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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kim does not teach or disclose the newly added limitations in the claim amendments. The examiner agrees, as some of the amendments were brought in from previous claim 2 that was rejected under Kim in view of M’Saad. The applicant further argues that Kim in view of M’Saad does not teach the required limitations because M’Saad provides a harder layer below the softer surface unlike the claim limitations which require a hard layer on top of the soft surface. The examiner disagrees with these arguments as the claim limitations only require a “hard polymer layer” and a “soft polymer layer” but include no limitations comparing the hardness of the two or layers or specific hardness properties of the two that would actually require the hardness of the hard polymer layer to be harder than the hardness of the soft polymer layer. As such, the outer layer of M’Saad can meet the limitations of the “hard polymer layer” of the claims and the layer under it can meet the limitations of the “soft polymer layer” of the claims. The “hard” and “soft” limitations are simply names as any material can be “hard” or “soft” depending on the material it is compared to, and they do not impart any structural hardness limitations on the two layers. As such, claim 1 is rejected under Kim in view of M’Saad as presented below.
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) 1 and 3-7 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 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), the polymer substrate layer comprises a soft polymer layer including a plurality of protrusions formed on an upper surface thereof (The outer surface and protruded pattern 100 form the soft polymer layer with a plurality of protrusions 100).
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose a hard polymer layer coated on the upper surface of the soft polymer layer, wherein the carbon nanotube layer is provided on a surface of the hard polymer layer, and wherein the carbon nanotubes are embedded in an upper surface of the hard polymer 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 a hard polymer layer coated on the upper surface of the soft polymer layer (Figure 3E shows a second layer 304 coated on top of the first layer 306 over the substrate. As described in the response to arguments above, the limitations presented do not require this hardness to be greater than the hardness of the soft polymer layer), wherein the carbon nanotube layer is provided on a surface of the hard polymer layer (Figure 3E shows the nanotube layer being on the surface of 304), and wherein the carbon nanotubes are embedded in an upper surface of the hard polymer layer in an irregular net form structure (Par. 0027 and Fig. 1 item 30 describes arranging the nanotubes in a disorderly manner)
M’Saad describes that the structure 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 nanotubes 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 two layers of M’Saad and the disorderly arrangement of the carbon nanotubes of M’Saad as the carbon nanotube arrangement of Kim because the multiple layers and 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 4, Kim in view of M’Saad teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and teaches that the hardness of the soft polymer layer can be between 30D and 80D (Kim Par. 0013). 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 in view of M’Saad teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection and discloses that the thickness of the pattern may be equal to or greater than 10 microns and equal to or less than 100 microns (Kim Par. 0010). Kim further describes 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 (Kim 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.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of M’Saad teaches that the carbon nanotubes have a diameter of 1 nm to 50 nm, and a length of 1 pm to 30 pm.
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). As both Kim and M’Saad describe carbon nanotubes 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.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of M’Saad teaches that each of the plurality of protrusions has a hemisphere-like shape (Kim Par. 0041 describes that the protruded pattern can have a circle shape which forms a hemisphere).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights