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 Amendment
Claims 1, 3-13, 21-29 are pending. claims 1, 3-10, 12, 13, 21-27 are rejected under prior art. Claims 11, 28, 29 are objected.
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.
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, 7-10, 12, 13, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krishnan et al. (US 9,421,666)
With respect to claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 13 Krishnan discloses a CMP apparatus comprising a platen 16, a polishing pad, which comprises a porous polishing layer 22 made of polyurethane, polyetherimide, having a plurality of pores/voids formed therein having of a backing layer/pad base and a plurality of plateaus or claimed segments between grooves 26 with lateral width of the plateaus at about 0.1 to 2.5 mm, protruding from the base, a hardness of about 40 to 80 on the Shore D scale. Figure 1A through 1C bellow show the pad base portion and the plurality of plateaus or claimed segments are integral portions of a continuous porous body of a same material composition (col. 4; col. 5, lines 29, 30; fig 1A-1C). Any width in the range 0.1mm to 2.5mm being used would be the maximum width. The plateaus or claimed segments would prevent laterally spreading a deformation caused by a downward force because the plateaus have a same width as that of the claimed invention, which is less than about 5mm and substantially in the range of about 0.5 to about 5 mm and the polishing layer is made of the same material such as polyurethane, polyetherimide
PNG
media_image1.png
680
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 8, 9, and 25, the depth of the grooves 26 is from 0.5 to 1 mm (col. 4, line 67-col. 5, line 1), which would also provide the height of the plateaus/segments between the grooves. The backing layer 20 has a same thickness as the polishing layer 22, which is 80 mils or less or about 2 mm or less, e.g. 50 mils (col. 4, lines 29-33; col. 5, lines 7-9). For example at 50 mils or 1.27mm of polishing layer 22 thickness Th and a height of the grooves/segments Sh at 1mm, it would provide a ratio of Th/Sh at 1.27.
With respect to claims 10, 26 since the grooves 26 can have a patterns such as concentric circles, straight lines, cross-hatched (col. 4, lines 52-55), the plateaus between the grooves would have a circular, square, rectangular bottom or top surface.
With respect to claim 27, the porous polishing layer 22 is made of polyurethane, polyetherimide (col. 4, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Krishnan as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 3, The plateaus have a width of about 0.1 to 2.5 mm (col. , lines 60-62), which is substantially identical to and anticipates claimed range of about 0.5mm to about 5mm. In alternative, one skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use claimed ranges for the width of the plateaus as they are fully encompassed by Krishnan’s range to provide a polishing pad with expected results.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Hou et al. (US 2023/0398659A1).
With respect to claim 5, Krishnan doesn’t describe the grooves have a width between the plateaus ranging from about 0.2 mm to about 5 mm. Hou teaches a cmp polishing pad having a same structure of grooves between protrusions and the grooves have a width ranging from about 1um (0.001mm) to about 5000 um (5mm) (para 51), which is substantially the same as that of the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the groove width in light of Hou in a range such as about 0.2mm to about 5mm because Hou teaches such groove width has been successfully used to provide a polishing pad that improves thickness control for the polished wafer such as wafer thickness uniformity, a more even distribution of the slurry across the surface of the pad, and more even zone-to-zone downforce setting applied to the wafer (para 52).
With respect to claims 6, 21, 22, 23, Krishnan teaches a plurality of plateaus or claimed segments between grooves 26 with lateral width of about 0.1 to 2.5 mm (col. 4, lines 60-62). Hou teaches the protrusions have a width of about 20um (0.02mm) to about 5000um (5mm) (para 39). These width ranges are substantially identical to claimed range of maximum width Sd for the protrusions/segments of about 0.5mm to about 5mm. Hou further teaches the grooves have a width ranging from about 1um (0.001mm) to about 5000 um (5mm) (para 51), which is substantially identical to claimed range of about 0.2mm to about 5mm. Therefore, a ratio between a maximum width of the protrusion and the groove width of about 0.2 to about 5 would be fully encompassed and obvious by the teaching of Krishnan and Hou because the protrusions and the grooves width are the same as that of the claimed invention and Hou further teaches features including dimensions can be varied (para 54). This would provide a polishing pad having dimensions of the grooves and plateaus/segment between the grooves with expected results.
With respect to claim 24 since Krishnan teaches the grooves 26 can have a patterns such as concentric circles, straight lines, cross-hatched (col. 4, lines 52-55), the plateaus between the grooves would have a circular, square, rectangular bottom or top surface.
Response to Arguments
The amendment has overcome the 112 rejections and the rejections under the applied prior art Hou.
With respect to applicant’s remark that Krishnan teaches two-layer construction pad. The claim 1 doesn’t exclude a two-layer construction. Furthermore, upon reconsideration, Krishnan’s pad layer 22 would still read on claimed porous polishing pad. It is made of polyurethane, polyetherimide, having a plurality of pores/voids formed therein having of a backing layer/pad base and a plurality of plateaus or claimed segments between grooves 26, protruding from the base. Figure 1A through 1C bellow show the pad base portion and the plurality of plateaus or claimed segments are integral portions of a continuous porous body of a same material composition (col. 4; col. 5, lines 29, 30; fig 1A-1C). This would read on claimed a porous polishing pad having the pad base and the discrete segments are integral portions of a continuous porous body of a same material.
PNG
media_image1.png
680
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 28, 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11, 28, and 29 are allowable because the applied prior art Krishnan doesn’t teach the plurality of pores have a size about 5nm to about 50nm. He teaches the pores can be 50um-100 um (50000nm to 100000nm) wide (col. 4, lines 29-31).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
10/9/2026
Prosecution Insights