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 of the product of the pad claims in the reply filed on 6/2/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 10166653 B2).
With respect to claims 1, 2 Lee describes a pad conditioners for conditioning polishing pads comprising a base substrate 10, projections 21 and 21a extending upward from a surface of the base substrate 10, having an edge defined by two intersecting surfaces; and a diamond layer 23 and 30 over the projections 21 and 21a (col. 5, line 7-10; col. 6, lines 6-12, 50-55; fig. 5a)
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claim 3, the diamond layer is formed by CVD (col. 6, lines 14-16, 50-55).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 21-23, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2014/0113532A1).
With respect to claims 1, 2, Smith describes a CMP conditioner for a polishing pad comprising: a backing base plate/member; protrusions/projections 164, 166, 170a-170c, in segments 152a-152c, extending upward from a surface of the base member and having an edge defined by intersecting surfaces; a diamond layer 322 overlying the protrusions (para 69; 82-88, 123, fig. 7A-7C, 7F, 8A-8C, 17),
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 3, 23, 29 the diamond is a CVD diamond (para 123).
With respect to claims 6, 7, fig. 10 shows a first array of protrusions 204a, second array of protrusions 204b, and third array of protrusions 204c that are arranged offset from each other
PNG
media_image6.png
382
490
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claims 8 and 27, figure 7a, 7b above show the protrusions are confined to segments/regions 152a, 152b or claimed first regions, while the area around the segments 152a, 152b or claimed second region is void of the protrusions.
With respect to claims 21, 22 fig 8A-8C, 10 further show the a first array of protrusions 204a, second array of protrusions 204b, and third array of protrusions 204c that are arranged offset from each other and a height of the protrusions changing from an edge region to a central regions or from one annular zone such as zone 174 to another annular zone 172, which provides claimed a second array of projections offset from the first array of projections, and have a height greater than a height of the first array of projections and a third array of projections offset from the second array of projections, and have a height greater than a height of the second array of projections (para 88, 89).
With respect to claim 26, fig 7f and 8c above show the protrusions have a base contacting the upper surface of the base member and an apex spaced from the base member, and each protrusion of the array has a maximum width at the base and a width that decreases from the base to the apex.
With respect to claim 28, segments 152a and 152 in fig 7A and 7B above show the regions are arranged in a fan, concentric and segmented pattern.
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 27 above.
With respect to claim 31, Smith doesn’t explicitly teach the diamond layer is absent from the upper surface of the base member. However, he emphasizes that the diamond layer is to cover at least the distal extremities or the tip portions of the protrusions (claim 1; para 123). Therefore, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art that the diamond can be absent from the upper surface of the base plate as long as it covers the tip portions of the protrusions to provide a pad conditioner with expected results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sung (US 2017/0232576A1).
With respect to claim 4, Smith doesn’t teach that the protrusions are comprised of a common material selected from acrylic, polyurethane, polyester, polyimide, carbon treated polymer and/or combinations thereof. However, these are known to one skilled in the art as materials for making a pad conditioner as shown here by Sung (claim 8). Therefore, in the absent of unexpected results, one skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use any of known materials as long as it provides material making up of the protrusions for pad conditioner.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ishizuka (JP 2012213833A).
With respect to claim 25, Smith doesn’t teach that the pitch for the protrusions is from 50 to 2000um. Ishizuka teaches forming a sintered body for pad conditioning having protrusions. The protrusions have a pitch at 200 um or less (claim 1; page 4; fig. 2). Figure 2 shows a pitch of 100um.
PNG
media_image7.png
492
554
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the pitch for the protrusions in light of Ishizuka because Ishizuka shows that this pitch dimension has been successfully used to provide a pad conditioner to condition and regenerate a polishing pad (page 5) with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 24, 30 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.
With respect to claims 5, 24, and 30, the prior art Lee and Smith, while describe a pad conditioner having protrusions; however, neither prior art teaches the protrusions comprises first protrusions formed from a first material having a first hardness and second protrusions formed from a second material having a second hardness less than or different hardness from the first hardness.
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
7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights