DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claims 1-2, “the density” in line 3, “the range” in line 4, “the variation” in line 5, “the surface” in line 6, and “the area” in line 8 each possess insufficient antecedent basis. The first time a term is set forth, it should be preceded by “a” or “an” and each subsequent time stated should be preceded by “the” or “said” (or an equivalent term).
Also, it is unclear what DM is standing for. Why does the claim not just state the density is 0.36 to 0.70 g/cm3 because as claimed it seems like a simple substitution? A possible guess is that it intended to stand for Density of the (constituent) Material, wherein for instance polyurethane can change density depending on the monomers used is estimated to be about 1.1~1.25 g/cm3. Therefore, for polyurethane, the range as claimed would be 0.396~0.875 g/cm3. But that is unclear, so therefore the claim will be interpreted in either manner as set forth below.
Finally, the phrases “an opening part diameter based on the air bubbles formed in the surface” and “an area of a portion surrounded by an opening based on the air bubbles formed in the surface” are confusing individually and together. It is unclear how each are different, what they are describing, and how they are measured.
They seem to be singular but then have variations/standard deviations. Maybe they should be claimed as pluralities.
The term “opening” is set forth twice but is not clear
It seems either/each could be one or more of three possibilities based on the specification:
The opening diameter to a pore having a distinct bottom.
The opening diameter to a pore having formed more as a void (not having a distinct bottom).
The land area between pore openings or another opening therein.
It seems based on the specification that the former phrase would be directed to (i) and/or (ii), likely both (i) and (ii) based on the specification as set forth [PGPub, 0034-0039], and the latter would be directed to (i) and/or (ii) and/or (iii), likely (iii) based on the specification as set forth [PGPub, 0034-0039]. Applicant is asked to clarify which of these each portion of the claim is directed to more clearly and in such a way that measuring a standard deviation of these features is clear.
Claims 3-4 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyazawa et al. (JP 2009-066675 A) (hereinafter “Miyazawa”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Miyazawa teaches a polishing pad of polyurethane having a bimodal distribution of circular-shaped (spherical) pores [0019] at the surface forming a first larger opening part based on each larger pore (All Figs. [4a]) and a second smaller area surrounded by an opening based on the smaller pores (All Figs. [4b]) comprising a first and second size, each comprising a distribution such that the first sizes fall within a range comprising an average value of 4a ± σ1 (first standard deviation) and the second sizes fall within a range comprising an average value of 4b ± σ2 (second standard deviation) [0019], wherein an example comprising an upper surface part comprising a density of 0.65 g/m3 (0.51~59 DM), a first average diameter/value of 70 µm with a standard deviation of 13 µm, and a second average diameter/value of 35 µm with a standard deviation of 5 µm, wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I. Alternatively, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirao et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0224467 A1) (hereinafter “Hirao”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Hirao teaches a polyurethane foam [0477-0478, 0481, 0485] usable as a polishing pad [0002], comprising at the surface a plurality of spherical pores defining opening diameters and the opening diameters having defined between them a plurality of lands, the lands optionally having one or more through-holes formed therethrough [0377-0379], wherein the spherical pore have an average diameter of less than 20 µm and an average diameter of the through holes and the average diameter of the through holes is 5 µm [0087, 0091, Fig. 5], wherein in Example A-3 having a density of 0.455 g/cm3 (0.364~0.414 DM) an average diameter of a spherical cell is 3.4 µm with a standard deviation of 0.4 µm and a standard deviation of pore diameters of through holes is 0.4 µm with a standard deviation is 0.3 µm [Table 1], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I. Alternatively, 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (JP 2020-075306 A) (hereinafter “Kinoshita”), optionally in view of Fukuda et al. (JP 2009-214222 A) (hereinafter “Fukuda”) AND/OR Ahn et al. (KR 2010-0068653 A) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kinoshita teaches a polishing pad for meeting the conditions of both flatness and surface quality [0012-0013], comprising a polyurethane resin having a plurality of spherical bubbles/pores adjacent and open to the surface and having an optimal average diameter of 80 µm or less that is substantially uniform in size and distribution [0017, 0025, 0031, 0053, Fig. 3], wherein in the areas between the holes/openings are preferably minimized and uniformly distributed by the closely packed bubble structure [0025, 0028-0031], primarily by adjusting the amount of foam stabilizer used in relation to the blowing agent of water [0025, 0042] and homogeneously mixing and then inducing foaming to a dispersion comprising the polyisocyanate, polyol, a curing agent/catalyst, a blowing agent, and the foam stabilizer provides a more uniform/homogenous mixture than foaming the prepolymer via the foaming agent alone [0033-0046], wherein the density of the constituent material is 0.22 to 0.36 DM g/cm3 [0014, 0024], which meets the lower end of the currently claimed density, therefore at overlapping value 0.36 DM g/cm3 due to the composition, structure, and process of making thereof being substantially identical, the uniform size bubble diameter and the standard deviation thereof and the approximated minimal and uniform region area and standard deviation thereof should inherently be within or substantially near the claimed ranges.
Alternatively, in the event that the standard deviation(s) and/or the pore size does not inherently fall into the above range:
Fukuda teaches a polishing pad comprising polyurethane foam having a specific gravity (density in relation to water) of preferably 0.3 to 0.5 [0076], having an average cell opening diameter of preferably 35 to 100 µm, and particularly preferably 40 to 80 µm [0075], wherein a standard deviation of the air bubble diameter is preferably 13 µm or less, more preferably 11 µm or less [0087], wherein a lower variation of air bubbles on the polishing surface improves stability of polishing speed [0013, 0072].
AND/OR
Ahn teaches a polishing pad comprising a polyurethane foam [pg. 2] comprising a plurality of spherical bubbles, the bubbles forming pores at the surface having an average pore size of 5 to 100 µm, preferably 10 to 70 µm, more preferably 15 to 40 µm, wherein below 100 µm prevents defects in the polished wafer, wherein there are no large pores more than three times the average pore size and a standard deviation of the total pore size should be about one-third of the average value to ensure uniform pore distribution [pg. 11], wherein as applied to Kinoshita provides a standard deviation of 26.7 µm or less (⅓*80 µm or less), and as applied to Kinoshita/Fukuda/Ahn provides a standard deviation range of about 5 to 26.7 µm (⅓*15~80 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a uniformly sized and distributed air bubble openings at the surface providing uniformly sized and distributed minimized regions defined therebetween with an opening diameter and standard deviations of both the sizes and approximate areas thereof within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a standard of uniformity for the bubbles and minimized lands therebetween, wherein it improves stability in polishing speed [Fukuda] and/or ensures uniform pore distribution.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2010-173089 A) (hereinafter “Kinoshita”), optionally in view of Fukuda et al. (JP 2009-214222 A) (hereinafter “Fukuda”) AND/OR Ahn et al. (KR 2010-0068653 A) (hereinafter “Ahn”), and optionally evidenced by or further in view of Kinoshita (JP 2020-075306 A) (hereinafter “Kinoshita”).
Regarding claims 1-4, Nishizawa teaches a polishing pad comprising a plurality of bubbles/pores, wherein variation in bubble/pore size is suppressed [0095-0096], wherein an uncured dispersion comprising each of the ingredients of polyisocyanate, polyol, curing agents/catalysts, blowing agent, and foam stabilized is homogeneously mixed and foamed [0015, 0054, 0085-0087], wherein the foaming agent is water in an amount of 0.01 to 0.5 wt% [0078] and a foam stabilizer, preferably silicone-based, in an amount of 5 wt% or less [0082], wherein a ratio of an example is 0.35 parts water/foaming agent to 3 parts silicone foam stabilizer (~1 part water:8 parts stabilizer), wherein Example 4, a specific gravity/density is 0.44 g/cm3 (0.35~0.4 DM) and comprises an average opening diameter of about 60 µm [0124, 0130, Table 1], wherein a demonstrated bell curve of opening diameters demonstrates a narrow distribution from about 10-15 µm and a maximum diameter of about 100 µm [0130, Fig. 4] giving an estimated standard deviation (Max-Min/4) range of about 21.2 to 22.5 µm, wherein due to the composition, structure, and process of making thereof being substantially similar, wherein the land regions between the bubbles/openings should comprise an area and standard deviation thereof inherently within or substantially near the claimed ranges.
Alternatively, in the event that the standard deviation(s) and/or the pore size does not inherently fall into the above range:
Fukuda teaches a polishing pad comprising polyurethane foam having a specific gravity (density in relation to water) of preferably 0.3 to 0.5 [0076], having an average cell opening diameter of preferably 35 to 100 µm, and particularly preferably 40 to 80 µm [0075], wherein a standard deviation of the air bubble diameter is preferably 13 µm or less, more preferably 11 µm or less [0087], wherein a lower variation of air bubbles on the polishing surface improves stability of polishing speed [0013, 0072].
AND/OR
Ahn teaches a polishing pad comprising a polyurethane foam [pg. 2] comprising a plurality of spherical bubbles, the bubbles forming pores at the surface having an average pore size of 5 to 100 µm, preferably 10 to 70 µm, more preferably 15 to 40 µm, wherein below 100 µm prevents defects in the polished wafer, wherein there are no large pores more than three times the average pore size and a standard deviation of the total pore size should be about one-third of the average value to ensure uniform pore distribution [pg. 11], wherein as applied to Example 4 of Nishizawa provides a standard deviation of about 20 µm (⅓*60 µm), and as applied to Nishizawa/Fukuda/Ahn provides a standard deviation range of about 5 to 26.7 µm (⅓*15~80 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a uniformly sized and distributed air bubble openings at the surface providing uniformly sized and distributed minimized regions defined therebetween with an opening diameter and standard deviations of both the sizes and approximate areas thereof within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a standard of uniformity for the bubbles and minimized lands therebetween, wherein it improves stability in polishing speed [Fukuda] and/or ensures uniform pore distribution.
Kinoshita evidences/teaches a polishing pad for meeting the conditions of both flatness and surface quality [0012-0013], comprising a polyurethane resin having specific gravity of 0.1 to 0.9, preferably 0.2 to 0.8, most preferably about 0.5 [0112], the polyurethane resin pad comprising a plurality of spherical bubbles/pores adjacent and open to the surface and having an optimal average diameter of 80 µm or less that is substantially uniform in size and distribution [0017, 0025, 0031, 0053, Fig. 3], wherein in the areas between the holes/openings are preferably minimized and uniformly distributed by the closely packed bubble structure [0025, 0028-0031], primarily by adjusting the amount of silicone foam stabilizer used in relation to the blowing agent of water, generally 6.5 to 8.5 parts by weight foam stabilizer per 1 part by weight water [0025, 0042] and homogeneously mixing and then inducing foaming to a dispersion comprising the polyisocyanate, polyol, a curing agent/catalyst, a blowing agent, and the foam stabilizer provides a more uniform/homogenous mixture than foaming the prepolymer via the foaming agent alone [0033-0046], wherein the density of the constituent material is 0.22 to 0.36 DM g/cm3 [0014, 0024], which meets the lower end of the currently claimed density, therefore at overlapping value 0.36 DM g/cm3 due to the composition, structure, and process of making thereof being substantially identical, the uniform size bubble diameter and the standard deviation thereof and the approximated minimal and uniform region area and standard deviation thereof should inherently be within or substantially near the claimed ranges.
While Kinoshita teaches that it is required to stay at or below 0.36 DM g/cm3, the comparative example used to demonstrate this comprises a 1 to 1 ratio of foam stabilizer to water [0052], whereas the formation of polyurethane foam of Nishizawa (having a ratio of 1:8.33) more closely aligns with the teachings of Kinoshita regarding the balance of ingredients.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and experiment with maintaining the desired ratio of water to foam stabilizer and foamed dispersion of Nishizawa/Kinoshita providing the substantially uniform size and distribution of bubbles pores inherently resulting in the substantially uniform size and distribution of minimized regions therebetween at a higher densities of the polyurethane, such as in order to achieve an accompanying desired greater hardness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 1st, 2026
Prosecution Insights