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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, filed 10/31/2025, regarding the new language has changed the grounds of rejection to include a new reference etc.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogtmann et al. (US Patent No. 7,345,466) in view of Mori (US Pub. No. 2021/0398826).
Regarding claims 1-2, 6 and 15, Vogtmann teaches a system for exchanging a polish plate, comprising:
a testing chamber (205);
a loading chamber having a first buffer zone for storing a first polish plate and having a second buffer zone for storing a second polish plate wherein the loading chamber is connected to the testing chamber, and each of the first buffer and the second buffer is capable of buffering a plurality of polish plates (col. 9, ll. 62-64),
a base (210) disposed in the testing chamber for carrying the first polish plate or the second polish plate,
a first mechanical arm (234) disposed in the testing chamber or the loading chamber for picking and moving the first polish plate;
wherein the base is arranged at a cleaning position or an exchanging position in the testing chamber (col. 9, ll. 39-56) [claim 2];
wherein the loading chamber further comprising a second buffer zone for storing the first polish plate (col. 9, ll. 62-64) [claim 3];
a base lifting unit (206) that is connected to the bottom of the base; and
a control unit (221) that is connected to the base lifting unit and the first mechanical arm [claim 6];
wherein the first mechanical arm is further configured to unload the first polish plate from the base in the testing chamber to the first buffer zone in the loading chamber, and is further configured to load a second polish plate from the first buffer zone to the base (the loading/unloading station 230 includes buffer zones where the plurality of scrub pads are stored) [claim 12];
wherein the base is configured to adjust its horizontal heigh in the testing chamber, and the first mechanical arm is further configured to load the first polish plate from the first buffer zone in the loading chamber to the base (col. 9, ll. 19-31) [claim 15].
Vogtmann does not specifically teach a second mechanical arm disposed in the testing chamber or the loading chamber for picking and moving the second polish plate, wherein the first mechanical arm and the second mechanical arm are configured to simultaneously move the first polish plate and the second polish plate between any two of the base, the first buffer zone, and the second buffer zone.
Mori teaches a system for transporting substrates comprising a first mechanical arm and a second mechanical arm (130a) disposed in the testing chamber or the loading chamber for picking and moving the second polish plate, wherein the first mechanical arm and the second mechanical arm are configured to simultaneously move the first polish plate and the second polish plate between any two of the base, the first buffer zone, and the second buffer zone (para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second mechanical arm within said system in order to facilitate an efficient transferring of the polish plates.
Regarding claims 13-14, Vogtmann, in view of Mori, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 12 above. The embodiment, as disclosed by Vogtmann, does not specifically disclose the base is configured to move from a cleaning position in the testing chamber to an exchanging position in the testing chamber before the first mechanical arm unloads the first polish plate, and is further configured to move from the exchanging position to the cleaning position after the first mechanical arm loads the second polish plate, wherein the base is further configured to adjust its horizontal height [claim 14]. Vogtmann, in another embodiment, discloses the base is configured to move from an exchange position, i.e. non-cleaning position, to a cleaning position with the loaded polish plate, wherein the base is further configured to adjust its horizontal height (implied that the loading/unloading of the polish plates takes place at the non-cleaning position, see col. 6, ll. 26-44). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a base with an adjustable horizontal height in order to facilitate an alignment of the polish plate with the probe elements for cleaning.
Regarding claim 16, Vogtmann, in view of Mori, teaches the invention as claimed in claim 15 above. The embodiment, as disclosed by Vogtmann, does not specifically disclose the base is further configured to move from a cleaning position in the testing chamber to an exchanging position in the testing chamber before the first mechanical arm unloads the first polish plate, and is further configured to move from the exchanging position to the cleaning position after the first mechanical arm loads the first polish plate. Vogtmann, in another embodiment, discloses the base is configured to move from an exchange position, i.e. non-cleaning position, to a cleaning position with the polish plate (implied that the loading/unloading of the polish plates takes place at the non-cleaning position, see col. 6, ll. 26-44). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a base moveable between the exchanged position and cleaning position within said system in order to facilitate the loading and/or unloading of the polish plate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogtmann in view of Mori, and further in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0202239).
Regarding claim 5, Vogtmann, as modified by Mori, teaches all the claimed limitations except for the base comprises a vacuum unit for fixing the first polish plate by vacuum suction. Huang teaches a system comprises a vacuum unit for fixing a first polish plate by vacuum suction (para. 24). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a vacuum unit as taught by Huang within said base in order to facilitate a secure attachment of the first polish plate to the base.
Conclusion
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 MINH Q PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3898. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
MINH Q. PHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2852
/MINH Q PHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights