DETAILED ACTIONS
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 10 are pending.
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 6 – 10 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 6 recites the limitation "the low porosity layer" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “a low porosity layer”.
Claims 7 – 10 are further rejected as dependents of rejected claim 6.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad (US Patent No: US 6,935,931 B2) in view of Feng et al (U. S. Paten Publication No. 2018/019374A1) Li et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0273399 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Prasad teaches a chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) comprising: a polishing layer (Col. 12, line 49 – Coll. 13, line 5) having a polymeric matrix (Col. 8, line 43 – Col. 9, line 3), a polishing surface (Col. 3, lines 20 – 30) useful for polishing at least one of semiconductor, magnetic and optical substrates and a bottom surface (Col. 13, lines 6 – 20); a porous sub pad (Col. 12, line 49 – Col. 13, line 5) adhered to the bottom surface of the polishing pad (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5), the porous sub pad including: a non-porous layer for securing the polishing pad to the porous sub pad (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5), the non-porous layer having a polymeric matrix (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5) and having a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad (Col. 2, lines 57 – 61) and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 2); and a multilayer of closed cell (Col. 1, lines 61 – 64), open cell (Col. 5, lines 21 – 25) or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores (Col. 5, lines 21 – 25); wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores are gas filled (Col. 11, lines 18 – 28) and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad (Col. 10, lines 40 – 65).
Prasad does not explicitly teach wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the non-porous layer and a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer; however, it would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the non-porous layer and a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the polishing pad (MPEP 2144.07).
Prasad does not teach and wherein the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores, or the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa.
Feng, however, teaches the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores (Paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
It would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores, as taught by Feng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Li further teaches a polishing pad with the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa (Paragraphs [0023] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa, as taught by Li, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the polishing pad (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Independent Claim 6, Prasad teaches a chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) comprising: a polishing layer (Col. 12, line 49 – Coll. 13, line 5) having a polymeric matrix (Col. 8, line 43 – Col. 9, line 3), a polishing surface (Col. 3, lines 20 – 30) useful for polishing at least one of semiconductor, magnetic and optical substrates and a bottom surface (Col. 13, lines 6 – 20); a porous sub pad (Col. 12, line 49 – Col. 13, line 5) adhered to the bottom surface of the polishing pad (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5), the porous sub pad including: a non-porous layer for securing the polishing pad to the porous sub pad (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5), the non-porous layer having a polymeric matrix (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 5) and having a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad (Col. 2, lines 57 – 61) and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer (Col. 12, line 65 – Col. 13, line 2); and a multilayer of closed cell (Col. 1, lines 61 – 64), open cell (Col. 5, lines 21 – 25) or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores (Col. 5, lines 21 – 25); wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores are gas filled (Col. 11, lines 18 – 28) and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad (Col. 10, lines 40 – 65).
Prasad does not explicitly teach wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the non-porous layer and a flexibility greater than the nonporous layer and the polishing pad has a porosity and the porous sub pad has a porosity greater than the porosity of the polishing pad; however, it would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of a low porosity layer a flexibility greater than the nonporous layer and the polishing pad has a porosity and the porous sub pad has a porosity greater than the porosity of the polishing pad, as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the polishing pad (MPEP 2144.07).
Prasad does not teach and wherein the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores, or the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa.
Feng, however, teaches the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores (Paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
It would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the multilayer includes the mixture of closed micropores and open micropores and the closed cells comprising spherical shaped micropores and ovoid shaped micropores, as taught by Feng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Li further teaches a polishing pad with the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa (Paragraphs [0023] and [0040]).
It would have been obvious too one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the polishing layer has a Young's modulus, according to ASTM D412-16, of 2 MPa to 200 MPa, as taught by Li, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use of the polishing pad (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claims 2 and 7, Prasad teaches the chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) according to claims 1 and 6 as discussed above.
Prasad further teaches the polishing pad with a non-porous microlayer (Col. 19, lines 25 – 27) and closed cell micropores (Col. 20, lines 26 – 28) within the polymer network.
Prasad does not expressly disclose that the non-porous microlayer has an average thickness of at least two hundred percent of an average diameter of the closed cell micropores.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to have the non-porous microlayer have an average thickness of at least two hundred percent of an average diameter of the closed cell micropores since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/thickness of a component. A change in size/thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 3 and 8, Prasad teaches the chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) according to claims 1 and 6 as discussed above.
Prasad does not explicitly teach wherein the closed micropores are spherical shaped micropores and the open micropores are ovoid shaped micropores.
Feng, however, teaches the closed micropores are spherical shaped micropores and the open micropores are ovoid shaped micropores (Paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the closed micropores are spherical shaped micropores and the open micropores are ovoid shaped micropores, as taught by Feng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Prasad teaches the chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) according to claims 1 and 6 as discussed above.
Prasad does not explicitly teach the multilayer includes the mixture of closed cell and open cell micropores and the closed cells are spherical and the open cell pores include ovoid-shaped micropores.
Feng, however, teaches the multilayer includes the mixture of closed cell and open cell micropores and the closed cells are spherical and the open cell pores include ovoid-shaped micropores (Paragraphs [0034] – [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the multilayer includes the mixture of closed cell and open cell micropores and the closed cells are spherical and the open cell pores include ovoid-shaped micropores, as taught by Feng, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad (US Patent No. US 6,935,931 B2) in view of Feng et al (U. S. Paten Publication No. 2018/019374A1), Li et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0273399 A1) and Chen (US Patent No. US 10,201,887 B2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 10, Prasad teaches the chemical mechanical polishing pad (Abstract) according to claims 1 and 6 as discussed above.
Prasad does not explicitly wherein the polishing layer has a bottom surface and the bottom surface includes annular grooves that extend into the polishing layer without piercing through the polishing surface of the polishing layer and the sub pad fills the annular grooves.
Chen, however, teaches the polishing layer (36) has a bottom surface (36B) and the bottom surface (36B) includes annular grooves (G; Fig. 8C) that extend into the polishing layer (36) without piercing through the polishing surface (36A) of the polishing layer (36) and the sub pad (34) fills the annular grooves (G; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing pad of Prasad to further include the polishing layer has a bottom surface and the bottom surface includes annular grooves that extend into the polishing layer without piercing through the polishing surface of the polishing layer and the sub pad fills the annular grooves, as taught by Chen, to provide a pad that where heat management can be controlled thus enhancing the polishing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 16, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Parsad, Feng and Li are relied upon to teach the limitations of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
