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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 27 Feb 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the same area as the lower support layer" in the 8th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what area is being referred to here. Is this referring to an entire surface area of the lower support layer, an area on a top of the support layer, an area measurement, or a particular region of the lower support layer? For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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)(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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yun (US 2023/0059394).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a window-mounted polishing pad, comprising: a polishing layer (10) in which a first punched hole (101) is formed in a thickness direction (fig 3); a window (102) that is inserted into and fixed to the first punched hole of the polishing layer (as shown in fig 3); a lower support layer (20) that is positioned below the polishing layer and the window and has a second punched hole (201) for irradiating an optical beam formed at a lower end side of the window (function described [0186]) and having a narrower width than the first punched hole or the window (width of narrow part central to CR is narrower than width of first punched holed 101); an adhesive layer (40) that mediates bonding of the polishing layer and the lower support layer ([0049]), has the same area as the lower support layer (covers area on top of support layer), and partially overlaps but does not contact an edge portion of the window (as shown in fig 3); and a sealing adhesive member (30) positioned between the window and the adhesive layer (as shown in fig 3).
Regarding claims 2-6, Yun further discloses the sealing adhesive member is formed even in a separation space formed between a wall surface of the first punched hole and the window (as shown in fig 3, adhesive member is between inner wall of hole 101 and outer wall of window 102); the sealing adhesive member forms a right angle shape by continuously extending from the separation space formed between the wall surface of the first punched hole and the window to a space between the window and the adhesive layer (as shown in fig 3, cross section of adhesive member 30 forms a right angle); the sealing adhesive member comprises a cured liquid adhesive (curing described [0053]); the liquid adhesive comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a vinyl acetate-based compound, a polychloroprene- based compound, a polyurethane-based compound, an acrylate-based compound, and an epoxy-based compound ([0054]); the sealing adhesive member is provided without heat melting (as described [0053], the sealing adhesive member is cured by moisture rather than melting; note that the claimed polishing pad is not limited by the method of making).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar polishing pads with windows are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights