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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 12, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on October 19, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 4, line 6, “To effect polishing…” should be “To affect polishing…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claims 3 and 8 recite the limitation “the ovoid micropores” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “ovoid micropores”.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka et al. (Japanese Publication No: JP 2019 069498 A) in view of Prasad (US Patent No: US 6,935,931 B2).
In reference to claim 1, Miyasaka discloses a chemical mechanical polishing pad comprising: a polishing layer (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 2) having a polymeric matrix (Miyasaka et al. discloses the polishing layer contains a polyurethane resin with microspheres (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 8), thus teaches that the polishing layer has a polymeric matrix), a polishing surface useful for polishing at least one of semiconductor, magnetic and optical substrates (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 2) and a bottom surface (see annotated Miyasaka et al. Figure 1).
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose of a porous and non-porous layer that has a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer, a multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores wherein micropores are gas filled and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad and that the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the nonporous layer and a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer.
Prasad, however, discloses a chemical mechanical polishing pad that has a porous subpad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-56) including: a non-porous layer (Prasad Column 1, lines 51-56) for securing the polishing pad to the porous subpad (Prasad Column 1, lines 51-56), the non-porous layer having a polymeric matrix and having a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer (Prasad Column 1, lines 59-61); and a multilayer of closed cell (Prasad Column 1 lines 61-64), open cell (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25) or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25) wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores are gas filled (Prasad Column 14, lines 41-42) and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad, and wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the nonporous layer (Prasad Column 14, lines 41-45).
While Prasad does not expressly disclose to combine the polishing pad with the porous and non-porous subpads, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polishing pad of Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous subpads as taught by Prasad to improve global planarization and improve wafer yields.
While Prasad does not expressly disclose that the porous subpad is adhered to the bottom surface of the polishing pad, Prasad does state that the polishing pads can be used in combination with a porous subpad and have a multi-layer stacked polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the porous subpad to the bottom surface of the polishing pad since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, Part B).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the micropores have a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that injecting gas into a cell increases its flexibility as it allows the cell to adapt its size and shape in response to external stimuli, making it more resilient and dynamically responsive.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Miyasaka et al., as modified, disclose the polishing pad of claim 1 as discussed above.
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose the non-porous microlayer has an average thickness of at least two hundred percent of an average diameter of the closed cell micropores within the polymer network.
Prasad, however, discloses a polishing pad with a non-porous microlayer (Prasad Column 19, lines 25-27) and closed cell micropores (Prasad Column 20, lines 25-27) 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 it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144/04 Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 3, Miyasaka et al. discloses a polishing pad with closed cells (Miyasaka paragraph 8) but does not disclose that the closed cells are spherical and that the pad contains ovoid micropores that include open cells.
Prasad, discloses a multilayer polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-51) that includes the mixture of closed and open micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the closed cells are spherical and the ovoid micropores include open cells, Prasad does disclose that the particles can be of any suitable dimension or shape (Prasad Column 9, lines 30-34). 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 open and closed cells of Prasad so that the closed cells are spherical and the open cells are ovoid.
In reference to claim 4, Miyasaka et al. discloses a polishing pad with closed cells (Miyasaka paragraph 8) but does not disclose that the closed cells are spherical and that the pad contains open cell pores that include ovoid-shaped micropores.
Prasad, discloses a multilayer polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-51) that includes the mixture of closed and open micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the closed cells are spherical and the open cells include ovoid-shaped micropores, Prasad does disclose that the particles can be of any suitable dimension or shape (Prasad Column 9, lines 30-34). 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 open and closed cells of Prasad so that the closed cells are spherical and the micropores are ovoid-shaped.
In reference to claim 5, Miyasaka et al. discloses a polishing pad with a polishing layer (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 2) that has a bottom surface (see annotated Miyasaka et al. Figure 1) with grooves (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 18 and 22).
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose that the annular grooves extend into the polishing layer without piercing through the polishing surface and that the subpad fills the annular grooves.
Prasad discloses a multilayer polishing pad with groove patterns (Prasad Column 10, lines 1-3) and that the polishing layer can be used in combination with a subpad (Prasad Column 12, lines 50-55).
However, Prasad also does not disclose that the annular grooves extend into the polishing layer without piercing through the polishing surface and that the subpad fills the annular grooves.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polishing pad of Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous layers as taught by Prasad to improve global planarization and improve wafer yields since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, Part B).
It would also 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 Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous layers as taught by Prasad and have the annular grooves extend into the polishing layer without piercing through the polishing surface so that the subpad fills the annular grooves and is able polish the substrate without scratching and achieve excellent wafer yields since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 Section V, Part D).
In reference to claim 6, Miyasaka discloses a chemical mechanical polishing pad comprising: a polishing layer (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 2) having a polymeric matrix (Miyasaka et al. discloses the polishing layer contains a polyurethane resin with microspheres (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 8), thus teaches that the polishing layer has a polymeric matrix), a polishing surface useful for polishing at least one of semiconductor, magnetic and optical substrates (Miyasaka et al. paragraph 2) and a bottom surface (see annotated Miyasaka et al. Figure 1).
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose of a porous and non-porous layer that has a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer, a multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores wherein micropores are gas filled and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad and that the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the nonporous layer and a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer.
Prasad, however, discloses a chemical mechanical polishing pad that has a porous subpad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-56) including: a non-porous layer (Prasad Column 1, lines 51-56) for securing the polishing pad to the porous subpad (Prasad Column 1, lines 51-56), the non-porous layer having a polymeric matrix and having a micro-scale negative impression of the bottom surface of the polishing pad and the non-porous layer being contiguous with the bottom surface of the polishing layer (Prasad Column 1, lines 59-61); and a multilayer of closed cell (Prasad Column 1 lines 61-64), open cell (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25) or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25) wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores are gas filled (Prasad Column 14, lines 41-42) and the multilayer remains gas filled during an entire polishing life of the polishing pad, and wherein the multilayer of closed cell, open cell or a mixture of closed and open cell micropores has the same polymeric matrix of the nonporous layer (Prasad Column 14, lines 41-45) and that the polishing pad has a porosity (Prasad Column 10, lines 9-11).
While Prasad does not expressly disclose to combine the polishing pad with the porous and non-porous subpads, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polishing pad of Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous subpads as taught by Prasad to improve global planarization and improve wafer yields.
While Prasad does not expressly disclose that the porous subpad is adhered to the bottom surface of the polishing pad, Prasad does state that the polishing pads can be used in combination with a porous subpad and have a multi-layer stacked polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the porous subpad to the bottom surface of the polishing pad since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, Part B).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the micropores have a flexibility greater than the non-porous layer, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that injecting gas into a cell increases its flexibility as it allows the cell to adapt its size and shape in response to external stimuli, making it more resilient and dynamically responsive.
While Prasad does not expressly state that the porous subpad has a porosity greater than the porosity of the polishing pad, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a porous subpad would have a greater porosity than the polishing pad since a “porous” subpad is specifically engineered to have a significant volume of pores which gives it a higher total porosity.
In reference to claim 7, Miyasaka et al., as modified, disclose the polishing pad of claim 6 as discussed above.
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose the non-porous microlayer has an average thickness of at least two hundred percent of an average diameter of the closed cell micropores within the polymer network.
Prasad, however, discloses a polishing pad with a non-porous microlayer (Prasad Column 19, lines 25-27) and closed cell micropores (Prasad Column 20, lines 25-27) 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 it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144/04 Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 8, Miyasaka et al. discloses a polishing pad with closed cells (Miyasaka paragraph 8) but does not disclose that the closed cells are spherical and that the pad contains ovoid micropores that include open cells.
Prasad, discloses a multilayer polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-51) that includes the mixture of closed and open micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the closed cells are spherical and the ovoid micropores include open cells, Prasad does disclose that the particles can be of any suitable dimension or shape (Prasad Column 9, lines 30-34). 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 open and closed cells of Prasad so that the closed cells are spherical and the open cells are ovoid.
In reference to claim 9, Miyasaka et al. discloses a polishing pad with closed cells (Miyasaka paragraph 8) but does not disclose that the closed cells are spherical and that the pad contains open cell pores that include ovoid-shaped micropores.
Prasad, discloses a multilayer polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-51) that includes the mixture of closed and open micropores (Prasad Column 5, lines 21-25).
While Prasad does not expressly state that the closed cells are spherical and the open cells include ovoid-shaped micropores, Prasad does disclose that the particles can be of any suitable dimension or shape (Prasad Column 9, lines 30-34). 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 open and closed cells of Prasad so that the closed cells are spherical and the micropores are ovoid-shaped.
In reference to claim 10, Miyasaka et al., as modified, disclose the polishing pad of claim 6 as discussed above.
Miyasaka et al. does not disclose of a macro feature and that it extends into the subpad for adjusting polishing profile of the chemical mechanical polishing pad.
Prasad discloses a multilayer polishing pad (Prasad Column 12, lines 49-51) wherein the multilayer includes a macro feature (Prasad Column 19, lines 25-28).
However, Prasad does not disclose that the macro feature extends into the subpad.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the polishing pad of Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous layers as taught by Prasad to improve global planarization and improve wafer yields since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section V, Part B).
It would also 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 Miyasaka et al. with the porous and non-porous layers with macrogrooves as taught by Prasad and have the macro feature extend into the subpad for adjusting polishing profile of the chemical mechanical polishing pad to be able to polish the substrate without scratching and achieve excellent wafer yields since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 Section V, Part D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571) 272-1224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/TRISHA JOY U FRANCISCO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723