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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks state that Kimba does not disclose
“1) that the light transmitting region and the window region are distinguished from each other; and 2) the claimed partition wall.”
However, applicants’ remarks do not specifically address why the mapping of the prior office action does not read on the claim language. Applicant’s remarks argue that the manner of operation between applicant’s disclosed invention and the device of Kimba operate differently using applicant’s Fig. 4 and Kimba’s Fig. 10, but does not point to the specific claim language recited that claims these differences. Kimba discloses the limitations of claims 6 and 7 that have been incorporated into independent claim 1: a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region (Kimba, Fig. 10 shows two window regions, one is interpreted to be the light transmitting region and the other is interpreted to be a window region that is distinguished from the light transmitting region) and further comprises a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region (Kimba, Fig. 10, there is a partition wall between the two regions 152). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Kimba’s device still reads on applicant’s amended claim 1 because the two separate window portions are light transmitting regions and they have a wall between them that meets the limitation of a partition wall. It is understood that applicant’s device as described in applicant’s specification appears to be different than the prior art reference Kimba but the further limitations in the claims are required to adequately capture the distinguishing factors.
Applicant’s remarks pertaining to how the optical sensor is located below the transparent window, but this limitation is not claimed in claim 1. While claim 3 recites “a light reflector provided below the light transmitting polymer region”, this limitation is broad enough that any structure that reflects light that is below the light transmitting polymer region would meet this limitation.
See below for updated rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimba (US 2020/0001424).
Kimba discloses:
[Claim 1] A polishing pad, which comprises a top pad layer (150), wherein the top pad layer comprises a light transmitting region (152) for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad (paragraph [0078] discloses determining a wear level of the polishing pad 150 by calculating a deterioration level of the light transmitting region 152); a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region (Fig. 10 shows two window regions, one is interpreted to be the light transmitting region and the other is interpreted to be a window region that is distinguished from the light transmitting region); and a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region (Fig. 10, there is a partition wall between the two regions 152).
[Claim 4] The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein a change in the thickness, or a change in the surface roughness, of the polishing pad is monitored through a change in the thickness, or a change in the surface roughness, of the light transmitting region (paragraph [0077]).
[Claim 5] The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the light transmitting region has at least one surface shape selected from the group consisting of polygons, circles, rings, and spirals (light transmitting region 152 is circular as seen in the Figures).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunzman et al. (US 11633830) in view of Kimba (US 2020/0001424).
Regarding claim 1, Gunzman discloses a polishing pad (10), which comprises a top pad layer (15), wherein the top pad layer comprises a light transmitting region (14).
Gunzman does not explicitly disclose that the light transmitting region/window is for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad, or a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region; and a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region.
However, Kimba discloses a polishing pad system similar to Gunzman and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art, which comprises a top pad layer (150), wherein the top pad layer comprises a light transmitting region (152) for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad (paragraph [0078], [0080]-[0084] discloses determining a wear level of the polishing pad 150 by calculating a deterioration level of the light transmitting region 152); a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region (Fig. 10 shows two window regions, one is interpreted to be the light transmitting region and the other is interpreted to be a window region that is distinguished from the light transmitting region); and a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region (Fig. 10, there is a partition wall between the two regions 152). Kimba discloses that a plurality of windows and associated optical sensors may be provided to increase measurement frequency.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Gunzman teaches all elements except that the light transmitting region/window is for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad, a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region; and a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region. Kimba teaches using the light transmitting region/window for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad, which has the function of allowing it to be known when to replace the polishing pad due to wear; and teaches a window region distinguished from the light transmitting region; and a partition wall between the light transmitting region and the window region such that the plurality of window regions increase measurement frequency. When combined into Gunzman by using a plurality light transmitting region/windows for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad using the associated techniques of Kimba, it maintains its function of allowing it to be known when to replace the polishing pad with an increased measurement frequency. One of ordinary skill would expect predictable results because both references pertain to polishing pads with light transmitting regions/windows that function in the same manner in the environment of polishing systems pertinent to polishing substrates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Gunzman in view of Kimba because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Gunzman and Kimba further renders obvious:
[Claim 2] The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the top pad layer has physical properties at the same level as those of the light transmitting region (Gunzman Col. 10 states top pad layer and the light transmitting region window can have the same physical property Young's modulus according to ASTM D412-16 of at least 10).
[Claim 3] The polishing pad of claim 2, wherein the light transmitting region comprises: a light transmitting polymer (Gunzman Col. 9 lines 54-67 and Col. 10 lines 1-20) region having physical properties at the same level as those of the top pad layer (Gunzman Col. 10); and a light reflector provided below the light transmitting polymer region (Gunzman without an established frame of reference, the structure below the light transmitting region that reflects the light can be interpreted to be below the light transmitting polymer region).
[Claim 4] The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein a change in the thickness, or a change in the surface roughness, of the polishing pad is monitored through a change in the thickness, or a change in the surface roughness, of the light transmitting region (obvious in light of Kimba paragraph [0077]; the modified system of Gunzman would determine a change in the surface of the polishing pad from the wear on the light transmitting region using light sensors, etc.).
[Claim 5] The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the light transmitting region has at least one surface shape selected from the group consisting of polygons, circles, rings, and spirals (Gunzman surface 19 of the light transmitting region 14 is a polygon).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba in view of Gunzman.
Regarding claim 2 and 3, Kimba discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, and further discloses: wherein the light transmitting region comprises: and a light reflector (Kimba, 123 "reflection light optical fiber", Fig. 10, paragraph [0081]) provided below the light transmitting polymer region.
Kimba does not explicitly disclose wherein the top pad layer has physical properties at the same level as those of the light transmitting region or a light transmitting polymer region having physical properties at the same level as those of the top pad layer.
However, Gunzman discloses a polishing pad system similar to Kimba and the present application and therefore constitutes analogous art. Gunzman discloses a polishing pad (10), which comprises a top pad layer (15), wherein the top pad layer comprises a light transmitting region (14) for monitoring a change in the state of the polishing pad; wherein the top pad layer has physical properties at the same level as those of the light transmitting region (Col. 10 states top pad layer and the light transmitting region window can have the same physical property Young's modulus according to ASTM D412-16 of at least 10; absent further limitations on what physical properties, the fact that they are both rigid structures also constitutes a physical property).
Since using a top pad layer has physical properties at the same level as those of the light transmitting region and a light transmitting polymer region having physical properties at the same level as those of the top pad layer is a known technique in the art, and since Kimba remains silent as to its specific materials used for its light transmitting region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Kimba to have used using a top pad layer has physical properties at the same level as those of the light transmitting region and a light transmitting polymer region having physical properties at the same level as those of the top pad layer as taught by Gunzman as a matter applying a known technique to a known device to yield the predictable result of a functioning polishing pad having a light transmitting polymer region that functions as originally disclosed in the primary reference Kimba. Changing the material of the pad and the window/light transmitting region to have some same physical properties would not change the primary function of Kimba.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 9040315) discloses an optical monitoring system 200 that includes a light source 201 and a light detector 202 that is adapted to detect the thickness of the material layer
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dustin T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-0163. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Nathaniel E. 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.
/DUSTIN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 October 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights