DETAILED ACTION
Claims Status
The amendment filed 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-20 are pending and claims 15-20 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention (see election without traverse made in the response filed 11/06/2023). Claim 8 was amended in the reply filed 07/10/2026, no claims were newly added, and claim 10 was canceled.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/25/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (prev. presented US 2016/0005618) in view of Duboust (prev. presented US 2003/0114087 ) and Bunyan (prev. presented US 2004/0159588).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a substrate edge polishing system (Fig 1B, 2A, 2B [0032]), comprising: a substrate (102 Fig 1A) [0022]; a chuck body (167 Fig 2A [0032]) defining a substrate support surface (205 Fig 2A [0032]); a spindle (172 Fig 1B,2A) that is rotatable [0028] and positionable over the chuck body (Fig 2A); and an annular polishing pad (170 Fig 2A, [0029] teaches a single pad that is ring-shaped) coupled with a lower end of the spindle (Fig 1B, 2A). Chen teaches an edge ring seated on the chuck body (255 Fig 2A) and an inner diameter of the annular polishing pad is less than the inner diameter of the edge ring and an outer diameter of the annular polishing pad is greater than the inner diameter of the edge ring (Fig 2A and [0029], [0036]). Chen teaches a polishing slurry source (176 Fig 2A) containing a polishing slurry [0031] (note [0026] teaches the polishing fluid may be a chemical solution and/or polishing compound which is a polishing slurry) and a slurry delivery port (210 Fig 2A) fluidly coupled with the polishing slurry source and therefore configured to deliver the polishing slurry [0032], the slurry delivery port disposed over the substrate (Fig 2A). Chen teaches an annular polishing pad (ring shaped [0029]) and teaches that the inner radius is within 20% (120 mm to 150 mm) of a substrate diameter (150 mm) and that the outer radius is larger than the substrate (about 155 mm) [0029]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an annular polishing pad with an inner diameter of within 10% of the diameter of the substrate because Chen teaches this is a suitable diameter range for the inner diameter of an annular pad [0029]. Chen fails to teach the edge ring having a thickness such that a top surface of the edge ring extends above the substrate support surface and is substantially aligned with a top surface of the substrate, fails to teach a retaining wall coupled with an outer surface of the chuck body and disposed radially outward of the edge ring; fails to teach the slurry delivery port is disposed radially inward of the retaining wall; and fails to teach the polishing slurry comprising abrasive particles because Chen is silent about abrasive particles. Regarding the edge ring having a thickness such that a top surface of the edge ring extends above the substrate support surface, Chen teaches the edge ring may be at a plane that is lower than the substrate receiving surface [0036], but does not teach this positional arrangement is required. In the same field of endeavor of a face up polishing apparatus (Fig 1), Duboust teaches the edge ring (130 Fig 1) having a thickness such that a top surface of the edge ring extends above the substrate support surface (126 Fig 1) and the top surface of the edge ring is substantially aligned with a top surface of the substrate [0042]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the edge ring of Chen to include a top surface of the edge ring extends above the substrate support surface and is substantially aligned with a top surface of the substrate because Duboust teaches this arrangement allows the ring to function as a retaining ring to snugly secure the substrate [0042]. Further, this combination may be inclusive of modifying the inner portion of the ring to function only as a retaining ring and not as a conditioning ring. Regarding the retaining wall, Duboust teaches a retaining wall (108 Fig 1 [0036]) disposed radially outward of the edge ring (ring 130 Fig 1) (see retaining wall 108 Fig 1 and [0042]) and coupled with an outer surface of the chuck body (carrier body 116 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to include the retaining wall of Duboust because Duboust teaches this allows for the polishing liquid to be confined to the substrate surface [0036]. In this combination, the slurry delivery port of Chen is disposed radially inward of the retaining wall because the slurry delivery port is over the substrate supporting surface which is radially inward of the retaining wall.
Regarding the spindle that is rotatable and positionable over the chuck body, while the application of Chen as explained above remains, it is additionally noted that Duboust teaches a rotatable spindle (170 Fig 1) for supporting and applying a polishing pad to a substrate (Fig 1). Assuming arguendo applicant’s arguments regarding the term spindle (see remarks filed 2/25/2026 p 11) are correct, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to include the spindle of Duboust because this represents a simple substitution of one known element (pad support and connection structure of Duboust) for another (pad support and connection structure of Chen) to achieve predictable results (pad support and connection). Note that Duboust demonstrates the structure is still inclusive of an arm extending laterally (Fig 7).
Regarding a polishing slurry comprising abrasive particles, Chen is silent as to the present of abrasive particles. In the same field of endeavor of substrate polishing systems (abstract), Bunyan teaches polishing slurries typically include abrasive particles [0007] and teaches that even when a pad includes abrasive, the slurry may provide additional abrasive [0008] and teaches abrasive may be included due to the particular application envisioned [0041]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing compound (slurry) of Chen to include abrasive because Bunyan teaches this is a common inclusion in polishing compounds and may be included as needed.
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches the spindle is rotatable and laterally translatable relative to the chuck body [0028]. Also note that if Duboust is applied to teach the spindle, the spindle of Duboust is also rotatable and laterally translatable (sweep motion) [0046], [0084].
Regarding claim 4, Duboust, as applied in the combination as applied to claim 1, teaches a height of the top surface (136 Fig 1) of the edge ring (130 Fig 1) is within about 10 microns of a height of a substrate positioned on the substrate support surface ([0042] teaches +/- 1 mil which is +/- 25 microns, note the range of Duboust includes the claimed range of +/- 10 microns).
Regarding claim 5, Duboust, as applied in the combination as applied to claim 1 to teach the retaining wall, teaches a slurry drainage port (labeled 104 Fig 1 but referred to as outlet 140 in the specification [0036], [0042]) within the retaining wall (108 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the drainage port because Duboust teaches this allows for removal of excess liquid from the space within the retaining wall [0036].
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the edge ring extends to the edge of the chuck (see 255 Fig 2B). Further, Duboust, as applied in the combination, teaches an outer edge of the edge ring (ring 130 Fig 1) is positioned against an inner surface of the retaining wall (108 Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the edge ring is removably coupled with the chuck body [0036].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record of Chen (US 2016/0005618), Duboust (US 2003/0114087), Kimura (US 2001/0029150), and Bunyan (US 2004/0159588) fails to teach or fairly suggest all the limitations of claim 8 as currently presented and in particular the combination of limitations regarding an edge ring seated on the chuck body, the edge ring having an inner diameter that is less than about 5% larger than a diameter of the substrate support surface, the edge ring having a thickness such that a top surface of the edge ring extends above the substrate support surface and the inner diameter is substantially aligned with a top surface of a peripheral edge of the substrate, and a top surface of the edge ring tapers toward an outer periphery of the edge ring; and an annular polishing pad coupled with a lower end of the spindle, wherein: an inner diameter of the annular polishing pad is less than the inner diameter of the edge ring; the inner diameter of the annular polishing pad is within 10% of an outer diameter of a substrate being polished; an outer diameter of the annular polishing pad is greater than the inner diameter of the edge ring; and a bottom surface of the annular polishing pad tapers from the inner diameter to the outer diameter. Additional art of record such as Schwarzenbach (US 2010/0190416) teaches a tapered polishing pad (Fig 2-7b) but fails to teach or suggest this in combination with the tapered edge ring. Additional prior art such as US 2005/0191947 teaches a tapered edge (retaining) ring (Fig 1-6) or US 2017/0106497 teaches a tapered edge ring (retaining) ring (Fig 2A-2B); but both references fail to teach or fairly suggest the tapered edge ring in combination with an annular pad, and in particular fail to teach the use of the tapered edge ring with an annular pad that has the tapered shape as claimed.
The remaining claims are allowable for their dependence from an allowable claim addressed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 07/10/2026, hereinafter reply, have been considered but are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
The amendments have overcome the rejection of claim 8 and claims 9 and 11-14 which are dependent therefrom. Examiner called applicant’s representative to request an examiner’s amendment to cancel the unallowable claims, but applicant’s representative declined to approve the proposed examiner’s amendment.
Regarding Chen in view of Duboust and Bunyan, applicant argues (reply p 6-7) that the ring of Chen may not be modified in the manner suggested because this would result in excessive wear of the pad of Chen and introduction of debris to the polishing. This is not persuasive because Chen teaches the conditioning ring near the substrate such that there is no indication debris is expected or expected to a manner that would affect polishing because Chen does not teach the upper level of the ring must be lower or separate as applicant suggests. Further Duboust demonstrates the ability to have a ring present without polishing debris being generated to affect the polishing and therefore the combination is inclusive of using an inner portion of the ring for retaining even if an outer portion surface is maintained for conditioning of the pad. Applicant’s cited portion of Chen (Chen [0036]) says “may be moved” and is tied to the embodiments in which the pad isn’t annular (note Chen teaches alternative embodiments) as the annular pad would not contact the conditioning ring if the upper surface is lower than the substrate supporting surface because the substrate supporting surface would block the pad from being able to be lowered sufficiently to fully contact the ring. Applicant argues that the positioning of Duboust would “destroy the functionality of the conditioning ring of Chen”. This is not persuasive in view of the additionally cited art of record which was cited in the prior office action (see cited not relied upon in office action mailed 3/11/2026) and is copied here for reference: US 2003/0070756 teaches a retaining ring (407 Fig 5) may function as an inner portion of a conditioning ring (408 Fig 5) [0031] or may be combined to function as a pad conditioner and retainer ring (Fig 6) [0033]. US 2014/0154956 demonstrates a combined pad conditioning and retaining ring (Fig 3) [0042], [0051-0052]. It is also noted that as cited below in the cited not relied upon section, US 6,547,651 teaches an annular polishing pad (500 Fig 5-7) may be used to polish a substrate with a conditioning structure to the side (504 Fig 5-6) or using a conditioner (520 Fig 7-8) that is on the outer part of a retaining ring with an inner flat portion (524 Fig 8) (col 10, ln 40-65). Therefore, applicant’s argument that the proposed combination would not allow the ring of Chen to maintain function as a conditioning ring, is not persuasive. Further, the argument (reply p7) that the ring of Duboust is “typically fabricated from a material that does not adversely affect the polishing head” is not persuasive because the use of “adversely affect” may be in reference to the need for a charge on the polishing pad of Duboust and conditioning of the pad refreshes the pad so that it may continue functioning and is not viewed as an action that “adversely affects” the polishing head (pad) as applicant’s arguments suggest. For all of these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of claims 1 and 3-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,547,651 teaches an annular polishing pad (500 Fig 5-7) may be used to polish a substrate with a conditioning structure to the side (504 Fig 5-6) or using a conditioner (520 Fig 7-8) that is on the outer part of a retaining ring with an inner flat portion (524 Fig 8) (col 10, ln 40-65). US 2002/0137436 demonstrates the polishing head may contact the substrate and conditioner simultaneously (Fig 1 and 7).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
