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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 in the reply filed on 9/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balijepalli et al. (US 2004/0166790) in view of Kuramochi et al. (US 6,077,581).
Balijepalli discloses a polishing pad obtained from a composition comprising a base resin and abrasive particles incorporated therein (abstract). The abrasive particles include silica particles (paragraph 76).
The polishing pad further comprises pores having an average pore size ranging from 5 to 500 microns (paragraph 88). In particular, the polishing pad has an average pore size of 98 microns (table 3, sample A1), giving a pore-related area of 7543 µm2, meeting the claimed requirement.
Balijepalli does not explicitly disclose abrasive particles with surface area in a range of 8.9 to 10.5 m2/g.
Kuramochi, however, discloses an abrasive shaped article being comprised at least 90% by weight of silica with a BET specific surface area of 10 to 400 m2/g and an average particle diameter of 0.001 to 0.5 µm (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the abrasive particles of Balijepalli having a specific surface area disclosed in Kuramochi motivated by the desire to provide excellent polishing performance.
As to claim 2, Balijepalli discloses the polishing pad comprising a median cell size of from 30 to 200 µm (paragraph 88).
The minimum median cell size of 30 µm has a minimum pore related area (R2π) of 706.8 µm2, meeting the claimed requirement.
The maximum median cell size of 200 µm has a maximum pore related area (R2π) of 31416 µm2, meeting the claimed requirement.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balijepalli in view of Kuramochi as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 7,169,030 to Kulp (hereinafter “Kulp”).
Neither Balijepalli nor Kuramochi discloses the base resin comprises polyethersulfone.
Kulp, however, discloses a polishing pad suitable for planarizing at least one of semiconductor, optical and magnetic substrate, comprising a polymeric matrix having a top polishing surface having asperities upon conditioning with an abrasive (abstract). The polymeric matrix comprises polyether sulfone and polyurethane (column 4, lines 15-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include polyether sulfone disclosed in Kulp in the polymeric matrix of Balijepalli/ Kuramochi, motivated by the desire to provide the polishing pad with improved heat resistance and greater dimensional stability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
