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
Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 03/01/2024. Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyono (JP 2000233354) in view of Fritz (US Pub. No. 20050233678).
Regarding claim 1, Kiyono discloses: a polishing pad (Figures 1-3 element 5 and see also paragraph 0012) that is formed in an annular shape (see figure 1) and is centered on a first rotation axis center (see figure 2 annotated below X-X axis),
the polishing pad having: an annular first surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) that extends in a direction substantially orthogonal to the first rotation axis center (see figure 2 annotated below); an annular second surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) that extends in the direction substantially orthogonal to the first rotation axis center and is positioned opposite to the first surface (see figure 2 annotated below); and a polishing surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail C) that connects the first surface and the second surface on an outer circumference (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) of the polishing pad,
the polishing pad that polishes a notch, which is formed in a disc-shaped wafer and indicates an orientation of a crystal axis, by rotating around the first rotation axis center while pressing the polishing surface against the notch (The examiner indicates that the disc-shaped wafer and any associated structure (i.e. notch) has not been positively recited as the claimed invention (i.e. polishing pad)). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the polishing pad (element 5) including a polishing surface (Detail C) being rotated (see paragraph 0013) and contacting a notch (element 2) of a wafer (element 1), and giving that there is no additional structure provided or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the polishing pad that polishes a notch, which is formed in a disc-shaped wafer and indicates an orientation of a crystal axis, by rotating around the first rotation axis center while pressing the polishing surface against the notch, as recited.),
wherein the polishing surface is formed of a polishing body (see figure 2 annotated below Detail E) that includes: a base material (see paragraph 0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Kiyono discloses that the polishing pad can made by a variety of different type of base materials (see paragraph 0016). However, Kiyono does not explicitly disclose wherein the base material is composed of a binder resin and fibers and having a plurality of pores formed therein; and polishing particles retained in the base material or in the pores.
Fritz is also concern in providing a polishing pad (Figures 3A-3B and see also paragraph 0036-0037) comprising a base material (element 340) composed of a binder resin (element 230 and see also paragraph 0037) and fibers (element 310 and see also paragraph 0037-0038) and having a plurality of pores formed therein (see paragraph 0036 and see also figure 3B annotated below Detail A); and polishing particles (element 116 and see also paragraph 0037) retained in the base material (see figures 3A-3B) or in the pores.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Fritz to provide wherein the base material is composed of a binder resin and fibers and having a plurality of pores formed therein; and polishing particles retained in the base material or in the pores. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the polishing pad formed of a known desired material including a base martial composed of a binder resin, fibers, plurality of pores, and polishing particles which are known to provide superior control, fluid retention, and durability would necessarily provide the predictable result allowing the pad to continue to function as intended in order to polish different portions of a workpiece during operations.
Regarding claim 2, Kiyono modified discloses: the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein the polishing surface has:
a third surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) that is continuous with the first surface (see figure 2 annotated below) and forms a tapered shape such that a distance between the first rotation axis center and the third surface becomes larger as the third surface approaches the second surface (see figure 2 annotated below showing the third surface (Detail A) in the form of a tapered shape such that a distance between the first rotation axis (X-X axis) center and the third surface (Detail A) becomes larger as the third surface approaches the second surface); and
a fourth surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) that is continuous with the second surface (see figure 2 annotated below) and forms a tapered shape such that a distance between the first rotation axis center and the fourth surface becomes larger as the fourth surface approaches the first surface (see figure 2 annotated below showing the fourth surface (Detail B) in the form of a tapered shape such that a distance between the first rotation axis (X-X axis) center and the fourth surface (Detail B) becomes larger as the fourth surface approaches the first surface), and
the third surface and the fourth surface have an interior angle (see figure 2 annotated below Detail C) that is consistent with an opening angle of the notch (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kiyono modified discloses: the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein the fibers are fibers in a fibrous web (see prior art of Fritz, element 312 paragraph 0037), and the binder resin, the polishing articles and the pores are contained in the fibrous web (see prior art of Fritz, figure 3B and see also paragraph 0037).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyono (JP 2000233354) in view of Fritz (US Pub. No. 2005/0233678) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Iwatsuki (JP 2006043803) and Nakayama (US Pub. No. 2019/0218697).
Regarding claim 4, Kiyono modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3, but appears to be silent wherein the binder resin is a thermoplastic polyurethane resin, and the fibers are polyethylene terephthalate fibers or polypropylene fibers.
Iwatsuki is also concern in providing a polishing pad (see paragraph 0002) comprising a base material composed of a binder resin and fibers(see paragraph 0014). Iwatsuki further teaches wherein the binder resin is a thermoplastic polyurethane resin (see paragraph 0010 where the prior art discloses utilizing a “thermoplastic polyurethane resin” to contain the fibers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Iwatsuki to provide wherein the binder resin is a thermoplastic polyurethane resin. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a known thermoplastic polyurethane resin would necessarily allow the pad to easily deformed by load, and serves as a cushioning material to make the pressure distribution uniform during polishing as disclosed by Iwatsuki (see paragraph 0012). Lastly, the applicant has placed no critically on the claimed binder resin being a thermoplastic polyurethane resin provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that it is “preferable” and offering other acceptable different resins (see paragraphs 0013/0016 of the specification).
However, Kiyono modified appears to be silent wherein the fibers are polyethylene terephthalate fibers or polypropylene fibers.
Nakayama is also concern in providing a polishing pad (see paragraph 0030) comprising a base material composed of fibers (see paragraph 0031) and wherein the fibers are polyethylene terephthalate fibers (see paragraph 0124) or polypropylene fibers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Nakayama to provide wherein the fibers are polyethylene terephthalate fibers or polypropylene fibers. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing known polyethylene terephthalate fibers which are well known in the art to have an exceptional combination of durability, low moisture absorption, and excellent strength-to-weight ratio would necessarily allow the pad to polish a workpiece to a desired finished. Lastly, the applicant has placed no critically on the claimed fibers being polyethylene terephthalate fibers or polypropylene fibers provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that it is “preferable” and offering other acceptable different fibers (see paragraphs 0014/0016 of the specification).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyono (JP 2000233354) in view of Fritz (US Pub. No. 2005/0233678), Iwatsuki (JP 2006043803) and Nakayama (US Pub. No. 2019/0218697) as applied to claims 1 and 3-4 above, and further in view of Martin (US Pub. No. 2019/0375073).
Regarding claim 4, Kiyono modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4, but appears to be silent wherein the binder resin is in a range from 8.5 to 12.7 vol%, the polishing particles are in a range from 10.6 to 14.8 vol%, the fibers are in a range from 17.4 to 26.1 vol%, and the pores are in a range from 54.0 to 58.6 vol%.
Martin is also concern in providing a polishing pad (Figures 1-3 element 100 and see also paragraph 0043) comprising a polishing body (element 120) that includes a base material composed of a binder resin (see paragraphs 0027-0028/0062/0069), fibers (see paragraph 0035), polishing particles (0030-0031), and plurality of pores (see paragraph 0038). Martin further teaches wherein the binder resin is in a range from 8.5 to 12.7 vol% (see paragraph 0028 where the prior art discloses a variety of different vol% values of the binder resin including “at least 9 vol % or at least 10 vol % or at least 12 vol %”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 9 vol% which is within the claimed range of 8.5 to 12.7 vol%), the polishing particles are in a range from 10.6 to 14.8 vol% (see paragraph 0031 where the prior art discloses a variety of different vol% values of the polishing particles including “at least 10 vol % or at least 15 vol %”, thus having overlapping ranges including the range from 10.6 to 14.8 vol%), the fibers are in a range from 17.4 to 26.1 vol% (see paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses having “filler material” that includes “fibers” and see also paragraph 0036 where the prior art discloses a variety of different vol% values of the filler material (i.e. fibers) including “at least 20 vol % or at least 25 vol %”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 20 vol% which is within the claimed range of 17.4 to 26.1 vol%), and the pores are in a range from 54.0 to 58.6 vol% (see paragraph 0038 where the prior art discloses a variety of different vol% values of the pores including “ 55 vol % porosity”, thus having a value within the claimed range of 54.0 to 58.6 vol%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Martin to provide wherein the binder resin is in a range from 8.5 to 12.7 vol%, the polishing particles are in a range from 10.6 to 14.8 vol%, the fibers are in a range from 17.4 to 26.1 vol%, and the pores are in a range from 54.0 to 58.6 vol%. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired polishing pad with the claimed range volume percentages would necessarily allow the pad to continue to function as intended in order to polish different portions of a workpiece during operations. Lastly, the applicant has placed no critically on the claimed ranges provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that it is “preferable” to have the claimed ranges and indicates only two comparative examples having values above and below the claimed range with no additional values having different ranges proximate to the claimed range (see paragraphs 0017/0038 of the specification).
Regarding claim 6, Kiyono modified discloses: the polishing pad according to claim 5, wherein a value calculated by dividing the volume percent of the polishing particles by the total of the volume percent of the binder resin and the volume percent of the fibers is a range from 0.30 to 0.48 (see paragraphs 0028/0031/0036/0038 of prior art Martin, where the prior art disclose the claimed vol% of the binder resin including “at least 9 vol % or at least 10 vol % or at least 12 vol %”, claimed vol% of the polishing particles including “at least 10 vol % or at least 15 vol %”, and the claimed vol% of fibers including at least 20 vol % or at least 25 vol %”. Therefore, for illustrative purposes, the examiner takes the value of “10 vol %” of the polishing particle divided by the total of 32% of the volume percent of the binder resin and the volume percent of the fibers (“12 vol%” (binder resin) + “20 vol%” (fiber) = 32 total vol%) in order to have a value of “0.3125” which is within the claimed range from 0.30 to 0.48).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyono (JP 2000233354) in view of Fritz (US Pub. No. 2005/0233678) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Luo (CN 114227530) and Heo (US Pub. No. 2022/0143778).
Regarding claim 7, Kiyono modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 3, but appears to be silent wherein: a density is in a range from 0.66 to 0.74 g/cm3; a durometer hardness is in a range from 30 to 38; and an elastic modulus is in a range from 93.4 to 257.5 N/mm2.
Luo is also concern in providing a polishing pad (Figure 1-3 element 2 and see also paragraph 0135) comprising a density is in a range from 0.66 to 0.74 g/cm3 (see paragraph 0007 where the prior art discloses “the density of the polishing pad is between 0.38 and 0.91 g/cm³”, thus having overlapping ranges of density in the range from 0.66 to 0.74 g/cm3) and a durometer hardness is in a range from 30 to 38 (see paragraph 0007 where the prior art discloses “Shore hardness of the polishing pad is between 21D and 70D”, thus having overlapping ranges of the durometer hardness is in a range from 30 to 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Luo to provide a density is in a range from 0.66 to 0.74 g/cm3 and a durometer hardness is in a range from 30 to 38. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired polishing pad with the claimed density and hardness range would necessarily provide the predictable result of having the pad continue to function as intended in order to polish different portions of a workpiece during operations while also maintain a high removal rate and ensure the stability of the removal rate curve and edge removal rate throughout the entire lifespan as disclosed by Luo (see paragraph 0026). Lastly, the applicant has placed no critically on the claimed ranges provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that it is “preferable” to have the claimed ranges and indicates only two comparative examples having values above and below the claimed range with no additional values having different ranges proximate to the claimed range (see paragraphs 0018/0040 of the specification).
However, Kiyono modified appears to be silent wherein the polishing pad comprises an elastic modulus is in a range from 93.4 to 257.5 N/mm2.
Heo is also concern in providing a polishing pad (Figure 1-2 element 110 and see also paragraph 0170) comprising an elastic modulus is in a range from 93.4 to 257.5 N/mm2 (see paragraph 0090/0092 where the prior art discloses a plurality of different ranges of the elastic modulus of the polishing layer of the polishing pad including “100 N/mm2 to 150 N/mm2”, thus being within the claimed range of 93.4 to 257.5 N/mm2) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiyono to incorporate the teachings of Heo to provide an elastic modulus is in a range from 93.4 to 257.5 N/mm2. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired polishing pad with the claimed elastic modulus range would necessarily provide the predictable result of having the pad continue to function as intended in order to polish different portions of a workpiece during operations Lastly, the applicant has placed no critically on the claimed ranges provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that it is “preferable” to have the claimed ranges and indicates only two comparative examples having values above and below the claimed range with no additional values having different ranges proximate to the claimed range (see paragraphs 0018/0040 of the specification).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights