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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 15-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the platen window comprises a second transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface and a second surface opposite the first surface” is indefinite because the term “proximate to the polishing surface” is unclear. In claim 1, it is claimed that “a platen window in the platen and beneath the pad window” and “a polishing pad having a polishing surface and comprising a pad window disposed in the polishing pad, the pad window comprising: a first transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface”. Therefore, if the platen window is beneath the pad window, and the pad window first surface is proximate to the polishing surface, how is the platen window first surface then also proximate the polishing surface?
Claims 8-9 are rejected as being dependent on claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein both the first surface and the second surface of the second transparent structural layer are covered by a permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” is indefinite. The Office notes that the term “a permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” in claim 7, may be a different configuration than the “first permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” in claim 1. However, the recitation in claim 8 is specifically indefinite because there is an exact recitation of “a permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” in claim 7. Is this supposed to be the same surfactant layer as claim 7 just used on both sides, or a different configuration for one side than the other side? This recitation is further confusing because what the “permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” comprises is not fully specified, therefore it is unclear if this can be a different composition or is supposed to be the same.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer comprises” is indefinite because this term “the” could also refer back to first permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer of claim 1 or to permanent surfactant layer of claim 7 because there is no distinguishing on where the recitation of “the permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer” as recited in claim 9 is placed, such as on the platen window, or on the second transparent structural layer in order to distinguish what permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer is actually being referred to.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “wherein the platen window comprises a second transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface and a second surface opposite the first surface” is indefinite because the term “proximate to the polishing surface” is unclear. In claim 11, it is claimed that “a platen window in the platen and beneath the pad window” and “a polishing pad having a polishing surface and comprising a pad window disposed in the polishing pad, the pad window comprising: a first transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface”. Therefore, if the platen window is beneath the pad window, and the pad window first surface is proximate to the polishing surface, how is the platen window first surface then also proximate the polishing surface?
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “wherein the platen window comprises a second transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface and a second surface opposite the first surface” is indefinite because the term “proximate to the polishing surface” is unclear. In claim 16, above it is claimed that “a platen window in the platen and beneath the pad window” and “a polishing pad having a polishing surface and comprising a pad window disposed in the polishing pad, the pad window comprising: a first transparent structural layer having a first surface proximate to the polishing surface”. Therefore, if the platen window is beneath the pad window, and the pad window first surface is proximate to the polishing surface, how is the platen window first surface then also proximate the polishing surface?
Claims 17-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 are allowed.
Claims 7-9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Allison et al (US Patent No. 9,017,140) teaches a cmp pad with a local area transparency [Allison, fig 1, 40].
Cheng et al (US Patent No. 9,228,114) teaches a cmp platen with a window embedded [Cheng, fig 1, 134].
Wiswesser et al (US Patent No. 7,7264,536) teaches a cmp pad comprising a window having a hydrophilic material [Wiswesser, col 5, lines 30-46].
Kazuno et al (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2008221367) as evidenced by the machine translation, teaches a window [Kazuno, fig 1, 8] comprising a transparent structural layer [Kazuno, ¶ 0068, 8 is the light transmitting region] having a first permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer on at least a portion of a first surface of the transparent structural layer [Kazuno, ¶ 0033, a hydrophilic polymer surfactant is added on at least one of the surfaces and ¶ 0043 the surfactant is permanent because it is a coated film that is dried].
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a first permanent hydrophilic surfactant layer solely on an outer edge portion of the first surface of the first transparent structural layer” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claims 2-6 and 10 are allowed as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 7-9 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are allowed as being dependent on claim 11.
Claim 15 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 11.
Claims 17-20 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights