DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the surface" in line 3 and “the center line” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Please note, claims 2-13 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the total area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the surface" in line 1, p. 5 and “the center line” in line 4, p. 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20100108708 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as PARK.
Regarding claim 1, PARK teaches a process for preparing a polishing sheet (paragraph 9, p. 5: to produce a sheet roll (the polishing pad forming sheet)), which comprises:
(1) preparing a polymer sheet comprising a polymer resin (Example 1, p. 7: polishing pad forming sheet made of a polyurethane resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric);
(2) forming a pattern on the surface of the polymer sheet (paragraph 9, p. 6: two or more grooves may be formed on the surface of the functional layer constituting the polishing pad forming sheet);
(3) winding the patterned polymer sheet to form a wound roll in a cylindrical shape (paragraph 9, p. 5: winding the polishing pad forming sheet in the form of a roll); and
(4) cutting the wound roll in a direction perpendicular to the center line (paragraph 9, p. 5: the polishing pad is manufactured by cutting the sheet at a central axis X of the raw sheet roll and cutting angle of 90°).
Regarding claim 4, PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 1, wherein in step (1), the polymer resin comprises a thermoplastic polymer resin (Example 1, p. 7: polishing pad forming sheet made of a polyurethane resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric).
Regarding claim 5, PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 4, wherein the thermoplastic polymer resin comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of polyurethane-based resin (Example 1, p. 7: polishing pad forming sheet made of a polyurethane resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric).
Regarding claim 14, PARK teaches a process for preparing a polishing pad (paragraph 1, p. 5: method of manufacturing polishing pad), which comprises:
providing a polishing sheet (paragraph 9, p. 5: the polishing pad forming sheet); and
forming a cushion layer on one side of as a polishing layer comprising the polishing sheet (paragraph 5, p. 6: the polishing pad forming sheet 1 is a base layer selected from a non-woven fabric and a synthetic resin sheet impregnated with a synthetic resin);
wherein the step of providing a polishing sheet comprises:
(1) preparing a polymer sheet comprising a polymer resin (Example 1, p. 7: polishing pad forming sheet made of a polyurethane resin-impregnated nonwoven fabric);
(2) forming a pattern on the surface of the polymer sheet (paragraph 9, p. 6: two or more grooves may be formed on the surface of the functional layer constituting the polishing pad forming sheet);
(3) winding the patterned polymer sheet to form a wound roll in a cylindrical shape (paragraph 9, p. 5: winding the polishing pad forming sheet in the form of a roll); and
(4) cutting the wound roll in a direction perpendicular to the center line (paragraph 9, p. 5: the polishing pad is manufactured by cutting the sheet at a central axis X of the raw sheet roll and cutting angle of 90°).
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.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220000098 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as KIM.
Regarding claim 6, PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 3, wherein, in step (2), the formation of a pattern comprises forming irregularities, grooves, pores, or penetrating holes on the surface of the polymer sheet (see PARK at paragraph 9, p. 6: two or more grooves may be formed on the surface of the functional layer constituting the polishing pad forming sheet), but fails to explicitly teach using a punching roller, a laser pulse, or both.
However, KIM discloses a polishing pad including a plurality of micro-pattern structures regularly arranged on the surface of the pad (see KIM at paragraph [0001]). KIM discloses that the upper pad including the regularly arranged micro-pattern structure can more easily predict the polishing properties due to the regularity, and the difference in polishing performance between products and with time is small (see KIM at paragraph [0009]). KIM teaches that the mixture forming the upper pad includes a urethane-based prepolymer (see KIM at paragraph [0040]). Additionally, KIM teaches forming a regular pattern on the surface of the hardened upper pad using a physicochemical surface processing technique including an abrasive tool, a cutting tool, laser or etching (see KIM at paragraph [0062]).
Since both PARK and KIM disclose forming polishing pad comprising pattern on the surface of urethane-based material (see PARK at paragraph 9, p. 6 and KIM at paragraph [0062]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success when forming pattern on the surface of the functional layer constituting the polishing pad forming sheet of PARK using laser as disclosed by KIM the since KIM explicitly teaches forming a regular pattern on the surface of the hardened upper pad using a physicochemical surface processing technique including an abrasive tool, a cutting tool, laser or etching (see KIM at paragraph [0062]).
The rationale for such modification would have been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP §2143(I) (Exemplary rationale (A)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Chu et al. (TW 201429629 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as CHU.
Regarding claim 11, PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 1. While PARK discloses that the sheet roll is cut using a cutting tool such as a knife (see PARK at paragraph 11, p. 6), PARK fails to explicitly teach wherein, in step (4), the cutting step is carried out at room temperature using at least one selected from the group consisting of a diamond blade, a wire saw, and a multi wire saw.
However, CHU discloses a cutting device that can continuously cut an abrasive layer having a predetermined thickness (see CHU at paragraph 6, p. 5). CHU teaches that the cutting mechanism is exemplified by a fixed cutter, but the invention is not limited thereto, and a reciprocating cutter, a reciprocating wire saw, mobile cutters, loop-operated wire saws, laser cutting tools, or other suitable cutting tools may also be used (see CHU at paragraph 8, p. 6). Additionally, CHU teaches that the production of the polishing pad by the method of manufacturing the polishing pad of the disclosed invention can improve the production efficiency of the polishing pad (see CHU at paragraph 2, p. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the process of PARK by utilizing the cutting devise, i.e., wire saw, as disclosed by CHU, since CHU explicitly teaches that the production of the polishing pad by the method of manufacturing the polishing pad of the disclosed invention can improve the production efficiency of the polishing pad (see CHU at paragraph 2, p. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of PARK by utilizing a cutting devise comprising wire saw disclosed by CHU in order to improve the production efficiency of the polishing pad.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK with evidence from Polyurethane Durometer_Durometer Hardness retrieved from https://gallaghercorp.com/polyurethane-durometer-hardness/ on 08/27/2025.
Regarding claim 12, PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 1, wherein the polishing sheet has a circular longitudinal cross-section, a diameter of 300 mm or more, a thickness of 1.5mm to 5 mm (Example 1, p. 7: the thickness is 2 mm; a circle having a diameter of 500 mm); PARK teaches thickness and diameter which are within the claimed ranges. While PARK is silent with respect to hardness of 10 Shore D to 90 Shore D, PARK disclosed polishing pad forming sheet made of polyurethane resin-impregnated fabric (see PARK at Example 1, p. 7). Furthermore, the Shore D hardness of polyurethanes is evidenced from the disclosure of Polyurethane Durometer_Durometer Hardness describing the typical urethane hardness from 55 Shore A to 75 Shore D (see Polyurethane Durometer_Durometer Hardness, p. 2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated the Shore D hardness of the polishing sheet disclosed by PARK to overlap with the disclosed range based on PARK’s disclosure that the polishing pad forming sheet made of polyurethane resin-impregnated fabric (see PARK at Example 1, p. 7).
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soelch et al. (US 20050164619 A1), hereinafter referred to as SOELCH, in view of PARK.
Regarding claim 1, SOELCH teaches a process for preparing a polishing sheet (see SOELCH at paragraph [0010]: method of forming sheet abrasives), which comprises:
(1) preparing a polymer sheet comprising a polymer resin (see SOELCH at paragraph [0006]: a sheet abrasive that includes … a thermoplastic polymer layer);
(3) winding the patterned polymer sheet to form a wound roll in a cylindrical shape (see SOELCH at paragraph [0031]: the sheets that can be conveniently wound onto rolls).
But SOELCH fails to explicitly teach (2) forming a pattern on the surface of the polymer sheet or (4) cutting the wound roll in a direction perpendicular to the center line.
However, PARK teaches producing a sheet roll by winding the polishing pad forming sheet in the form of a roll; the polishing pad is manufactured by cutting the sheet to have a thickness of 0.5 to 5 mm at a central axis of the raw sheet roll and a cutting angle of 90° (see PARK at paragraph 9, p. 5). PARK also teaches that two or more grooves may be formed on the surface of the functional layer constituting the polishing pad forming sheet at regular intervals in the longitudinal direction of the sheet (see PARK at paragraph 9, p. 6). Additionally, PARK discloses that since the disclosed manufactured polishing pad forms a structure in which a circular or elliptical polishing layer is repeatedly arranged in a concentric manner, the discharge performance of the slurry during the polishing process is greatly improved (see PARK at paragraph 7, p. 7); and that the polishing efficiency is uniformly expressed throughout the polishing process (see PARK at paragraph 5, p. 7).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of including forming the groves on the surface of the polishing sheet and cutting the sheet a central axis of the raw sheet roll and a cutting angle of 90°, as disclosed by PARK, in the method of SOELCH since PARK explicitly teaches since the disclosed manufactured polishing pad forms a structure in which a circular or elliptical polishing layer is repeatedly arranged in a concentric manner, the discharge performance of the slurry during the polishing process is greatly improved (see PARK at paragraph 7, p. 7); and that the polishing efficiency is uniformly expressed throughout the polishing process (see PARK at paragraph 5, p. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of SOELCH by including forming the groves on the surface of the polishing sheet and cutting the sheet a central axis of the raw sheet roll and a cutting angle of 90°, as disclosed by PARK, in order to uniformly express the polishing efficiency throughout the polishing process.
Regarding claim 2, SOELCH as modified by PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 1, wherein, in step (1), the preparation of a polymer sheet comprises:
(1-1) heating and melting the polymer resin (see SOELCH at paragraph [0031]: as the thermoplastic polymer(s) move within the device, they begin to melt into a softer flowing material);
(1-2) extruding the molten polymer resin to form a sheet (see SOELCH at paragraph [0031]: the molten thermoplastic polymer mixture is forced through the die, yielding a polymer extrudate; the sheet abrasive); and
(1-3) adjusting the thickness of the sheet at least once using a roller (see SOELCH at paragraph [0031]: additional finishing steps may include removing excess water using an air blower and/or threading the extrudate through pinch rolls to control its width or diameter).
Regarding claim 3, SOELCH as modified by PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 2, which, in step (1-3), further comprises subjecting the sheet to a first thermal treatment at a temperature between the melting temperature (Tm) and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin before the use of the roller (see SOELCH at paragraph [0033]: orientation generally involves stretching or compressing the sheet abrasive at a temperature above the polymer's glass transition temperature, but below its crystalline melting temperature).
Regarding claim 9, SOELCH as modified by PARK teaches the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 1, wherein, before the polymer sheet on which pattern has been formed (as modified by PARK, see rejection of claim 1 above spanning paragraphs on pages 6-8) is wound in step (3), an adhesive layer is attached to one side of the polymer sheet, or an adhesive spray is injected, to be wound together (see SOELCH at paragraph [0009]: the sheet abrasive can contain a second layer, such as a polymer layer, adjacent to thermoplastic polymer layer; an adhesive layer may be disposed between the thermoplastic polymer layer and the second layer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach all the limitations of claims 7-8, 10 and 13, such as:
the process further comprises subjecting the polymer sheet to a second thermal treatment at a temperature between the melting temperature, Tm and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin before the formation of a pattern (claim 7);
the process further comprises gelating the polymer sheet before the polymer sheet on which a pattern has been formed is wound, wherein the gelation is carried out by a third thermal treatment at a temperature between the melting temperature, Tm and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin before the formation of a pattern (claim 8);
the process further comprises subjecting the wound roll to a forth thermal treatment at a temperature between the melting temperature (Tm) and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the polymer resin before the formation of a pattern (claim 10);
the process for preparing a polishing sheet of claim 6, wherein, as the polymer sheet on which a pattern has been formed is wound, an induced pattern is formed on the surface of the polishing sheet, and the total area of the induced pattern is 30% to 70% of the total surface area of the polishing sheet (claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731