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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because not only the abstract is in more than one paragraph, but it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0203406 to Ganapathiappan et al. (hereinafter Ganapathiappan).
With respect to claim 1, Ganapathiappan teaches a porous polishing pad comprising about 45% or more of void, i.e. pore, volume fraction of closed pores, i.e. claimed “closed-cell bodies”, having an average pore size of about 30 microns or more, and wherein the pore size is, alternatively or in addition, 200 microns or less (abstract, Figures, [0060], [0062]), wherein the polishing pad comprises first polishing element, i.e. claimed “abrasive material layer”, and second polishing elements, i.e. claimed “substrate”, which are formed from at least on ink jettable pre-polymer composition, wherein this composition comprises inorganic and/or organic particles as abrasive particles having a size of 50 nm to 100 micrometers ([0092], [0112]-[0113], [0147]).
Therefore, the reference teaches an overlapping range of concentration for the claimed closed-cell bodies, and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness; this is because about 45% or “more” includes any and all values and ranges above 45% such as the claimed range of “70% by volume to 85% by volume”. Additionally, based on the disclosure on the pore size and inorganic abrasive particle size, the reference reads on having “closed-cell bodies” with an inner diameter of “30µm to 200µm”, and wherein the “first abrasive grains have an average grain size which is equal to or less than of one third of the inner diameter of each of the closed-cell bodies”.
Moreover, the reference teaches a concentration of at least 0.1 wt%, and up to 20 wt% for the abrasive particle ([0149]) in the pre-polymer composition which would result in the formation of the first polishing elements, i.e. claimed “abrasive material layer”, through the ink jet printer. Although the concentration of the abrasive particles is disclosed in wt%, it is expected of the concentration of abrasive particles to have, at least, an overlapping with the claimed range of “5% by volume to 13% by volume” based on “a volume of an entirety of the abrasive material layer” because, as evidenced from the reference, the disclosed polishing pad does not contain high abrasive grain concentration, and is, in fact, directed to having smaller concentration of abrasive grains. Thus, it is expected of the disclosed 0.1-17 wt% of abrasive grain concentration to have, at least, some overlapping with the claimed 5-13 vol%.
It is important to note that there is no limitation in the claim specifying the thickness of the claimed “sheet-like” abrasive article; thus, giving this recitation its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is interpreted to mean that the thickness of the abrasive article is less than the length or diameter of the surface area. As such, the disclosed abrasive article reads on the claimed “sheet-like abrasive article”.
With respect to claim 3, Ganapathiappan discloses during the process of formation of the polishing pad, the pre-polymer composition is dispensed through the ink-jet printer and on exposure to energy, forms a solid polymer, which encloses porosity forming agent micro-droplets ([0051]). The reference, additionally, discloses the use of porosity-forming agent which are thermally labile and may contain thermally labile groups, wherein such groups can be unsaturated cyclic organic groups or cyclic hydrocarbon compound ([0207]). Furthermore, the reference discloses that the porosity-forming agent may come from the pre-polymer composition comprising polymer spheres which may be solid or may have a polymer shell which encloses a liquid or gas material ([0208]-[0209]). Thus, it would be inevitable that upon exposure to heat, the liquid or gas expands, and as such, the reference renders the claimed “closed-cell bodies” or pore deriving from “thermally-expandable microcapsules” obvious.
In the alternative, it is noted that the claims under examination are product claims, and as such, how the closed-cell bodies are formed, i.e. the process of forming the closed-cell bodies, does not add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. MPEP 2113 states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 4, Ganapathiappan discloses the use of photoinitiator in their pre-polymer composition, which would be forming, at least, the first polishing element, i.e. claimed “abrasive material layer” ([0092]-[0100]). Therefore, the functional polymers, i.e. resin binder, used in the composition are inevitably photo-curable resin.
In the alternative, it is noted that the claims under examination are product claims, and as such, how the resin binder of the composition is cured, i.e. a process limitation, does not add patentable weight to the examination of the product claims. MPEP 2113 states “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 2, of claims 1 and 5, of claims 1 and 7, of claims 1 and 8, and of claims 1 and 9.
Ganapathiappan does not disclose any top coat or layer on the top of the first polishing elements which has been taken to read on the claimed “abrasive material layer”, or any cushioning material layer, or any pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, or any engagement member.
U.S. Patent No. 6,913,517 to Prasad discloses polishing pads for chemical mechanical polishing comprising a porous foam having an average pore size of about 50 microns or less, wherein the pores are closed cells (abstract, col. 5, lines 5-28) and abrasive particles having any suitable dimension of about 1 nm to about 2 mm (col. 8, lines 34-42 and col. 9, lines 30-40). The reference discloses about 75% or more of the pores having a pore size distribution of about ±20 µm (col. 5, lines 5-11); however, the reference teaches a void volume of about 25% or less (see claim 4). Thus, the reference does not disclose a porosity of 75-85 vol%.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0148928 to Yamahara, submitted in the IDS filed on 04/08/2024, discloses an abrasive material containing a cured product of a thermosetting resin powder (i.e. claimed “first adhesive binder”), bubbles derived from heat-expandable microspheres (i.e. claimed “closed-cell bodies”), and abrasive grains (abstract). The thermosetting powder has a particle size of at least 5 microns, and the particle size of the abrasive grains is close to that of the thermosetting powder ([0020]); thus, it is reasonably expected of the abrasive grains to have approximately the same size. The heat-expandable microspheres have a size of no more than 100 microns ([0024]); thus, the reference reads on “the first abrasive grains have an average grain size which is equal to or less than of one third of the inner diameter of each of the closed-cell bodies” through overlapping ranges. The reference discloses concentrations of at least 5wt% of thermosetting resin powder, at least 0.01 wt% and no more than 5wt% of heat-expandable microspheres, and at least 20wt% of abrasive grains ([0040]-[0042]). Although the concentrations of the components are disclosed in weight percent, it is evidenced that the concentration of heat-expandable microspheres is not the majority proportion of the abrasive article, and is not expected to read on or render obvious the claimed concentration of “70% by volume to 85% by volume”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights