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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada US 2019/0070707.
Re claim 1, Kamada teaches a polishing pad 1 [figs. 3A-3B] comprising:
a polishing layer 1 having a polishing face; and
a support layer 2 softer than the polishing layer and fixed to a face opposite to the polishing face of the polishing layer ¶56 [“[t]he polishing pad with support layer 3 is constituted of the polishing pad 1 of the first embodiment and a support layer 2 made of foamed polyurethane softer than the polishing pad 1”],
wherein the support layer has a hardness of not less than 30 in terms of F hardness and not more than 90 ¶77 [“The hardness of the support layer is preferably F hardness (hardness measured by “ASKER Durometer Type F” manufactured by Kobunshi Keiki Co., Ltd.) of 30 or more and 90 or less”].
Kamada does not teach wherein the support layer has a hardness of less than 70 in terms of F hardness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a support layer with an F hardness of less than 70 since it has been held that in 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
Furthermore, Kamada does teach an example of hardness of 70 ¶217. It has also been held 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." MPEP 2144.05 II A. In this case, the prior art shows the general conditions of the claim, including overlapping ranges of F hardness in the support layer and an specific example of 70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these conditions by routine experimentation to the specific range of F hardness below 70.
Re claim 3, Kamada further teaches the polishing pad being used to polish a coating face of a synthetic resin ¶ 51.
Re claim 4, Kamada further teaches wherein the polishing layer has a hardness of 40 or more determined immediately after close contact with a pressure foot in a test method defined by "Spring hardness test, type C test method" in appendix 2 in JIS K7312: 1996 [Abstract].
Re claim 5, Kamada further teaches wherein the polishing layer is a nonwoven fabric or a suede ¶ 47.
Re claim 15, Kamada further teaches a polishing method comprising:
using the polishing pad according to claim 1
supplying a polishing composition 15 containing abrasives onto a surface to be polished of an object to be polished; and
pressing the polishing face against the surface to be polished and moving the polishing pad to polish the surface to be polished [fig. 24].
Re claim 16, Kamada further teaches wherein the surface to be polished 50 is larger than the polishing face and includes a curved face [fig. 24].
Claim(s) 2, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada US 2019/0070707 in view of Sampietro US 5,383,309
Re claim 2, Kamada teaches the invention as discussed above but does not teach wherein the support layer has a density of 20 kg/m3 or more and 60 kg/m3 or less.
Sampietro teaches a buffing pad 4 with a support layer 5 with a density of 20-30 kg/m3 [“[t]he density of the layer (5) is preferably between 20 and 30 kg/m.sup.3, preferably 25 kg/m.sup.3.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a support layer with a density of 20 kg/m3 or more and 60 kg/m3 or less since it has been held that in 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
Re claim 20, Kamada and Sampietro teach the invention as discussed above. Kamada further teaches the polishing pad being used to polish a coating face of a synthetic resin ¶51.
Claim(s) 6-9, 11-13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada US 2019/0070707 in view of Tenko WO 2020/054823.
Re claim 6, Kamada teaches the invention as discussed above but does not teach a groove formed on the polishing face of the polishing layer, wherein when the polishing pad is viewed from a perpendicular direction to the polishing face, a ratio (Sm/Sk) of a total area Sm (cm2) of the groove to a total area Sk (cm2) of the polishing face is 0.30 or more and 0.80 or less, and a ratio (Vm/Sk) of a total volume Vm (cm3) of the groove to the total area Sk (cm2) of the polishing face is 0.07 or more.
Tenko teaches a ratio (Sm/Sk) of a total area Sm (cm2) of a groove to a total area Sk (cm2) of the polishing face is between 0.31 [”the polished surface is a circle having a diameter of 125 mm, the area of the polished surface is 12266 mm .sup.2 . In addition, since the opening of the annular through portion is an annular shape having an inner diameter of 72 mm and an outer diameter of 100 mm, the total area of the opening of the annular through portion is 3781 mm .sup.2. Therefore, the ratio of the total area of the openings of the through-holes to the area of the polished surface (in Table 1, indicated as “area ratio of openings”) is 31%”]. Furthermore, using the Example 1 of Tenko, and a thickness of 1.6 mm [“[t]he polishing pad of Example 1 includes a polishing layer made of a disc-shaped nonwoven fabric having a diameter of 125 mm and a thickness of 1.6 mm”], the volume Vm would be 3781 mm2 * 1.6mm = 6050 mm3, and therefore the ratio of Vm/Sk = 60.5/122.66 = 0.49 which is larger than 0.07.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the grooves in Tenko with the polishing pad of Kamada in order to yield the predictable result of maintaining slurry in the buffing area.
Re claim 7, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above. Kamada further teaches wherein when the polishing pad is viewed from the perpendicular direction to the polishing face, the polishing layer has a circular shape [fig. 13A], the polishing face has a diameter of 10 mm or more and 200 mm or less [90 mm ¶217], and the polishing face is smaller than a surface to be polished of an object to be polished [fig. 24].
Re claim 8, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above.Kamada further teaches wherein the groove has a width of 0.5 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less ¶116.
Re claim 9, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above.Kamada further teaches wherein the groove has a depth of 0.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less [¶116, [“t]he groove preferably has a depth 90% or less of the thickness of the polishing pad”, therefore, if the polishing layer has a thickness of 2.0mm to 5.0mm, the calculated depth will be at most 1.5mm to 4.5mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a groove of 0.5 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less since it has been held that in 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
Re claim 11, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above.Kamada further teaches the polishing pad being used to polish a face of a resin including a resin coating ¶51.
Re claim 12, vKamada further teaches wherein the groove at least partially reaches an outer edge of the polishing layer, and an end of the groove is open [fig. 13A].
Re claim 13, Kamada teaches the invention as discussed above but does not teach wherein the polishing layer has a disk shape, the support layer has a truncated cone shape, a disk face of the polishing layer is fixed to a bottom face having a larger diameter of two bottom faces of a truncated cone included in the support layer, and a bottom face having a smaller diameter of the two bottom faces is a support face to which a pressing force is applied.
Tenko teaches wherein the polishing layer has a disk shape, the support layer has a truncated cone shape, a disk face of the polishing layer is fixed to a bottom face having a larger diameter of two bottom faces of a truncated cone included in the support layer, and a bottom face having a smaller diameter of the two bottom faces is a support face to which a pressing force is applied [“[w]hen the shape of the support layer 2 is a truncated cone, the surface facing the polishing layer 1 is more preferably a surface larger than the surface on the opposite side.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the geometry of the support layer in Tenko with the polishing pad of Kamada in order to yield the predictable result of keep the pressure distribution more uniform.
Re claim 17, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above. Kamada further teaches a polishing method comprising:
using the polishing pad according to claim 6; and
pressing the polishing face against a surface to be polished of an object to be polished and moving the polishing pad to polish the surface to be polished [fig. 24].
Re claim 18, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above. Kamada further teaches wherein a highly viscous polishing composition 15 containing abrasives is supplied between the surface to be polished and the polishing pad, and
by manually moving the polishing pad or by attaching the polishing pad to a polisher of an industrial robot 400 and moving the polishing pad by operation of the industrial robot to perform the polishing [fig. 24].
Re claim 19, Kamada and Tenko teach the invention as discussed above. Tenko teaches wherein the polishing composition includes an emulsion containing the abrasives and at least one additive selected from an oleum, an emulsion stabilizer, and a thickener [“an aqueous slurry containing abrasive grains, and abrasive grains, an oil agent, an emulsion stabilizer, and at least one additive selected from thickeners And an emulsion containing the following can be used as the polishing composition”].
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada US 2019/0070707 in view of Tenko WO 2020/054823 (T823) and in further view of Tenko WO 2020/066671 A1 (T671).
Re claim 10, Kamada and T823 teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach wherein the polishing layer has an A hardness of 70 or more determined by a method in accordance with JIS K 6253 and has a sparse-dense structure on a surface of the polishing layer, and the sparse-dense structure has a sparse portion area ratio of 52% or more and 96% or less.
T671 teaches wherein the polishing layer has an A hardness of 70 or more determined by a method in accordance with JIS K 6253 and has a sparse-dense structure on a surface of the polishing layer, and the sparse-dense structure has a sparse portion area ratio of 52% or more and 96% or less [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the properties of the support layer in T671 with the polishing pad of Kamada in order to yield the predictable result of using known materials for the support layer.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamada US 2019/0070707 in view of Uda JP 2007305745 A.
Re claim 14, Kamada teaches the invention as discussed above but does not teach wherein when the polishing pad is viewed from the perpendicular direction to the polishing face, the polishing layer and the support layer have a circular shape, and a face of the polishing layer on the support layer has a smaller diameter than a diameter of a face of the support layer on the polishing layer.
Uda teaches wherein when the polishing pad is viewed from the perpendicular direction to the polishing face, the polishing layer and the support layer have a circular shape, and a face of the polishing layer 16 [fig. 8] on the support layer 3 has a smaller diameter than a diameter of a face of the support layer 3 on the polishing layer 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polishing pad geometry in Uda with the polishing pad of Kamada in order to yield the predictable result of using well-known polishing combinations.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723