively inexpensive reagent (see RYU at 2. Inspiration and General Features of PD, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7525). RYU teaches that the synergistic salt displacement at solid and liquid interfaces by catechol and amine groups is one of important mechanisms why PD exhibits coating capability to a very broad spectrum of materials; also PDs layers utilize a variety of multiple binding mechanisms such as catechol-metal coordinations, electrostatic interactions, π-π interactions, hydrogen bonds, and covalent reactions depending upon chemistry of material surfaces (see RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the coating of YASUDA by utilizing compounds comprising catechol functional group such as polydopamine as disclosed by RYU since RYU explicitly teaches that dopamine is readily commercially available, inexpensive and applicable in a variety of science (see RYU at 2. Inspiration and General Features of PD, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7525).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of YASUDA by utilizing coating material including catechol functional group, i.e., polydopamine, as disclosed by RYU. The rationale to do so would be known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143 (I)(Example rationale (F)).
Regarding claim 3, YASUDA as modified by RYU teaches the membrane coating compound for the CMP process as claimed in claim 2, wherein the functional group capable of hydrogen bonding further includes an amine group (see RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527: polydopamine).
Regarding claim 5, YASUDA as modified by RYU teaches the membrane coating compound for the CMP process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the compound includes dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, a 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, a tannic acid, a pyrogallic acid, or a combination thereof (see RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527: polydopamine).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, YASUDA as modified by RYU teaches the membrane coating compound for the CMP process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the compound includes a polymer or a copolymer of dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, a 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, a tannic acid, a pyrogallic acid, or a combination thereof (claim 6), and wherein the compound includes polydopamine (claim 7) (see RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527: polydopamine).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUDA in view of RYU as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of HAN.
Regarding claim 11, YASUDA teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 10, but is silent with respect to an area of the coating layer being 10 to 50 area%, based on a total area of the membrane.
However, HAN discloses a chemical and mechanical polishing apparatus that improves a semiconductor production yield by improving a membrane contacting a wafer when a polishing process is performed (see HAN at paragraph 11, p. 5). HAN also discloses that to provide a chemical and mechanical polishing apparatus for improving the uniformity of the polishing process by dividing the protective film of the membrane into different materials for each zone (see HAN at paragraph 4, p. 6). HAN teaches that in the case of the zone-divided membrane, the membrane protective layer has different characteristics for each zone Z 1, Z 2, Z 3, Z 4, Z 5, and Z 6 (see HAN at Fig. 3 and paragraph 4, p. 7). Furthermore, HAN discloses the coating material comprising a compound including a functional group capable of hydrogen bonding such as polyester and polyurethane (see HAN at paragraph 2, p. 7).
Both YASUDA’s and HAN’s disclosures are from the same field of endeavor and describe a membrane for CMP. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane of YASUDA by applying a coating layer to form zones as disclosed by HAN and demonstrated in Fig. 3, based on teachings of HAN describing that dividing the protective film of the membrane into different materials for different zones provides a chemical and mechanical polishing apparatus with improved uniformity of the polishing process (see HAN at paragraph 4, p. 6). The rationale for such modification would have been using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (C)).
Moreover, MPEP states that "[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" (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the membrane of YASUDA as modified by HAN by adjusting the area of applied coating layer to be within the claimed range to reap the benefits of the discontinuous application of coating layer as disclosed by HAN such as improving uniformity of the polishing process.
Regrading claim 12, YASUDA as modified by HAN teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 10, wherein the coating layer includes:
an edge coating layer on outer edge of the membrane, and
inner coating layers on the membrane at predermined intervals proximate to a center of the membrane (see rejection of claim 11 above and Annotated Fig. 3 of HAN).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding claim 13, YASUDA as modified by HAN teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 12, wherein the inner coating layers are spaced apart from each other (see Annotated Fig. 3 of HAN; inner coating layers Z4 and Z3 are spaced apart from each other).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUDA in view of RYU as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (US 20210115238 A1), hereinafter referred to as WILLIAMS.
Regarding claim 4, YASUDA as modified by RYU teaches the membrane coating compound for CMP process as claimed in claim 3, but is silent with respect to the compound including a polymer having a molecular weight of 100 to 100000.
However, WILLIAMS discloses pressure sensitive macromolecular adhesive polymers having catechol-amine functionalities that can bind low surface energy materials, such as fluoropolymer, as an adhesive system; such systems could allow bonding between diverse substrates including metallic substrates and low energy polyolefins or fluoropolymer or their composites including those used in tribological applications (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0004]). WILLIAMS teaches polydopamine polymers prepared by an in-situ polymerization reaction of dopamine in the presence of one or more carboxylic acid(s); the polymerization reaction may be conducted in the presence of materials (e.g., in the form of particles, tubes, sheets or films) onto which the dopamine-based polymers can be deposited and/or grafted, depending on the nature of the materials, forming a partial or complete layer on the surface(s) of the materials (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0005]). Additionally, WILLIAMS teaches a method for the in-situ generation of low (about 10,000 to about 20,000 Daltons) molecular weight components (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0044]).
YASUDA discloses a wafer-retaining elastic film of a CMP device according to the present invention includes: a film body comprised of an elastic material; and a coating layer; wherein the elastic material forming the film body include common crosslinked rubber materials such as silicone rubber, chloroprene rubber, EPDM, NBR, natural rubber, and fluororubber (see YASUDA at paragraphs [0010] and [0016]). YASUDA as modified by RYU teaches utilizing polydopamine as a coating for an elastic film body.
Based on YASUDA’s disclosure that a film body comprised of an elastic material and a coating layer is a wafer-retaining elastic film, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing the pressure sensitive macromolecular adhesive polymers having catechol-amine functionalities that can bind low surface energy materials, such as fluoropolymer, as an adhesive system; e.g., allowing bonding between diverse substrates including metallic substrates and low energy polyolefins or fluoropolymer or their composites including those used in tribological applications as disclosed by WILLIAMS (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0004]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polydopamine having molecular weight of 10000 to 20000 Daltons disclosed by WILLIAMS in the absence of unexpected results.
Claims 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUDA in view of Ryu et al. (Polydopamine surface chemistry: a decade of discovery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 2018, 10, 7523-7540), hereinafter referred to as RYU, and Yan et al. (US 20180369991 A1), hereinafter referred to as YAN.
Regarding claim 14, YASUDA teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 8, wherein the functional group capable of hydrogen bonding, but fails to explicitly teach wherein a functional group having a catechol structure.
However, RYU discloses that polydopamine (PD) is a uniquely adaptable and simple surface functionalization method (see RYU at 1. Introduction, left column, 1st paragraph, p. 7523). RYU also discloses that the widespread adoption of PD originates from its simplicity, low cost and adaptability in a variety of science and applied engineering contexts; in its simplest manifestation coating an object with PD involves nothing more than simply immersing it in an aqueous alkaline solution of dopamine for adjustable period of time; that the composition and properties of the coating is highly tailorable, therefore, giving rise to the tremendous versatility and broad range of applications; and that Dopamine·HCl is a commercially available and relatively inexpensive reagent (see RYU at 2. Inspiration and General Features of PD, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7525). RYU teaches that the synergistic salt displacement at solid and liquid interfaces by catechol and amine groups is one of important mechanisms why PD exhibits coating capability to a very broad spectrum of materials; also PDs layers utilize a variety of multiple binding mechanisms such as catechol-metal coordinations, electrostatic interactions, π-π interactions, hydrogen bonds, and covalent reactions depending upon chemistry of material surfaces (see RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527).
Furthermore, the application of compounds including catechol structure to modification of metal particles surface is evidenced from the disclosure of YAN describing a surface modified abrasive particle including a core abrasive particle and a coating functionally connected to a surface of the core abrasive particle; the coating including a compound selected from the group consisting of dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid or combinations thereof (see YAN at paragraph [0004]). YAN teaches that functionally connecting the unprocessed coating material to a surface of the unprocessed core abrasive particle may include creating hydrogen bonds between the unprocessed coating material and the unprocessed surface of the core abrasive particle, e.g., complexing at least one catechol group from the unprocessed coating material with metal ions from the unprocessed core abrasive particle (see YAN at paragraph [0046]). Additionally, YAN discloses that the unprocessed core abrasive particle may include alumina, zirconia, oxides, carbides, nitrides, borides, diamond, superabrasives, white alundum, brown alundum, microcrystalline alumina abrasive, fused alumina zirconia, silicon carbide, boron carbide, boron nitride, silica or any combinations thereof (see YAN at paragraph [0031]).
YAN discloses functionalizing abrasive particles with a compounds selected from compounds comprising catechol functional group such as dopamine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid via hydrogen bonding. Moreover, the abrasive particle disclosed by YAN comprise material known in the art to comprise the semiconductor wafers such as silicon carbides and silica. Furthermore, RYU discloses the additional benefits of utilizing polydopamine as a coating material to enhance the adhesion, i.e., commercial availability, low cost and ease of application, resulting in adaptability in a variety of science and applied engineering contexts (see RYU at 2. Inspiration and General Features of PD, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7525).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the coating of YASUDA by utilizing compounds comprising catechol functional group such as polydopamine as disclosed by RYU since RYU explicitly teaches that dopamine is readily commercially available, inexpensive and applicable in a variety of science (see RYU at 2. Inspiration and General Features of PD, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7525). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize compounds comprising catechol functional group such as dopamine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid as disclosed by YAN, since YAN explicitly teaches that functionally connecting the unprocessed coating material to a surface of the unprocessed core abrasive particle may include creating hydrogen bonds between the unprocessed coating material and the unprocessed surface of the core abrasive particle (see YAN at paragraph [0046]), and the abrasive particle disclosed by YAN include material known in the art to comprise the semiconductor wafers such as silicon carbides and silica. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that application of a coating comprising compounds such as polydopamine disclosed by RYU or dopamine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid as disclosed by YAN, would result in formation of hydrogen bonding between the coating and the wafer of YASUDA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coating of YASUDA by utilizing coating material including catechol functional group as disclosed by YAN and RYU. The rationale to do so would be known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143 (I)(Example rationale (F)).
Regarding claim 15, YASUDA as modified by YAN and RYU teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 14, wherein the functional group capable of hydrogen bonding further includes an amine group (see rejection of claim 14 above and YAN at paragraph [0004]: dopamine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid).
Regarding claim 17, YASUDA teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 8, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the compound includes dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, a 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, a tannic acid, a pyrogallic acid, or a combination thereof. However, the rationale and potential benefits of modifying the coating of YASUDA by utilizing compounds disclosed by YAN and RYU were discussed in the rejection of claim 14 above. Therefore, YASUDA as modified by RYU and YAN teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process, wherein a coating layer on a surface of membrane comprises a compound including dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, a 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, a tannic acid, a pyrogallic acid, or a combination thereof (see YAN at paragraph [0004]: dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, tannic acid, pyrogallic acid or combinations thereof; and RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527: polydopamine).
Regarding claims 18-19, YASUDA as modified by RYU and YAN teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 17, wherein the compound includes a polymer or a copolymer of dopamine, tyrosine, dihydroxyphenylalanine, norepinephrine, epinephrine, normetanephrine, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, a 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, a tannic acid, a pyrogallic acid, or a combination thereof (claim 18), and wherein a compound includes polydopamine (claim 19) (see rejection of claim 17 above and RYU at 3. PD in Comparison to Other Coating Methods, left column, 2nd paragraph, p. 7527: polydopamine).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUDA in view of RYU and YAN as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of WILLIAMS.
Regarding claim 16, YASUDA as modified by RYU and YAN teaches the membrane structure for the CMP process as claimed in claim 15, but is silent with respect to the compound including polymer having a molecular weight of 1000 to 100000.
However, WILLIAMS discloses pressure sensitive macromolecular adhesive polymers having catechol-amine functionalities that can bind low surface energy materials, such as fluoropolymer, as an adhesive system; such systems could allow bonding between diverse substrates including metallic substrates and low energy polyolefins or fluoropolymer or their composites including those used in tribological applications (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0004]). WILLIAMS teaches polydopamine polymers prepared by an in-situ polymerization reaction of dopamine in the presence of one or more carboxylic acid(s); the polymerization reaction may be conducted in the presence of materials (e.g., in the form of particles, tubes, sheets or films) onto which the dopamine-based polymers can be deposited and/or grafted, depending on the nature of the materials, forming a partial or complete layer on the surface(s) of the materials (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0005]). Additionally, WILLIAMS teaches a method for the in-situ generation of low (about 10,000 to about 20,000 Daltons) molecular weight components (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0044]).
YASUDA discloses a wafer-retaining elastic film of a CMP device according to the present invention includes: a film body comprised of an elastic material; and a coating layer; wherein the elastic material forming the film body include common crosslinked rubber materials such as silicone rubber, chloroprene rubber, EPDM, NBR, natural rubber, and fluororubber (see YASUDA at paragraphs [0010] and [0016]). YASUDA as modified by RYU and YAN teaches utilizing polydopamine as a coating for an elastic film body.
Based on YASUDA’s disclosure that a film body comprised of an elastic material and a coating layer is a wafer-retaining elastic film, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when utilizing the pressure sensitive macromolecular adhesive polymers having catechol-amine functionalities that can bind low surface energy materials, such as fluoropolymer, as an adhesive system; e.g., allowing bonding between diverse substrates including metallic substrates and low energy polyolefins or fluoropolymer or their composites including those used in tribological applications as disclosed by WILLIAMS (see WILLIAMS at paragraph [0004]). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polydopamine having molecular weight of 10000 to 20000 Daltons disclosed by WILLIAMS in the absence of unexpected results.
Conclusion
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 7:00am-5:00pm.
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