Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/422,028

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING COMPOSITE ARTICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jan 25, 2024
Examiner
LU, JIONG-PING
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
779 granted / 935 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
989
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
47.5%
+7.5% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 935 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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 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. Specification Applicant is reminded of updating the first paragraph of the Specification with US Patent No. 11,911,871 issued from the parent application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-6, 9, 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tietz (US20020077037). Regarding claim 1, Tietz discloses a method of manufacturing a composite article (a fixed abrasive article comprising abrasive and wood pulp reads on a composite article, paragraphs 0078 and 0132), comprising: rubbing a polishing pad to produce polishing pad debris (fixed abrasive article 39 reads on a polishing pad, the process of producing polishing debris reads on rubbing, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0132); collecting the polishing pad debris (paragraph 0132); providing a wood material (the fixed abrasive article comprises wood pulp, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0078); and applying a force over the wood material and the polishing pad debris to form the composite article including the wood material and the polishing pad debris (the pre-seeding reads on applying a force, paragraph 0132). Regarding claim 2, Tiestz discloses wherein the rubbing of the polishing pad includes grinding a semiconductor structure by the polishing pad (semiconductor wafer 34, paragraph 0088 and Fig. 20). Regarding claim 3, Tiestz discloses wherein the semiconductor structure is a substrate or a wafer (semiconductor wafer 34, paragraph 0088 and Fig. 20). Regarding claim 4, Tiestz discloses wherein the polishing pad and the polishing pad debris include polyurethane (abrasive particles can be made of polyurethane, paragraphs 0132 and 0134). Regarding claim 5, Tiestz discloses wherein a thickness of the polishing pad is reduced by the rubbing of the polishing pad (paragraphs 0078 and 0132). Regarding claim 6, Tiestz discloses wherein the rubbing of the polishing pad includes removing a portion of the polishing pad (paragraphs 0078 and 0132). Regarding claim 9, Tiestz discloses wherein the application of the force includes compressing the wood material and the polishing pad debris to form the composite article (paragraph 0132). Regarding claim 11, Tiestz discloses wherein the composite article is in a block configuration (the fixed abrasive article 39 is in a block configuration, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0090). Regarding claim 12, Tietz discloses a method of manufacturing a composite article (a fixed abrasive article comprising abrasive and wood pulp reads on a composite article, paragraphs 0078 and 0132), comprising: providing a polishing pad (fixed abrasive article 39 reads on a polishing pad, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0132); providing a semiconductor structure disposed above the polishing pad (semiconductor wafer 34, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0088); polishing the semiconductor structure by the polishing pad, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0132); collecting polishing pad debris produced upon the polishing (paragraph 0132); providing a wood material (the fixed abrasive article comprises wood pulp, Fig. 20 and paragraph 0078); and compressing the wood material and the polishing pad debris to form the composite article (the pre-seeding reads on compressing the wood material and the polishing pad debris, paragraph 0132), wherein the polishing pad debris includes a portion of the polishing pad removed from the polishing pad upon the polishing (paragraphs 0025 and 0132). Regarding claim 15, Tiestz discloses wherein the semiconductor structure is rotated relative to the polishing pad during the polishing (paragraph 0090 and Fig. 20). Regarding claim 16, Tiestz discloses wherein the polishing pad is rotated relative to the semiconductor structure during the polishing (paragraph 0091 and Fig. 20). Regarding claim 17, Tiestz discloses wherein the semiconductor structure and the polishing pad are rotated simultaneously during the polishing (paragraphs 0090-0091 and Fig. 20). 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 of this title, 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. 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. Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tietz (US20020077037) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 7, Tietz is silent about wherein a first content of the polishing pad debris in the composite article is less than a second content of the wood material in the composite article. However, Tietz discloses that the debirs is used for pre-seeding the polishing pad (fixed abrasive article), in order to eliminate the first wafer effect (paragraph 0132). Because the pre-seeding takes place near or on the surface of the pad, while the wood material is a component of the bulk of the pad (paragraph 0078), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use less debris than the wood material in the composite article, with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding claim 8, Tietz is silent about wherein a ratio of the first content to the second content is about 3:7. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 and 13-14 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: Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: assembling the composite article with a plurality of wooden bars to form a pallet, in the context of the instant claim. Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein the polishing pad debris is cleaned prior to the compression, in the context of the instant claim. Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: providing a plurality of wooden bars arranged substantially in parallel to each other; attaching the composite article to an end of one of the plurality of wooden bars, in the context of the instant claim. Claims 18-20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: cleaning the debris, in in the context of the instant claim. Regarding claims 19-20, they are dependent on claim 18. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /JIONG-PING LU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 25, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600909
ETCHING SOLUTION COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598929
ATOMIC LAYER ETCHING OF MOLYBDENUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595413
SILICON NITRIDE ETCHING COMPOSITIONS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593637
CHEMICAL PLANARIZATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578641
PHOTORESIST AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+7.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 935 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month