DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I, Claims 1 – 8, drawn to a polishing pad and method of making a polishing pad in which a distance between hard segments in the polishing layer thereof as measured by small-angle X-ray scattering is 9.5 nm or less; Group II, Claims 10 – 18, drawn to drawn to a polishing pad and method of making a polishing pad having certain ratios (NC80/CC80) and (NC40/CC40) ; and Group III, Claims 19 – 22, drawn to a polishing pad and method of making a polishing pad in which a isocyanate-terminated prepolymer used to prepare the polyurethane resin foam of the polishing layers comprises polypropylene glycol and polyester diol units. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Group I – III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. Group I requires the feature of a distance between hard segments in the polishing layer thereof as measured by small-angle X-ray scattering is 9.5 nm or less, which is not required by either Groups II or III. Group II requires the feature of polishing pad having certain ratios (NC80/CC80) and (NC40/CC40), which is not required by either Groups I or III. Group III requires the feature of an isocyanate-terminated prepolymer including polypropylene glycol and polyester diol units to prepare the polyurethane resin foam of the polishing layer , which is not required by either Groups I or II. During a telephone conversation with Daniel Hsieh on March 12, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group III, Claims 19 – 22 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 1 – 18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: units should be provided for the molecular weight of the polyester diol. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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 19 – 2 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0202409 to Shinchi et al. (hereinafter Shinchi). Regarding Claim s 19 and 20 . Shinchi teaches a polishing pad including a base polyurethane resin composition which may include a foaming agent [0019], i.e. a polishing pad comprising a polishing layer composed of a polyurethane resin foam. The polyurethane resin foam is derived from an isocyanate-group terminated prepolymer and a curing agent. The isocyanate-group terminated prepolymer is produced by reacting a polyisocyanate with an aromatic polyester polyol and a polyether polyol [0019], corresponding to an isocyanate- terminated prepolymer including a polyisocyanate compound-derived configuration unit and a high molecular weight polyol-derived configuration unit composed of a polyether configuration unit and a polyester unit. The polyether configuration unit may specifically correspond to a polypropylene glycol configuration unit [0044]. The polyester configuration unit is based on a diol initiator [0033]. The polyester configuration unit is thus reasonably considered to correspond to a polyester diol configuration unit. Shinchi teaches the aromatic polyester polyol and polyether polyol are provided in a mass ratio of 5/95 to 70/30 [0020]. Thus, when the polyether polyol is polypropylene glycol, the polypropylene glycol configuration unit will correspond to 30 to 95 weight percent of the high molecular weight polyol-derived configuration unit. While this range is not identical to the claimed ranges of less than 60 weight of the polypropylene glycol configuration uni t or 30 to 50 weight percent of the polypropylene glycol configuration unit with respect to the high molecular weight polyol-derived configuration unit , they do overlap. It has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding Claim 21 . Shinchi teaches the polishing pad of Claim 19 wherein the polyester diol configuration unit is derived from a polyester diol having a number average weight of preferably 500 to 2,000 g/mol [0040] . Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0202409 to Shinchi et al. (hereinafter Shinchi). Regarding Claim 22 . Shinchi teaches a method for manufacturing a polishing pad comprising including a base polyurethane resin composition which may include a foaming agent [0019], i.e. a polishing pad comprising a polishing layer composed of a polyurethane resin foam. The method comprising a step of reacting a polyisocyanate with a high molecular weight polyol containing at least an aromatic polyester polyol and a polyether polyol to obtain an isocyanate-group terminated prepolymer [0019]. The polyether may specifically correspond to a polypropylene glycol [0044]. The polyester is based on a diol initiator [0033]. The polyester is thus reasonably considered to correspond to a polyester diol. Shinchi teaches the aromatic polyester polyol and polyether polyol are provided in a mass ratio of 5/95 to 70/30 [0020]. Thus, when the polyether polyol is polypropylene glycol, the polypropylene glycol will correspond to 30 to 95 weight percent of the high molecular weight polyol. While this range is not identical to the claimed range of less than 60 weight of the polypropylene glycol with respect to the high molecular weight polyol, it does overlap. It has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPG 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05) Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0202409 to Shimizu also pertains to polishing pads which may be prepared with polyester polyols, as well as polypropylene glycol as a polyether. US 2011/0021123 to Kulp pertains to polishing pads which may be based upon a polypropylene glycol polyol component. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3305 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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