Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
3. Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian et al. (US 2015/0306731 A1) in view of Barton et al. (US 2022/0226959 A1, as evidenced by Hobbs et al. (US 2013/0071571 A1), and further in view of Weis et al. (US 2018/0071888 A1).
Qian et al. disclose a chemical mechanical polishing pad produced from an isocyanate terminated prepolymer, having an isocyanate content of 8.5 to 9.5 weight percent, and a curative blend comprising a polyol, corresponding to applicant’s high molecular weight polyol (b) (instant claim 1), and a difunctional compound, wherein 3,5-dimethylthio-2,4-toluenediamine and its isomers are disclosed (instant claim 1). See abstract and paragraphs [0011]-[0018], [0036], and [0037]. The disclosed curative components are used in amounts that overlap the claimed weight ratios of instant claim 1. See paragraphs [0014], [0026], and [0035]. Regarding instant claim 7, within paragraph [0040], the claimed active hydrogen group to isocyanate group ratio is disclosed. Regarding instant claim 8, the claimed density range is disclosed within paragraph [0042]. Regarding instant claim 9, microelements, corresponding to applicant’s claimed expanded polymeric microspheres, are disclosed within paragraph [0041]. Regarding instant claim 10, groove patterns, corresponding to those claimed, are disclosed within paragraphs [0028] and [0029].
4. Regarding the claimed prepolymer isocyanate content of 8.3 to 9.8 weight percent (instant claim 6), though the primary reference encompasses the majority of this range, it does not teach the claimed endpoints. Still, the claimed range was known to be useful for the production of isocyanate prepolymer to be used in the production of chemical mechanical polishing pads. This position is supported by the teaching within the abstract and paragraph [0006] of Weis et al. Accordingly, given this teaching and the closeness of the respectively disclosed ranges within the references, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to use the broader isocyanate content range to produce the composition of the primary reference, so as to arrive at the instant invention. Regarding applicant’s claimed curative component (a) of instant claim 1, though the primary reference discloses 3,5-dimethylthio-2,4-toluenediamine and its isomers, the primary reference fails to disclose curative (a), as amended. Still, the instantly claimed diamine curative was a known curing agent component for curing a prepolymer used to produce chemical mechanical polishing pads. This position is supported by the teachings within paragraph [0072] and Examples 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of Barton et al., wherein Ethacure 300 is used as a curing agent for polyisocyanate prepolymer compositions used to produce chemical mechanical polishing pads. Furthermore, as evidenced by paragraph [0793] of Hobbs et al., Ethacure 300 comprises 95-97% dimethylthiotoluene diamine and 2-3% monomethylthiotoluene diamine, which corresponds to instantly claimed/amended curative (a). Since it has been held that it is p as a curative within rima facie obvious to use a known compound for its known function, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to use this disclosed diamine as the diamine curative component of the primary reference, so to arrive at the instant invention.
5. Applicant has argued that the primary reference fails to disclose the sulfur-containing diamine curative blend, as amended. In response, the examiner has addressed this new limitation and explained why it would have been obvious to use the known blend as a curative component within the primary reference. Furthermore, the examiner has noted that the primary reference discloses the use of weight ratios of the curatives that correspond to those claimed. Furthermore, the examiner has reviewed the argued unexpected showings; however, the showings are deficient, because the examples are not commensurate in scope with the claims in terms of prepolymer and curative (b) components and the respective amounts of the curative components. Specifically, regarding the respective amounts of the curative components, while the claims set forth a weight ratio range of 3:10 to 4:10 for (b):(a), examples I-1, I-2, I-3, and I-4 have calculated weight ratios of 4.3:10, 6.1:10, 4.4:10, and 4.3:10, respectively. Accordingly, the argued examples are not representative of the claims.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rabon A Sergent whose telephone number is (571)272-1079. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Riviere Kelley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-1831. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RABON A SERGENT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights