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
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the spiral groove” (claim 1, line 26) should be changed to --the at least one spiral groove--;
“the spiral groove” (claim 4, lines 3-4) should be changed to --the at least one spiral groove--;
“the spiral groove” (claim 6, line 3) should be changed to --the at least one spiral groove--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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 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.
Hung in view of Burke and Cook
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201217103 A1 (“Hung”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026) in view of US 5645469 A (“Burke”) and US 20170274496 A1 (“Cook”).
Hung pertains to a polishing pad (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3A-B, 4A-B). Burke pertains to a polishing pad and polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9). Cook pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses a polishing pad (Figs. 4A-B, polishing pad 200) comprising
a polishing layer having a circular polishing surface (Figs. 4A-B, polishing layer 202 has a circular polishing surface as shown),
wherein the polishing surface comprises a central region corresponding to a range of 0 to 10% of a radius of the polishing surface from a center of the polishing surface, and a peripheral edge region corresponding to a range of 90 to 100% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the polishing surface (Figs. 4A-B (see annotated Fig. 4B below), central region and peripheral edge region as shown; see discussion below re recited ranges),
the polishing layer comprises:
at least one spiral groove or concentric grooves including a plurality of annular grooves arranged concentrically, the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves being disposed spanning from the central region to the peripheral edge region (Figs. 4A-B, annular concentric grooves 214 spanning from the central region to the peripheral edge region);
and radial grooves including at least two line segment-shaped grooves extending from the central region toward the peripheral edge region (Figs. 4A-B, radial, line segment-shaped grooves 212 spanning from the central region toward the peripheral edge region),
a center of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves, and a center of the radial grooves are present in the central region (Figs. 4A-B, a center of the concentric grooves 214 and a center of the radial grooves 212 are present in the central region ; see § 112(b) rejection),
the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves, and the radial grooves are each a portion recessed from the polishing surface (Figs. 4A-B; ¶¶ 0018, 0020, 0023, 0036-0038, concentric grooves 214 and radial grooves 212 are recessed from the polishing surface (described as “trench”)),
the line segment-shaped grooves have an average length of 30 to 65% of the radius of the polishing surface...and a second end portion in a region at a distance of 35 to 70% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the radial grooves (Figs. 4A-B; ¶¶ 0013-0014 (referencing Figs. 2A-B), radial grooves 212 have the recited average length and location of a second end portion (“the radius D1 of the first radius area of the grinding layer 202 is between 30% and 70% of the radius D”)),
and wherein a cross-sectional area Sa (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the line segment-shaped grooves in a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the line segment-shaped grooves, and a cross-sectional area Sb (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves in a direction perpendicular to a tangential direction of the [at least one] spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0 (Figs. 4A-B, the cross-sectional areas of radial grooves 212 and concentric grooves 214 as shown; see discussion below re “satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0”).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Peripheral edge region”)][AltContent: textbox (“Central region”)]
PNG
media_image1.png
766
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hung Fig. 1 (annotated)
Hung does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the polishing surface comprises a central region corresponding to a range of 0 to 10% of a radius of the polishing surface from a center of the polishing surface, and a peripheral edge region corresponding to a range of 90 to 100% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the polishing surface,
the line segment-shaped grooves have an average length of 30 to 65% of the radius of the polishing surface, and have a first end portion in a region at a distance of 5 to 10% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the radial grooves and a second end portion in a region at a distance of 35 to 70% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the radial grooves,
and wherein a cross-sectional area Sa (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the line segment-shaped grooves in a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the line segment-shaped grooves, and a cross-sectional area Sb (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves in a direction perpendicular to a tangential direction of the [at least one] spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0.
However, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious this claim.
Burke discloses:
wherein the polishing surface comprises a central region corresponding to a range of 0 to 10% of a radius of the polishing surface from a center of the polishing surface, and a peripheral edge region corresponding to a range of 90 to 100% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the polishing surface (Figs. 1-2; 4:32-5:15, 7:36-53, the “central region” (R1) and “peripheral edge region” (beyond R3) with the recited radius ranges are disclosed, “As exemplary dimensions, the polishing pads have...a diameter of 32 inches, the outer radius is spaced from the outer circumferential edge by 1 to 6 inches, the middle radius is spaced from the outer circumferential edge by 7 to 10 inches and spaced from the outer radius by 4 inches, the inner radius is spaced from the radial center or rotation axis (A1, A2) by 1 inch”),
the line segment-shaped grooves have an average length of 30 to 65% of the radius of the polishing surface, and have a first end portion in a region at a distance of 5 to 10% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the radial grooves and a second end portion in a region at a distance of 35 to 70% of the radius of the polishing surface from the center of the radial grooves (Figs. 1-2; 4:32-5:15, 7:36-53, radial grooves 20 have the recited average length and location of the first end portion and the second end portion),
and wherein a cross-sectional area Sa (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the line segment-shaped grooves in a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the line segment-shaped grooves, and a cross-sectional area Sb (mm2), which is an average cross-sectional area of cross sections of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves in a direction perpendicular to a tangential direction of the [at least one] spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0 (Figs. 1-2; 4:32-5:15, 7:36-53, disclosed cross-sectional areas of the radial grooves 20 and concentric grooves 26 include: “the radially extending tapered channels have a maximum width (W1) 0.25 to 1.5 inches...a maximum depth (D1, D3) of 20 to 90 mils...the circumferential grooves have a width (W2, W4) of 10 mils, a pitch of 30 mils and a depth (D2, D4) of 15 mils”; see discussion below re “satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Burke and Cook with Hung by modifying the radial size of the central region and the peripheral edge region, the location of the first end portion and second end portion of the radial grooves and their radial length, and the cross-sectional area of the radial and concentric grooves (including the width and/or depth). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would have been obvious to try various combinations of minor modifications of the known radial and concentric grooves on the polishing pad (e.g., as disclosed by Hung Figs. 2A-B, 3A-B, 4A-B; Burke Figs. 1-4; 4:32-5:15, 7:36-53; Cook Figs. 1-13; ¶ 0060; Tables 1 and 2 (page 5)) in order to determine (i.e., optimize) the configuration that yields the best or desired performance under certain operating conditions, where the best or desired performance may include the fastest polishing speed and/or the best conservation of slurry (Burke 2:40-58, 6:15-33, the radial grooves help to direct slurry to the outer radius of the polishing pad and decrease the amount of slurry that is slung off the polishing pad). For example, this optimization may be determined by experimentation using different pad configurations (see Cook ¶¶ 0060-0073, Tables 1 and 2 (page 5)). Examiner notes that the radial sizes of the central region and peripheral edge region as claimed are related to the radial groove’s first end location, second end location, and radial length; thus, modifying the radial groove’s first end location, second end location, and radial length (as taught by Burke) would also modify the radial sizes of the central region and peripheral edge region.
With respect to the “satisfy 0.1 ≤ Sb/Sa < 1.0” limitation, Hung does not provide any dimensions relating to the width or depth of the radial and concentric grooves. However, Burke and Cook disclose various widths and depths for the radial and concentric grooves (Burke Figs. 1-2; 4:32-5:15, 7:36-53; Cook ¶ 0060; Tables 1 and 2 (page 5)). For example, using the following disclosed dimensions: radial groove width (“Wa”) (60 mil per Cook) and depth (20 mil per Burke), concentric groove width (“Wb”) (20 mil per Cook) and depth (30 mil per Cook), the ratio Sb/Sa is 0.5, which satisfies the limitation. As stated above, this combination of radial and concentric groove dimensions would have been obvious to try in light of the disclosed ranges.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this Sb/Sa ratio range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, 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, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. The limitation “wherein 0.25 ≤ Sb/Sa < 0.85 is satisfied” is rendered obvious by the Hung/Burke/Cook combination for the same reasons discussed for claim 1. Specifically, in the example stated for claim 1, the ratio Sb/Sa is 0.5.
Regarding claim 3, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. The limitation “wherein 0.44 ≤ Sb/Sa < 0.80 is satisfied” is rendered obvious by the Hung/Burke/Cook combination for the same reasons discussed for claim 1. Specifically, in the example stated for claim 1, the ratio Sb/Sa is 0.5.
Regarding claim 4, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. The limitation “wherein a groove width Wa (mm), which is an average width of the line segment-shaped grooves, and a groove width Wb (mm), which is an average width of the [at least one] spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.1 ≤ Wb/Wa < 1.0” is rendered obvious by the Hung/Burke/Cook combination for the same reasons discussed for claim 1. Specifically, in the example stated for claim 1, the ratio Wb/Wa would be 0.333.
Additionally, absent a teaching as to criticality of this Wb/Wa ratio range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, 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, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 13 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 4, except as depending from claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. The limitation “wherein a groove width Wb (mm), which is an average width of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves, and an average groove pitch P (mm) of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.02 ≤ Wb/P ≤ 0.25” is rendered obvious by the Hung/Burke/Cook combination for the same reasons discussed for claim 1, with the additional element of concentric groove pitch (“P”) (Cook ¶ 0060, “120 mil pitch”) being an additional factor to vary. Specifically, in the example stated for claim 1, the ratio Wb/P would be 0.167.
Additionally, absent a teaching as to criticality of this Wb/P ratio range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, 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, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 14 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 5, except as depending from claim 13.
Regarding claim 6, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. The limitation “wherein a groove width Wa (mm), which is an average width of the line segment-shaped grooves, a groove width Wb (mm), which is an average width of the [at least one] spiral groove or the concentric grooves, and an average groove pitch P (mm) of the at least one spiral groove or the concentric grooves, satisfy 0.2 ≤ {Wb2/(P×Wa)} × 100 ≤ 25” is rendered obvious by the Hung/Burke/Cook combination for the same reasons discussed for claim 1, with the additional element of concentric groove pitch (“P”) (Cook ¶ 0060, “120 mil pitch”) being an additional factor to vary. Specifically, in the example stated for claim 1, the value {Wb2/(P×Wa)} × 100 would be 5.555.
Additionally, absent a teaching as to criticality of this {Wb2/(P×Wa)} × 100 value range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, 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, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 15 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 6, except as depending from claim 14.
Regarding claim 8, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung further discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises the concentric grooves (Figs. 4A-B, annular concentric grooves 214 spanning from the central region to the peripheral edge region).
Regarding claim 9, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung further discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (¶ 0011, “The abrasive layer 202 is composed of a polymer substrate such as polyester, polyether, polyurethane, polycarbonate, polyacrylate, polybutadiene, or other thermosetting resins (thermosetting resin) or thermoplastic resin (thermoplastic resin).”).
Claim 16 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 9, except as depending from claim 15.
Hung in view of Burke, Cook, and Feng
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201217103 A1 (“Hung”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026) in view of US 5645469 A (“Burke”), US 20170274496 A1 (“Cook”), and US 20080003935 A1 (“Feng”).
Hung pertains to a polishing pad (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3A-B, 4A-B). Burke pertains to a polishing pad and polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9). Cook pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13). Feng pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung, Burke, and Cook do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer comprises the at least one spiral groove. However, the Hung/Burke/Cook/Feng combination makes obvious this claim.
Feng discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises the at least one spiral groove (Fig. 7; ¶ 0026, spiral groove 71 with radial grooves 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Feng with the Hung/Burke/Cook combination by using a spiral groove instead of concentric grooves. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the use of a spiral groove is “designed to suck back a portion of the abrasive fluid as the grinding pad... rotates to provide the abrasive fluid with a different flow field distribution” (Hung Figs. 2A-B; ¶ 0016). Examiner notes that although Hung describes a different type of spiral grooves (i.e., the use of spiral grooves 212 with concentric grooves 210), a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cited Hung teaching would apply to other types of spiral grooves, including the spiral grooves disclosed in Feng. Examiner also notes that Cook discusses the use of spiral grooves in the prior art (Cook ¶ 0005). With respect to the geometry of the spiral grooves, including the cross-sectional area, width, depth, groove pitch, and the recited relationships (i.e., ratios and values in claims 1-6), Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply the same geometric principles for concentric grooves (in claims 1-6) to spiral grooves because it would be obvious to try (and optimize) as discussed in claims 1-6, where the use of spiral grooves instead of concentric grooves is an additional factor to vary.
Hung in view of Burke, Cook, and Oshita
Claims 10-12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201217103 A1 (“Hung”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026) in view of US 5645469 A (“Burke”), US 20170274496 A1 (“Cook”), and WO 2019216279 A1 (“Oshita”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026).
Hung pertains to a polishing pad (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3A-B, 4A-B). Burke pertains to a polishing pad and polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9). Cook pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13). Oshita pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; pp. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung, Burke, and Cook do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer is a non-foam. However, the Hung/Burke/Cook/Oshita combination makes obvious this claim.
Oshita discloses wherein the polishing layer is a non-foam (pp. 7-8, polishing pad with grooves (including spiral or concentric grooves) has a polishing layer made of non-foam thermoplastic polyurethane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Oshita with the Hung/Burke/Cook combination by modifying the polishing layer to be made of a non-foam thermoplastic polyurethane because “However, the polyurethane is preferably a non-foam from the viewpoint that the polishing characteristics hardly change and stable polishing can be realized. For example, in the case of a polishing layer using polyurethane foam produced by casting foam curing, the foaming structure varies, and thus the polishing characteristics such as flatness and planarization efficiency tend to fluctuate” (as compared to foam thermoplastic polyurethane) (Oshita p. 8).
Claim 17 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 10, except as depending from claim 16.
Regarding claim 11, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung, Burke, and Cook do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer has a JIS D hardness of 45 to 90. However, the Hung/Burke/Cook/Oshita combination makes obvious this claim.
Oshita discloses wherein the polishing layer has a JIS D hardness of 45 to 90 (p. 7, polishing pad with grooves (including spiral or concentric grooves) has a polishing layer with a JIS D hardness of 60 or more, or 65 or more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Oshita with the Hung/Burke/Cook combination by modifying the polishing layer to have the recited hardness because “The hardness of each polishing layer is preferably 60 or more, more preferably 65 or more in terms of JIS-D hardness. When the JIS-D hardness is too low, the followability of the polishing pad to the surface to be polished becomes high and local flatness tends to be lowered.” (Oshita p. 8).
Regarding claim 12, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Hung, Burke, and Cook do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer has a density of 1.00 to 1.20 g/cm3. However, the Hung/Burke/Cook/Oshita combination makes obvious this claim.
Oshita discloses wherein the polishing layer has a density of 1.00 to 1.20 g/cm3 (pp. 7-8, polishing pad with grooves (including spiral or concentric grooves) has a polishing layer with a density of 1.0 g/cm3 or more, or 1.1 g/cm3 or more, or 1.2 g/cm3 or more).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Oshita with the Hung/Burke/Cook combination by modifying the polishing layer to have the recited density because “In the case of non-foamed thermoplastic polyurethane, the density of the molded body is preferably 1.0 g/cm3 or more, more preferably 1.1 g/cm3 or more, and particularly preferably 1.2 g/cm3 or more. When the density of the molded body of thermoplastic polyurethane is too low, the polishing layer becomes too soft and local flatness tends to decrease. Further, as the thermoplastic polyurethane, non-foamed thermoplastic polyurethane is particularly preferable from the viewpoint of excellent polishing stability due to high rigidity and material homogeneity.” (Oshita p. 8).
Claim 18 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 12, except as depending from claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, the Hung/Burke/Cook combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 17 as applied above. Hung further discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises the concentric grooves (Figs. 4A-B, annular concentric grooves 214 spanning from the central region to the peripheral edge region).
Hung in view of Burke, Cook, Oshita, and Feng
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over TW 201217103 A1 (“Hung”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026) in view of US 5645469 A (“Burke”), US 20170274496 A1 (“Cook”), WO 2019216279 A1 (“Oshita”) (citations are to the translation filed 02/13/2026), and US 20080003935 A1 (“Feng”).
Hung pertains to a polishing pad (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3A-B, 4A-B). Burke pertains to a polishing pad and polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9). Cook pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13). Oshita pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; pp. 1-2). Feng pertains to a polishing pad (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19, the Hung/Burke/Cook/Oshita combination makes obvious polishing pad of claim 17 as applied above. Oshita discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises the spiral groove (p. 7, polishing pad with grooves (including spiral or concentric grooves)). Further, Feng discloses wherein the polishing layer comprises the [at least one] spiral groove (Fig. 7; ¶ 0026, spiral groove 71 with radial grooves 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Oshita and/or Feng with the Hung/Burke/Cook/Oshita combination by using a spiral groove instead of concentric grooves for the same reasons discussed for claim 7.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – Applicant’s amendments to the drawings are acceptable.
Claims – The objections to claims withdrawn in part and sustained in part (see objections above). In light of Applicant’s claim amendment, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As an initial note, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Burke, contending that the inner radius (R1) portion of Burke is part of the concentric or radial grooves (Reply at 11). It is not—the inner radius (R1) portion is not described as being part of these grooves; it is considered a separate portion of the polishing pad. Even so, the § 103 rejection of claim 1 does not rely on the bodily incorporation of Burke’s grooves into Hung. Instead, Burke and Cook are relied upon for their teachings regarding the size (including length, width, depth, and cross-sectional area) and configuration of their disclosed radial and concentric grooves (including position and pitch/spacing). These teachings of Burke and Cook inform a person of ordinary skill in the art of the obvious modifications to Hung’s radial and concentric grooves proposed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant should note that the obviousness question is not whether a combination was obvious to the inventor or Applicant but whether the combination was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. The KSR standard for a person of ordinary skill is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at that time and addressed by the application can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21; MPEP § 2145(X)(C).
Further, Applicant’s examples (Reply at 11-12) of improved polishing performance are not persuasive as these are ordinary benefits that would inevitably flow from optimizing the groove configuration of a polishing pad for a particular set of operating parameters and conditions, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Actual evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, skepticism of others, copying) would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to polishing pads having similar configurations as the disclosed invention.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights