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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison (US 8657653) in view of Moyer (US 20200353586).
Regarding claim 1, Allison discloses a polishing pad (pad 200, col 5-6 lines 66-9, Figs 2A-2B shown below) for chemical mechanical polishing comprising:
a polishing layer having a top polishing surface, a bottom surface and a thickness (polishing layer 202 having a top surface 204, a bottom surface 206 and a thickness in between the top and bottom surfaces as shown in Fig 2A, col 5-6 lines 66-9),
wherein the polishing layer comprises a window region (window region 208, col 5-6 lines 66-9, Figs 2A-2B),
wherein the window region comprises a transparent window that has an exposed top surface and an exposed bottom surface to enable light to transmit through the polishing pad in the window region (the window region 208 is a transparent window with an exposed top surface 214 and an exposed bottom surface 218 which enables light to transmit through, col 6 lines 33-49 Fig 2A),
wherein the exposed top surface of the transparent window is recessed from the top polishing surface (top window surface 214 is recessed from top polishing surface 204 as shown in Fig 2A),
wherein the transparent window extending from the recess region to the bottom surface of the polishing pad, the window region further comprises a peripheral portion of the polishing material in contact with side edges of the transparent window (the window region is in contact with the polishing material via peripheral portion 222 as shown in Fig 2A, col 6 lines 9-22),
wherein the peripheral portion of polishing material has a top surface that is recessed from the top surface of the top polishing surface (as shown in Fig 2A, the peripheral portion 222 has a top surface recessed from top surface 204), and
wherein the transparent window is non-porous and wherein a portion of the top surface of the peripheral portion adjacent to the transparent window is coplanar with the top surface of the transparent window and wherein the exposed bottom surface of the transparent window is coplanar with the bottom surface of the polishing layer (in col 6 lines 60-62, it is explained that the transparent window is impermeable to the slurry used in the CMP operation (non-porous interpreted as being impermeable to liquid); as seen in Fig 2A below, the top surface of 222 is coplanar with the top surface 214 of window 208 and the bottom surface of 222 is coplanar with the bottom surface 218 of the window 208).
PNG
media_image1.png
122
531
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
353
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Allison fails to disclose wherein the polishing layer comprises porous polishing material.
Moyer is also concerned with CMP polishing pads and teaches the polishing layer comprises porous polishing material ([0026] explains that Fig 3 illustrates a portion of a polishing pad 102 with a porous structure in order to improve planarization uniformity and pad lifetime).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the pad material of Allison as porous material, as taught by Moyer for the advantages taught by Moyer above. .
Regarding claim 3, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the top polishing surface comprises grooves (grooves seen in top surface 204 in Figs 2A and 2B).
Regarding claim 4, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the grooves intersect with in the peripheral portion of the window region (as seen in Fig 2B above, the grooves intersect with the peripheral portion of the window region).
Regarding claim 6, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Allison fails to disclose the peripheral portion has a width greater than or equal to a thickness of the transparent window.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the peripheral portion having a width greater than or equal to a thickness of the transparent window would result in a difference in function of the Allison device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the peripheral portion of the Allison device would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed peripheral portion width being greater than or equal to a thickness of the transparent window. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the peripheral portion’s width to be greater than or equal to a thickness of the transparent window as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Allison fails to disclose the peripheral portion has a width greater than a thickness of the transparent window.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the peripheral portion having a width greater than a thickness of the transparent window would result in a difference in function of the Allison device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the peripheral portion of the Allison device would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed peripheral portion width being greater than a thickness of the transparent window. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the peripheral portion’s width to be greater than a thickness of the transparent window as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison (US 8657653) in view of Moyer (US 20200353586) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20250033162).
Regarding claim 2, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Allison fails to disclose there are no chemical bonds between the transparent window and the polishing layer.
Lin is also concerned with polishing pads and teaches there are no chemical bonds between the transparent window and the polishing layer (window 220 may be adhered to the pad via adhesive 230 [0038] Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the chemical bonding method used in Allison for the adhesive bonding method used in Lin. Different bonding methods are known to be beneficial in different scenarios, in the art. Leading to the predictable result of an affixed window region within the polishing pad. Similarly, in [0037] of Lin it is explained that the various layers of the pad can be adhered together by any techniques known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Allison, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Allison fails to disclose a sub-pad adjacent to the polishing layer and opposite from the top polishing surface wherein the sub-pad includes comprises an opening in the window region to enable light to transmit through the transparent window.
Lin is also concerned with polishing pads and teaches a sub-pad adjacent to the polishing layer and opposite from the top polishing surface wherein the sub-pad includes comprises an opening in the window region to enable light to transmit through the transparent window (subpad defined as foam layer 240 and subpad 260 which are adjacent to the polishing layer and opposite from the top polishing surface and the subpad has an opening in the window region which would allow light to transmit through the window, [0036] Fig 3 and claims 11, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the subpad with a cutout of Lin to the polishing pad of Allison in order to provide the polishing pad with a base that still allows the transparent window region to perform as intended and allow light to transmit through the window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/JOHN MICHAEL LARSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights