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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite chemical mechanical polishing (CMP), as this is the first time this abbreviation is set forth in the claims.
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 – 7 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 because:
There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the” terminal thereof recited in each instance in Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6. No terminal is set forth prior to this limitation in the claims. For the purposes of further examination, this phrase will be interpreted as referring to a terminal of each of said at least three side chains.
Use of parentheses in Claim 3, i.e. urethane(urea), renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation enclosed in parentheses is required or optional. For the purposes of further examination, the limitation enclosed in parentheses will be interpreted as being optional.
As all remaining pending claims depend on Claim 1, they incorporate the subject matter thereof and are also rejected under this statute.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/181987 to Hatta in view of US 3,459,731 to Gramera et al. (hereinafter Gramera). For the purposes of examination, citations for Hatta are taken from an English-language equivalent of the document, US 2021/0001299.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3 – 6. Hatta teaches a hollow particle/microballoon containing a polyurethane or polyurea resin [0038]. The polyurethane or polyurea resin is produced by polymerizing a polymerizing composition that contains (A) a polyol compound which may be cyclic, i.e. a cyclic molecule having polymerizable functional (hydroxy) groups at two or more terminals; and (B) a polyisocyanate compound ([0026] and [0124]), corresponding to a polymerizable monomer other than (A) the cyclic molecule.
Hatta does not expressly teach the cyclic polyol (A) has at least three side chains with a polymerizable functional group introduced into the terminal thereof. However, Gramera teaches the concept of providing a cyclodextrin polyether in which all or less than all anhydroglucose units and one or more the hydroxyl groups in an given anhydroglucose units of a cyclodextrin are substituted with a polyether moiety derived from reaction with an alkylene oxide (Column 1, Lines 11 – 34; Column 2, Lines 16 – 64), corresponding to cyclic molecules having at least three side chains in which a polymerizable functional (hydroxy) group is introduced into the terminal of each of said at least three side chains. The viscosity of the cyclodextrin polyether may be, for example, 40,000 cps (mPa∙s) at 60°C (Column 5, Lines 15 – 16). Hatta and Gramera are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyurethane forming compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the cyclodextrin polyether of Gramera as the cyclic polyol in Hatta. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Gramera teaches that the disclosed cyclodextrin polyethers are suitable for the production of polyurethanes (Column 5, Line 73 – Column 6, Line 3). Moreover, as cyclodextrin is obtained from a bio-renewable resource (starch), it would be desirable to use a cyclodextrin polyether instead of a conventional polyether, which are typically based on petrochemicals.
Regarding Claim 2. Hatta teaches the hollow microballoon of Claim 1 wherein the content of the polyol, corresponding to instantly claimed (A), constitutes even more preferably 0.1 to 5 mass % of the oil phase [0129]. The polyisocyanate compound, corresponding to instantly claimed (B), constitutes even more preferably 25 to 50 mass % of the oil phase. Using these values, (A) can be calculated to be provided in Hatta in an amount of roughly even more preferably 0.2 to 17 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the total content of (A) and (B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/181987 to Hatta in view of US 3,459,731 to Gramera et al., as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2005/0171225 to Kulp.
Regarding Claim 7. Hatta teaches the hollow microballoon of Claim 1 may be used as a weight-reducing material/filler [0187] – [0189] but not specifically in a polishing pad for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). However, Kulp teaches the concept of using hollow microspheres/microballoons as fillers in chemical mechanical polishing pads [0012]. Hatta and Kulp are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyurethane forming compositions. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to provide the hollow microballoon of Hatta as a filler in a polishing pad for CMP as taught by Kulp. The motivation would have been that it has been held that it is obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); and MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, Kulp teaches that hollow microballoons are suitably used as fillers in polishing pads for CMP [0012].
Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/076104 also pertains to polyurethanes based on cyclodextrins;
US 2019/0263961 pertains to polishing pads based on polyurethanes prepared from cyclic molecules; and
US 2019/0345294 pertains to spherical powders based on polyurethanes prepared from cyclic molecules.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764