20DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
The amendment filed 02/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and claims 15-20 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention (see election without traverse made in the response filed 11/06/2023). Claims 1, 8, and 12 were amended in the reply filed 02/25/2026, no claims were newly added, and claim 21 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, as indicated in the signed copy of the information disclosure statement included herewith, the Notice of Decision to Grant in Japanese Application 2024-502657 mailed Aug 19, 2025 and the Notice of Decision to Grant in Korean Application 10-2024-7005265 mailed July 21, 2025 have not been considered because neither reference is in the English language and no concise explanation of the relevance or translation was provided.
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 US Patent Application Publication 2004/0159588 of Bunyan et al., hereinafter Bunyan.
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 is 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].
Claim(s) 8-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (prev. presented US 2016/0005618) in view of Duboust, Kimura (prev. presented US 2001/0029150), and Bunyan.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches a substrate edge polishing apparatus (Fig 1B, 2A, 2B [0032]), comprising: 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); a rotation drive mechanism coupled with the spindle (174 Fig 1B [0028]); 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 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 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]) and teaches the edge ring having an inner diameter that is less than about 5% larger than a diameter of the substrate support surface (Fig 2A see 255 contacting 205). 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 a bottom surface of the annular polishing pad tapers from the inner diameter to the outer diameter. Chen further fails to teach a polishing slurry comprising abrasive. 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). 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 because Duboust teaches this arrangement allows the ring to function as a retaining ring to snugly secure the substrate [0042]. Further, this combination is inclusive of modifying the inner portion of the ring to function only as a retaining ring and not as a conditioning ring. Regarding a bottom surface of the annular polishing pad tapers from the inner diameter to the outer diameter, Chen teaches a bottom surface of the polishing pad tapers (Fig 4) but fails to teach a shape in which the bottom surface tapers from the inner diameter to the outer diameter. Addressing the same problem of edge polishing (abstract), Kimura teaches an edge polishing pad (84 Fig 3) in which the bottom surface tapers from the inner diameter to the outer diameter (note that as shown in Fig 3 the bottom surface tapers and when the structure 38 is inverted to work with the substrate and pad arrangement of Chen and Duboust, the bottom surface, which would be the surface facing the substrate, will also taper). 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 shape of the bottom surface of the pad of Chen to include the taper shape taught by Kimura because Kimura teaches this shape is a functional alternative for polishing the edge of the substrate [0071]. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the polishing pad. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Note that the instant specification uses “taper” for both an upward direction and a downward direction (see specification [0043]). And uses “taper” for an angled pad arrangement in which the thickness of the pad is not changed (Fig 3).
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 9, Chen teaches a polishing pad [0028] for CMP [0022].
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches a vacuum chuck [0027].
Regarding claim 12, Chen fails to teach a retaining wall disposed radially outward of the edge ring and coupled with an outer surface of the chuck body and therefore fails to explicitly teach the slurry delivery port disposed radially inward of 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Duboust, Kimura, and Bunyan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yamada (prev. presented US 2015/0370160).
The combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Chen in view of Duboust, Kimura, and Bunyan fails to teach the top surface of the edge ring tapers toward an outer periphery of the edge ring. In the same field of endeavor of face-up polishing apparatuses (abstract and Fig 1), Yamada teaches the edge ring includes an upper surface that tapers toward an outer periphery (surface 35 Fig 4) as an alternative to an edge ring with a flat surface (surface 16 Fig 3) that does not taper. 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 in view of Duboust, Kimura, and Bunyan to include the edge ring has a tapered upper surface because this represents a mere change of shape of the edge ring upper surface. It is further recognized that a change of shape is generally considered to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, there being no evidence to suggest any unexpected results due to the shape of the edge ring. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Note that the instant specification uses “taper” for both an upward direction and a downward direction (see specification [0043]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Duboust, Kimura, and Bunyan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Vanell (prev. presented US 6,592,434).
The combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Chen teaches a top surface of the substrate support (205 Fig 2A) is flat and fails to teach it is concave or convex. In the same field of endeavor of polishing apparatuses (abstract), Vanell teaches a substrate supporting surface (105 Fig 1, 3, 5) may have a change in shape to be flat (Fig 1), concave (Fig 3), or convex (Fig 5) (col 7, ln 10-45) and teaches that this improves control of the polishing at different points on the substrate (col 7, ln 45-65) and improves the gripping of the substrate (col 12, ln 45-55). 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 substrate support surface of Chen to include the teaching of Vanell of including the ability to change shape of the support surface to be convex or concave because Vanell teaches this improves control of the localized polishing rates (col 7, ln 45-65) and the gripping of the substrate (col 12, ln 45-55).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Duboust, Kimura, and Bunyan as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hsu (prev. presented US 2005/0202677).
The combination remains as applied to claim 8 above. Chen teaches face up apparatuses (Fig 2A) but fails to teach they are disposed in a polishing chamber with a face down polishing station. In the same field of endeavor of a substrate polishing apparatus (abstract), Hsu teaches a plurality of polishing stations in the same chamber (214 Fig 3) and teaches that this includes face down polishing stations (Fig 4) and face up polishing (Fig 6A) and teaches a flipper robot for rotating the substrate to the correct orientation as needed for the different stations [0054-0055]. 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 face up and face down polishing stations together in the same chamber because Hsu teaches this allows for a series of required processes substrate in one apparatus [0055].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed 02/25/2025, hereinafter reply, have been considered but are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
The corrections to the drawing and specification are noted and accepted.
The amendments have resulted in the rejection of claims 1 and 3-7 over Duboust in view of Halley being withdrawn. Therefore the arguments (reply p9-10) regarding this rejection combination are moot.
Regarding Chen in view of Duboust, applicant argues (reply p 10-11) 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. 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.
Regarding the term spindle (reply p11), while Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s applied narrow definition of spindle, the rejection has been modified to include the teaching of Duboust of a spindle as applicant argues, demonstrating that the combination still renders the claimed invention obvious even when a narrower definition for spindle is used.
The inclusion of abrasive is rendered obvious by new reference Bunyan.
The arguments regarding claim 8 (reply p 11-12) are directed to the shared limitations of claim 1, which have been addressed above.
The arguments regarding the dependent claims (reply p12) rely on the arguments directed to the independent claims, which have been addressed above. Therefore the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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]. US 2010/0136884 (Fig 7) demonstrates an annular pad (311) with a spindle (320). US 6,179,695 demonstrates a spindle with an annular polishing pad (Fig 11, see pad 111a, 111b). US 6,135,858 teaches a retaining ring (6 Fig 3) that is the same height as the substrate (Fig 3 and corresponding disclosure).
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
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716