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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 4/24/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 appears to further limit claim 1 by stating “wherein the functional groups are bound to a substrate-facing surface of the polymer layer;” but claim 1 states “wherein functional groups are incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer;” so claim 5 is rejected for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In the alternative, since claim 1 states “wherein functional groups are incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer;” the functional groups would already be expected at the substrate-facing surface of the polymer layer; so claim 5 is rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra et al (US 2020/0365412 A1) in view of Prasad (US 2005/0098540 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Misra teaches a pad for performing abrasive-free chemical planarization of a substrate, the pad comprising a polymer layer configured to contact the substrate during the abrasive-free chemical planarization, wherein the polymer layer comprises a plurality of reactive units (e.g., functional groups) covalently bonded within polymer chains, each reactive unit comprising a functional group comprising one or more of a complexing agent or a hydrolyzing agent for performing the abrasive-free chemical planarization (abstract, para 15, 20, 22, 32).
Misra fails to suggest wherein the polymer layer comprises a cross-linked polymer. However, Misra teaches the polymer layers are made from polyurethane (para 18).
Prasad teaches polishing pads comprising polymers such as polyanhydrides and polyurethane; wherein the polymers are crosslinked; and crosslinking acts to enhance the impact and tensile strength, the ductility, and elasticity of the polymer (para 8, 9, 14, 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polymers of Prasad for the polyurethane of Misra, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). This substitution comes with the additional motivation of polymers enhanced impact and tensile strength, ductility, and elasticity.
Regarding the limitations “wherein functional groups are incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer” and “wherein the functional groups are bound to a substrate-facing surface of the polymer layer;” Misra teaches the functional group could be covalently bonded to the polymer; and the pad may be a functionalized polymer pad; wherein the functionalized polymer pad may include bonded or adsorbed functional molecules/groups to perform hydrolysis, complexing, and/or any other additional chemical processes. This would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention forming the polymer layer or pad with functionalized polymers, so functional groups would be incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer; and the functional groups would be bound to a substrate-facing surface of the polymer layer.
Regarding claims 3 and 6-9, Prasad teaches polishing pads comprising polymers such as polyanhydrides and polyurethane; wherein the polymers are crosslinked (para 8, 9, 14, 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the species of the complexing agent and/or hydrolyzing agent (i.e., functional group) for its ability to form a bond with the available moieties on the crosslinked polymer, and therein the moieties and location of the functional groups on the crosslinked polymer chains to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Misra teaches wherein the functional group comprises a carboxylic acid (e.g., COOH) (para 31).
Regarding claim 13, Misra teaches wherein the functional group comprises polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride (para 31).
Regarding claim 15, Misra teaches a pad for performing abrasive-free chemical planarization of a substrate, the pad comprising: a first polymer layer configured to contact the substrate during the abrasive-free chemical planarization, wherein the first polymer layer comprises a plurality of reactive units covalently bonded within polymer chains, each reactive unit comprising a functional group comprising one or more of a complexing agent or a hydrolyzing agent for performing the abrasive-free chemical planarization; and a second polymer layer positioned on an opposite side of the first polymer layer as a substrate-contacting side of the first polymer layer (abstract, para 15, 18, 20, 22, 31-32).
Misra fails to suggest wherein the polymer layer comprises a cross-linked polymer. However, Misra teaches the polymer layers are made from polyurethane (para 18).
Prasad teaches polishing pads comprising polymers such as polyanhydrides and polyurethane; wherein the polymers are crosslinked; and crosslinking acts to enhance the impact and tensile strength, the ductility, and elasticity of the polymer. (para 8, 9, 14, 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polymers of Prasad for the polyurethane of Misra, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). This substitution comes with the additional motivation of polymers enhanced impact and tensile strength, ductility, and elasticity.
Regarding the limitation “wherein functional groups are incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer;” Misra teaches the functional group could be covalently bonded to the polymer; and the pad may be a functionalized polymer pad; wherein the functionalized polymer pad may include bonded or adsorbed functional molecules/groups to perform hydrolysis, complexing, and/or any other additional chemical processes. This would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention forming the polymer layer or pad with functionalized polymers, so functional groups would be incorporated homogeneously throughout the polymer layer.
Regarding claim 16, Misra teaches the first layer and the second layer may be the same material and that the second layer is thick than the first layer (para 5, para 18, 20); so the same material of the first and second layer would both be able to being compressed to a certain percent, but would result in a great compression distance of the second layer, i.e., wherein the second polymer layer is more compressible than the first polymer layer.
Regarding claim 17, Misra teaches both the first and second layers have pores; wherein the second layer may be configured to retain materials removed by the first layer (para 17, 20), i.e., the pore faction of the first layer is used for removal or temporary storage and the pore faction of the second layer retains removed material or longer term storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the first polymer layer having a smaller pore fraction than the second polymer layer, since the first layer pore faction is only used for temporary store and the second layer pore faction is used for longer term store and would need to be greater to hold more of the materials removed.
Regarding claim 18, Misra teaches first layer (i.e., substrate-facing surface) has pore (para 18, 20-21, 23), so it would be considered textured, since pores would result in an uneven surface. In addition, Misra teaches the first layer may comprise
Regarding claim 19, Misra teaches wherein the functional group comprises a carboxylic acid (e.g., COOH) (para 31).
Regarding claim 20, Misra teaches wherein the functional group comprises polydiallyldimethylammonium chloride (para 31).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra and Prasad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seyanagi et al (US 2002/0183409 A1).
Misra as modified by Prasad teaches the pad of claim 1.
Misra as modified by Prasad fails to teach the polymer layer comprises an epoxy, and the functional groups are located on an epoxide moiety of the epoxy; and the polymer layer comprises an epoxy and a polyol bound within an epoxy chain of the epoxy, and the functional groups are located on the polyol bound within the epoxy chain. However, Misa teaches its pads may comprise foams (para 4, 25).
Seyanagi teaches polishing materials such as sheets or pads comprising polymers such polyurethane foam mixed with epoxy polyols (para 1, 11, 48-48, 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine polyurethane of Seyanagi with the polymers of Misra as modified by Prasad, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I).
Shih teaches that the polyurethane comprises an epoxy polyol (i.e., a polymer containing both epoxy rings and multiple hydroxyl (-OH) groups (i.e., polyols) (para 68); which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the polymer layer comprises an epoxy, and the functional groups are located on an epoxide moiety of the epoxy; and the polymer layer comprises an epoxy and a polyol bound within an epoxy chain of the epoxy.
Misa further teaches the planarization is performed by the functionalized polymers (i.e., functional groups) (para 17); and Prasad teaches the polymers are crosslinked (para 8, 9, 14, 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the species of the complexing agent and/or hydrolyzing agent (i.e., functional group) for its ability to form a bond with the available moieties on the crosslinked polymer, and therein the moieties and location of the functional groups on the crosslinked polymer chains to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra and Prasad as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al (US 2023/0151179 A1).
Misra as modified by Prasad teaches the pad of claim 1.
Misra as modified by Prasad fails to teach wherein the pad comprises one or more of microspheres or fillers, wherein the one or more of the microspheres or the fillers each comprises a polymer and functional groups bonded to the polymer, wherein the one or more of the microspheres or the fillers are not covalently bonded to the polymer layer of the pad.
Shimizu teaches hollow microballoons (i.e., microspheres) for polishing pads that exhibit excellent polishing characteristics and excellent solvent resistance; wherein the one or more of the microspheres or the fillers each comprises a polymer (e.g., at least one resin such as an amide resin) and functional groups (e.g., a polyfunctional carboxylic acid compound having at least two carboxy groups and a polyfunctional amine compound having at least two amino groups bonded to the polymer) (abstract, para 9-10, 22, 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the hollow microballoons with the polishing pad of Misra as modified by Prasad for a polishing pad comprising hollow microballoons excellent polishing characteristics and excellent solvent resistance.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the one or more of the microspheres or the fillers are not covalently bonded to the polymer layer of the pad;” Shimizu teaches when its microballoons are mixed with other compositions (e.g., dispersants), the other compositions do not react (i.e., or should not) with the polymerizable monomer which would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention one or more of the microspheres or the fillers are not covalently bonded to the polymer layer of the pad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of a new combination of prior art of record. The Applicant is directed to the 35 USC § 103 section above.
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights