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 2 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 “carbon nanotubes” should be “the carbon nanotubes”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 7 is 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. The limitation “the protrusion” does not define if it is one of the plurality of protrusions set forth in claim 1 or a new protrusion. As such, the limitation is found to be indefinite. The same issue arises with the same limitation in claim 7
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20210323114).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses A composite polishing pad for CMP (Par. 0003), comprising:
a polymer substrate layer (Par. 0052 describes the substrate layer can be made of a polymer) including a plurality of protrusions formed on an upper surface thereof (Figure 2 shows protrusions 100); and
a carbon nanotube layer including carbon nanotubes embedded in and fixed to the upper surface of the substrate layer (Paragraph 0054 describes including carbon nanotubes in the protruded pattern 100 which would be fixed to the upper surface of the layer).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses that the protrusion has a hemisphere-like shape (Par. 0041 describes that the protruded pattern can have a circle shape which forms a hemisphere).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Victor (US 20130256944).
Regarding claim 8, Victor discloses A method for producing a composite polishing pad for CMP, comprising:
(a) scattering carbon nanotubes on a mold having a plurality of protrusions engraved therein so that some thereof overlap each other (Figure 1, items 2 and 3 show a particulate on the nano-nickel mold described as particulate matter in the transferred portion in paragraphs 0041 and 0092 and Figures 2 and 3 show the particulate being layered on the surface);
(b) forming a polymer substrate layer with a flat upper surface by coating a polymer on the upper portion of the carbon nanotubes (Figure 1, item 2 shows a flat polymer surface and item 4 shows that some of the carbon nanotube portions are flat); and
(c) demolding the mold (Figure 1, item 6).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by M’Saad (US 20090278081).
Regarding claim 10, M’Saad discloses A method for producing a composite polishing pad for CMP, comprising:
(a) scattering carbon nanotubes on a substrate so that some thereof overlap each other (Figure 2A, item 202 or 3A item 302 shows arranging the nanotubes on the substrate and Par. 0027 describes the nanotubes being disorderly arranged and overlapping one another);
(b) forming a polymer substrate layer with a flat upper surface by coating a polymer on the upper portion of the carbon nanotubes (Figure 2A or 3A);
(c) separating and removing the substrate from the carbon nanotubes (Figure 2C and 3E); and
(d) forming a plurality of protrusions including the polymer substrate layer and the carbon nanotube layer in an irregular net form structure by conducting an embossing treatment on the substrate-removed surface (Par. 0020 describes that grooves and embossing can be done on the surface).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210323114) in view of M’Saad (US 20090278081).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the carbon nanotube layer comprises carbon nanotubes embedded in the polymer substrate layer in an irregular net form structure.
Kim and M’Saad are analogous prior art because both describe polishing pads with carbon nanotubes disposed in the outer layer. M’Saad teaches arranging the carbon nanotubes in a disorderly manner (Par. 0027 and Fig. 1 item 30) and provides a good balance between flexibility and hardness of the polishing media while having increased local hardness and wear resistance, while maintaining global flexibility of the media (Par. 0008). Kim describes providing the carbon nanotubes but does not choose how to arrange the nanotubes so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose the suitable arrangement of the nanotubes in the substrate. As both Kim and M’Saad describe carbon nanontubes in a polymer matrix (M’Saad Par. 0012), the disorderly manner of the carbon nanotubes of M’Saad would provide predictable results for the carbon nanotube arrangement of Kim. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the disorderly arrangement of the carbon nanotubes of M’Saad as the carbon nanotube arrangement of Kim because the carbon nanotube arrangement of M’Saad provides a good balance between flexibility and hardness of the polishing media while having increased local hardness and wear resistance, while maintaining global flexibility of the media (Par. 0008) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of M’Saad teaches that the irregular net form structure is a structure formed by scattering the carbon nanotubes so that some thereof overlap each other (M’Saad Figures 1-3E shows the carbon nanotubes 30 overlapping each other).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Kim does not explicitly disclose that the carbon nanotubes have a diameter of 1 nm to 50 nm, and a length of 1 pm to 30 pm.
Kim and M’Saad are analogous prior art because both describe polishing pads with carbon nanotubes disposed in the outer layer. M’Saad teaches that the nanotube diameter may be about 1 nm (Par. 0027) or between about 0.8 nm to 1.6 nm and that the length may be about 1 pm to 1000 microns (Par. 0027). M’Saad further describes that the arrangements provide a good balance between flexibility and hardness of the polishing media while having increased local hardness and wear resistance, while maintaining global flexibility of the media (Par. 0008) Kim describes providing the carbon nanotubes but does not choose the size or length so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose the size and length of the carbon nanotubes. As both Kim and M’Saad describe carbon nanontubes in a polymer matrix (M’Saad Par. 0012), the carbon nanotube diameter and length of M’Saad would provide predictable results for the carbon nanotube arrangement of Kim. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carbon nanotube size and length of M’Saad for the nanotubes of Kim because the carbon nanotubes of M’Saad provides a good balance between flexibility and hardness of the polishing media while having increased local hardness and wear resistance, while maintaining global flexibility of the media (Par. 0008) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As the ranges within the prior art overlap with the claimed ranges, the ranges are taught by Kim in view of M’Saad. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210323114).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and discloses that the hardness can be between 30D and 80D. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As the ranges within the prior art overlap with the claimed ranges, the ranges are taught by Kim in view of M’Saad. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and discloses that the thickness of the pattern may be equal to or greater than 10 microns and exual to or less than 100 microns (Par. 0010). Kim further descirbes that the shape and sizing of the protruded pattern may be formed with particular geometries and areas to change the heat transfer properties of the structure (Pars. 0035-0036 and 0039-0041). As such, the shape and size of the protruded pattern, and specifically the width, are result effective variables with the result being the heat transfer properties of the structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the protrusion width be between 10 µm and 500 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As the ranges within the prior art overlap with the claimed ranges, the ranges are taught by Kim in view of M’Saad. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Victor (US 20130256944) in view of Roy (US 20090053976).
Regarding claim 9, Victor discloses the limitations of claim 8 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Victor does not explicitly disclose that step b occurs under a vacuum. Victor and Roy are analogous prior art because both describe providing carbon additives on a surface. Roy teaches using vacuum forming (Par. 0178) and the vacuum allows for homogeneity of the mixture and remove air (Par. 0109) with a mold (Par. 0112). Further, the vacuum processes provide complex patterns with relative ease (Par. 0183). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum forming method on the molding method of Victor because the vacuum allows for homogeneity of the mixture and remove air (Par. 0109) with a mold (Par. 0112) and the vacuum processes provide complex patterns with relative ease (Par. 0183).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M’Saad (US 20090278081) in view of Yoshida (US 20180036862).
Regarding claim 11, M’Saad discloses the limitations of claim 10 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, M’Saad does not explicitly disclose that the embossing treatment in (e) above is conducted by pressurizing the upper surface of the substrate- removed carbon nanotubes with a mold having a plurality of protrusions engraved therein under a heating condition.
M'Saad and Yoshida are analogous prior art because both describe manufacturing methods of polishing pads. Yoshida teaches using elevated temperatures to emboss and press the surface (Par. 0033). M’Saad describes embossing the surface but does not describe the specific method for embossing so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable method for embossing the surface. As both M’Saad and Yoshida describe embossing a polymer surface the embossing method of Yoshida would provide predictable results to emboss the surface of M’Saad. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the embossing method of Yoshida with pressure and heat to emboss the surface of M’Saad because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M’Saad (US 20090278081) in view of Roy (US 20090053976).
Regarding claim 12, M’Saad discloses the limitations of claim 10 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, M’Saad does not explicitly disclose that step b occurs under a vacuum. M’Saad and Roy are analogous prior art because both describe providing carbon additives on a surface. Roy teaches using vacuum forming (Par. 0178) and the vacuum allows for homogeneity of the mixture and remove air (Par. 0109) with a mold (Par. 0112). Further, the vacuum processes provide complex patterns with relative ease (Par. 0183). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum forming method on the forming method of M’Saad because the vacuum allows for homogeneity of the mixture and remove air (Par. 0109) with a mold (Par. 0112) and the vacuum processes provide complex patterns with relative ease (Par. 0183).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights