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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The ISA United States Patent and Trademark Office, International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US24/30865, as listed on the Information Disclosure Statement, dated 12/20/24, appears to be an incomplete copy. What has been submitted has been considered.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
The structure of claim 11 would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention because not all epoxies comprise a polyol bound within an epoxy chain.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 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 2 appears to further limit claim 1 that states “each reactive unit comprising a functional group” (line 5).
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 § 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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Misra et al (US 2020/0365412 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, 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).
Regarding claim 5, Misra teaches wherein the functional groups are bound to a substrate-facing surface of the polymer layer (para 17-18).
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).
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 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 4, 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Misa teaches the planarization is performed by the functionalized polymers (i.e., functional groups) (para 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location (e.g., on the polymer chain and location in the polymer layer) of the functional groups to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Misa teaches the polymer layer comprises polyurethane (para 18). Misa further teaches the planarization is performed by the functionalized polymers (i.e., functional groups) (para 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the functional groups on the polymer chain (e.g. moieties) and location in the polymer layer) to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prasad (US 2005/0098540 A1).
Misra teaches the pad of claim 1.
Misra fails to teach the polymer layer comprises a polyanhydride, and the functional groups are located on an anhydride moiety of the polyanhydride; and the functional groups are located on a polyol moiety of the polyanhydride.
Prasad teaches polishing pads comprising polymers such as polyanhydrides and polyurethane (para 8, 9, 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the polyanhydride 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).
Furthermore, Misa further teaches the planarization is performed by the functionalized polymers (i.e., functional groups) (para 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the functional groups on the polymer chain (e.g. moieties) to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seyanagi et al (US 2002/0183409 A1).
Misra teaches the pad of claim 1.
Misra fails to teach the polymer layer comprises an epoxy, and the functional groups are located on an epoxide moiety of the epoxy; and the functional groups are located on a polyol bound within an epoxy chain.
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 substitute the polyurethane foam of Seyanagi 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). 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).
Misa further teaches the planarization is performed by the functionalized polymers (i.e., functional groups) (para 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the location of the functional groups on the polymer chain (e.g. moieties) to optimize the ability of the pad to perform a proper planarization of the substrate. The combination of Misra and Seyanagi would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the functional groups are located on a polyol bound within an epoxy chain.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al (US 2023/0151179 A1).
Misra teaches the pad of claim 1.
Misra 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 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.
Conclusion
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