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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Group IV, and species C of Fig. 5, 6 in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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, 4, and 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “soft” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “soft” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how soft the layer should be to be considered soft. In other words, the criteria to judge the softness is unclear.
The term “hard” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how hard the layer should be to be considered hard. In other words, the criteria to judge the hardness is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper portion of the substrate layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note that claim 1 recited upper surface.)
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper portion of the carbon nanotube layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M'Saad et al. (US 2009/0278081), referred to hereafter as M'Saad in view of Yu et al. (US 5,441,598), referred to hereafter as Yu.
With regard to claim 1:
M'Saad discloses a composite polishing pad for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) (see [0006]), comprising: a soft polymer substrate layer (304, see Fig. 3C and [0006], [0009], [0032]) with an upper surface (note that without reciting a plane of reference, any surface could be upper surface since it depends on the installation orientation of the element and elements can be installed in various orientations); a carbon nanotube layer (302) including carbon nanotubes ([0032]) embedded in and bound to the upper portion of the substrate layer; and a hard polymer coating layer (306, [0033]) having the carbon nanotubes protruding outwardly on the upper portion of the carbon nanotube layer embedded and bound thereto (Fig. 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E).
M'Saad does not appear to explicitly disclose that the soft polymer substrate layer includes a plurality of protrusions formed on an upper surface thereof.
However, Yu teaches a polishing pad and further teaches having a plurality of protrusions formed on an upper surface thereof (see claim 5, Fig. 6) in order to create asperities (Col. 1; lines 24-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add a plurality of protrusions formed on an upper surface of the soft polymer substrate layer, to yield predictable results of polishing objects through asperities.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of M'Saad and Yu further discloses that the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanotube layer are embedded in the soft polymer substrate layer and the hard polymer coating layer in an irregular net form structure (M'Saad, [0027], Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of M'Saad and Yu further discloses that the irregular net form structure is a structure formed by scattering the carbon nanotubes so that some thereof overlap each other (M'Saad, [0027], Fig. 1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2021/0323114) in view of Izunome et al. (JP 2019-178223), referred to hereafter as Izunome.
With regard to claim 1:
Kim discloses a composite polishing pad (10) for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP), comprising: a soft polymer substrate layer (200, or 210, [0052]) including a plurality of protrusions (100) formed on an upper surface thereof (Fig. 2-4, 6A/B, 7A/B); a carbon nanotube layer including carbon nanotubes embedded in and bound to the upper portion of the substrate layer ([0053], [0054]).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose a hard polymer coating layer having the carbon nanotubes protruding outwardly on the upper portion of the carbon nanotube layer embedded and bound thereto.
However, Izunome teaches a polishing pad and further teaches having a hard polymer coating layer (2) over carbon nanotubes (1) (see [0021], [0033], Fig. 3, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and add a hard polymer coating layer having the carbon nanotubes protruding outwardly on the upper portion of the carbon nanotube layer embedded and bound thereto, to yield predictable results of polishing objects.
With regard to claims 4 and 5:
the combination of Kim and Izunome discloses the composite polishing pad for CMP of claim 1, as set forth above.
the combination of Kim and Izunome does not appear to explicitly disclose that the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanotube layer are embedded in the soft polymer substrate layer and the hard polymer coating layer in an irregular net form structure, the irregular net form structure is a structure formed by scattering the carbon nanotubes so that some thereof overlap each other.
However, Izunome teaches a polishing pad and further teaches that the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanotube layer are embedded in the soft polymer substrate layer and the hard polymer coating layer in an irregular net form structure, the irregular net form structure is a structure formed by scattering the carbon nanotubes so that some thereof overlap each other (Fig. 3, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely the carbon nanotubes of the carbon nanotube layer being embedded in an irregular net form structure, the irregular net form structure being a structure formed by scattering the carbon nanotubes so that some thereof overlap each other, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar polishing pads such as US 2007/0153453, US 2009/0035519.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745