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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, Claims 5-14, without traverse of in the reply filed on May 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 28, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both recite “of a combination therefor,” Examiner believes this should be “or a combination thereof.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the pore forming agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This appears to have been intended to depend from claim 9 which would provide the support for the agent.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 5-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1, a2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0202024 to Ganapathiappan et al. (G1).
In Re Claim 5:
Polishing article having a polishing surface that is configured to polish a surfaced of a substrate having at least one coper feature, comprising: [Examiner notes, per the title it I a polishing pad, and thus one surface is for polishing, further per Page 1, ¶2-3 note these devices are for semiconductor industry. While “configured for at least one copper feature is intended use in the pre-amble and thus has no significant impact on structure for a feature such as that of G1 which Would work on a copper substrate, even assuming arguendo this was a structural feature that required express recitation, Examiner does take official notice that polished semiconductor surfaced are known to include copper materials See cited pertinent prior art for exemplary prior art of this known feature.]
A plurality of first polishing elements(Fig. 2A, 204a) that each comprise a plurality of first polymer layers comprising a first polymer composition, wherein at least one of the plurality of first polymer layers forms the polishing surface(208); and [The Abstract explicitly notes the two material groups in the forming are polymers. Per Page 8, ¶75-77, it is noted that there are two materials forming elements 204 and 206, these materials are utilized to form the overall polishing pad body and that the upper polishing surface of the individual first elements are 208, noted as the polishing surface. Per Page 9, ¶81 the pods are formed layer by layer of the material, i.e. a plurality of layers. Page 9, ¶83 notes the polishing elements specifically as they refer to Figure 2A.]
One or more second polishing elements (Fig. 2A, 206a) that each comprise a plurality of second polymer layers comprising a second polymer composition, wherein at least a region of each of the one or more second polishing elements is disposed between at least one of the plurality of first polishing elements and a supporting surface of the polishing article(Fig. 1A, 102). [The Abstract explicitly notes the two material groups in the forming are polymers. Per Page 8, ¶75-77, it is noted that there are two materials forming elements 204 and 206, these materials are utilized to form the overall polishing pad body Per Page 9, ¶81 the pods are formed layer by layer of the material, i.e. a plurality of layers. Page 8, ¶75 notes the second polishing element 206 is between the first polishing elements and the supporting member, i.e. the platen 102.]
Wherein at least a portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a Shore D hardness, at least a portion of the one or more second polishing elements have a second Shore D hardness, wherein the first polishing element Shore D hardness is at least about 5% greater than a second polishing element second Shore D hardness, and wherein the polishing article has a total Shore D hardness of greater than or about 50. [Per Page 32, ¶203-205 it is noted that the first element has a higher hardness than the second element. Examiner notes all materials have inherent values of Shore A and Shore D as these are measurable hardness properties. Further Examiner notes, the second material is noted to have a Shore A hardness of 26-95, and that at its highest, 95, would roughly correspond to around 40-46 Shore D hardness, therefore the bulk of the possible ranges of values for the first polymer are greater (as is required by the disclosure) and that almost all of it including the maximum is more than 5% harder, than almost the entirety of the range of the first material. Furthermore per Page 32, ¶201 the desired whole pad hardness should be in a range of 25 Shore A to about 75 Shore D, which includes values of 50 Shore D and harder. If the entire hardness should be 50 Shore D or higher, with Page 32-33, ¶203 noting a particularly desirable value of the first material at 80 Shore D hardness, and the second is 90 Shore A hardness. As the highest range the lower material can be is 40-46 Shore D when converted from 90 Shore A, the relative value between the two materials would be significantly higher than 5%.]
In Re Claims 5-14:
G1 shows:
The polishing article of claim 5, wherein:
(Claim 6) at least a portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a Shore D hardness of greater than or about 70. [Per Page 32-33, ¶201-205 the range for the first material includes values of 70-90 Shore D hardness, and provides for exemplary articles in ¶203 of Shore D hardness of about 80 in one embodiment. ]
(Claim 7) the polishing article exhibits a storage modulus at 30 degrees C, (E30), a storage modulus at 90 degrees C, (E90), or both an E30 and an E90 of less than or about 1200 MPA. [Per Page 32, ¶201 the pad as a whole should have a storage module between 5MPA and 3000 MPA which includes ranges below 1200 MPA, Page 33, ¶204 and Table 2 provide for said storage moduli properties are at 30 and 90 degrees Celsius. ]
(Claim 8) Claim 7, a ratio of the storage modulus at 30 degrees Celsius (E30) to the storage modulus at 90 degrees Celsius C, (E 90) is from about 6 to about 30. [Per Page 36, ¶219 the first material, OR the overall pad material should have a ratio of E30 to E90 storage modulus of about 6 to about 30, preferably about 6 to about 15.]
(Claim 9) one or more of the plurality of first polishing elements, one or more of the second polishing elements, of a combination therefor comprise, comprise a pore forming agent(Fig. 5B, 504). [Per Pages 18-20, ¶133-145 there are pores formed in the first (preferred) or second polymer material regions, ¶134-142 specifically note a pore forming agent used with these compositions in the forming step to make said pores.]
(Claim 10) the pore forming agent (Should be depended from claim 9, see claim 9 for agent) is dispersed throughout the one or more of the plurality of first polishing elements, one or more of the second polishing elements, or a combination thereof to provide a porosity of from about 1 vol. % to about 50 vol. %. [See Claim 9 citations for dispersal of the material during formation in for example the first element. Page 35, ¶217 notes the pores within the first element should have a void volume fraction (porosity normalized to volume) of 1% to about 50%.]
(Claim 11) a groove height (Fig. 6E, 2021) is defined between a top surface( 2011) of the plurality of first polishing elements (204A) and the one or more second polishing elements (206, 2060 surface), wherein the groove height is less than or about 1000 microns. [Per Pages 35, ¶215-218 the feature height, i.e. groove height of the first polishing elements over the second has a known impact on the effectiveness of the system. Per Tables 6C and 6D, remove rate is impacted by said feature height, and a desirable total SA can be a function of said Feature height and per 218 should be at for example a SVA of less than20 per ml or less than 15 per mm or less than 10 per mm. It can be seen in Figures 6C the values were tested and desired included a significant effective range below 1000 um or microns, 6D supports the low um range of the feature heights.]
(Claim 12) a groove width[Fig. 2A, 216 minus 214) is defined between adjacent first polishing elements of the plurality of first polishing elements, wherein the groove width is less than or about 1000 microns. [Per Page 9, ¶84 the pitch between features(216) is 0.5 mm to 5 mm and the width of the elements is between 250 microns and 2 mm. Therefore the groove width can be values of 0.5 mm (500 microns) minus 250 microns, i.e. 250 microns.]
(Claim 13) the plurality of first polishing elements have an average Shore D hardness of greater than 60, wherein a first portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a Shore D hardness of greater than 70, a second portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a porosity of from about 1 vol % to about 50 vol. % or a combination there of. [Given the or statement, it is presumed first portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a Shore D hardness of grater than about 70 can be in the alternative to a second portion of the plurality of first polishing elements have a porosity of from about 1 vol % to about 50 vol. %, further there is no requirement that the not selected group (first or second portion) has to have different properties. Discussion in Claims 6 and 10 above provide for total first element hardness greater than 70 which meets both the first universal requirement of claim 13, and the first alternative requirement of claim 13 drawn to the first portion and the discussion of claim 10 notes the vol. % in the range that meets the second alternative requirement of the secondary portion. Given there is no claim as to the other portions not having these features as well this meets the claims are presented. Further, per Page 15, ¶117-119 individual portions of the plurality of elements can be fine tuned to values, such as through gradients to realize varying values of different portions of the elements.]
(Claim 14) at least a portion of the plurality of first polishing elements form a pattern comprising discrete spaced apart pillars, one or more circles around a central axis, one or more spirals, or a combinations thereof. [Figures 2A shows circles around a central axis, Fig. 2C shows discrete spaced apart pillars, and Fig. 2H shows one or more spirals while 2I shows a combination of spiral and pillars, 2G shows a combination of pillars and circles, and Fig. 2K shows a mix of circles and pillars.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0402091 to Ganapathiappan et al. discloses similar language and structures to that of G1 above, save some ¶ citations above ¶100 are off by 2¶ in numbering. US 6,387,807 to Faubert et al. disclose polishing copper on a semi-conductor, (Abstract, title, Col. 1, ll. 5-27.] US 2005/0227590 to Sung et al. discloses a polishing work piece element formed of layers with porosity, and polyester (organic polymer). [¶74 and 61.] US 2004/0058623 to Lin et al. teaches polymer pad materials for polishing [¶17-19.] US 2009/0053976 to Roy, discloses polishing pads with non-uniform or uniform distribution of physical or chemical properties in the pad with multiple layers of polymeric material. [Abstract, ¶136.] US 11,685,013 to Chen et al., which discloses in Col. 12, line 54 – Col. 13, line of polishing elements projecting from a support surface of about 80 Shore D, and the support layer being softer. US 6,848,974 to Hasegawa et al. disclose a polish pad with support body, the elements being polymer based, said polish body having a Shore D hardness of 35 or more, the support body being softer, in Col. 3, line 7 – Col. 4, line 37.] US 2020/0030933 to Ciu et al., disclose a layer of polishing (210 with elements (212) for polishing with hardness of 20-90 Shore D, with softer regions which case less or no impact during polishing and porosity. [¶36.] US 2016/0375544 to Kozhukh et al. discloses two adjacent polymeric regions with differing cell porosity and Shore Hardness, [¶33-36.] US 2016/0101500 to Fung et al. discloses varying hardness in differing polishing regions and E30/E90 values for a polishing pad, in ¶52-89. US 2012/0302148 to Baja et al. discloses discrete polishing bodies (108) having specific Shore D values compared to the lower supporting body (102) in relation, ¶26-28 with various pillar topographies. US 2005/0221723 to Duboust et al. disclose a primary layer for polishing ,harder than a softer secondary backing layer ¶6-8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights