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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered, but have not been found persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not anticipate or teach the subject matter amended into independent claim 9. Independent claim 9 has been amended to incorporate a combination of subject matter from previous dependent claim 12 (now canceled), subject matter overlapping with dependent claim 16, with the additional recitation of “atomized”, which is disclosed by the primary reference (McClatchie). Thus, Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Please see the rejections provided below.
In the RCE filed 12/17/2025, Applicant amended claim 9 to incorporate a combination of subject matter from previous dependent claim 12, subject matter overlapping with dependent claim 16, with the additional recitation of “atomized”, which is disclosed by the primary reference (McClatchie). When considering the appropriate response to Applicant’s submission, Examiner relied upon MPEP 706.07(b):
“For an application in which an RCE has been filed, claims may be finally rejected in the first action following the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) when all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and any entered supplemental amendments
(A) are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (in other words, restriction (including lack of unity of invention) would not have been proper if the new or amended claims had been entered prior to the filing of the RCE), and
(B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114. Note that applicants cannot use an RCE to obtain continued examination on the basis of claims that are independent and distinct from, or lack unity of invention with, the claims previously claimed and examined as a matter of right (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions). See 37 CFR 1.145 and MPEP § 706.07(h), subsection VI. Therefore, condition (A) is always met where the RCE is accompanied by a submission that will be entered as a matter of right.”
Requirement (A) has been met. Furthermore, as the subject matter of amended claim 9 incorporates the above stated features, and the claims would have been properly finally rejected on the art of record and previous art combination as applied, requirement (B) has also been met. The thrust of the rejection(s) as previously applied, in combination with the art of record, have been used to reject the claimed invention; this action is made final herein.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 14 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClatchie et al (US 20060014478 A1) in view of Horimoto et al (US 20100016169 A1) and LeCompte (US 10569386 B2).
Regarding claim 9, McClatchie et al discloses an apparatus for polishing surfaces of objects (The preamble describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. MPEP 2111.02(11). In other words, the limitations of “surfaces” and "objects," "engine bay," are not positively recited structures of claim 9 and they do not receive patentable weight. However, those limitations are mapped to the prior art for the purpose of compact prosecution. Prior art discloses the claimed limitation of an apparatus (wafer polisher, Fig. 1: 10) for polishing surfaces of objects (polishing a semiconductor, see [0025]) comprising;
a top-loading structure (wafer carrier, 14) that is configured to secure an object to be polished (carries the wafer, see [0025]);
a polishing structure (polishing pad, 18) that provides a polishing surface on which the object secured on the top-loading structure is polished (wafer is polished and planarized, see [0025]); and
a slurry dispensing system (slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) that is configured to dispense a set amount of colloid having microabrasives onto the polishing surface of the polishing structure to form a layer of colloid having microabrasives on the polishing surface (see [0025]),
wherein the slurry dispensing system (slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) is further configured to periodically dispense another set amount of colloid having microabrasives onto the polishing surface of the polishing structure to form and maintain a layer of colloid having microabrasives on the polishing surface so that the thickness of the layer of colloid having microabrasives on the polishing surface is maintained (slurry dispensing mechanism, 22 can be located downstream such that the application of slurry, 20 to the polishing pad can act to assist in conditioning or dressing the pad while simultaneous by adding fresh slurry, 20 to the polishing pad, 18, see [0027]; at the flow rate of about 50 – 500 milliliters per min, and this rate of flow of the slurry can be adjusted which is therefore capable of periodically dispensing, given this adjustment, see [0049])
wherein the slurry dispensing system is configured to periodically spray the set amount of slurry as atomized slurry onto the polishing surface using a spray nozzle to produce the layer of slurry on the polishing surface (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22, including a nozzle, 24 can be located downstream such that the application of slurry, 20 to the polishing pad can act to assist in conditioning or dressing the pad while simultaneous by adding fresh slurry, 20 to the polishing pad, 18, see [0027]; at the flow rate of about 50 – 500 milliliters per min, and this rate of flow of the slurry can be adjusted, see [0049]; wherein [0032] discloses the slurry exits the spray tip as a stream of dispersed droplets or a mist, i.e. atomized slurry under broadest reasonable interpretation; see also [0035], [0052-0053]).
McClatchie et al discloses a slurry/polishing fluid composed of colloid having microabrasives, see [0025] but is silent about a diamond slurry. Furthermore, McClatchie discloses the slurry being dispersed in the form of a mist, i.e. atomized, and the use of a peristaltic pump or any type of pump sufficient to transfer the slurry from the source to spray nozzle, see [0052], but does not explicitly teach the atomized slurry is produced by mixing compressed air with the slurry
However, Horimoto et al teaches a method of polishing a substrate using a slurry that comprises at least one material of a monocrystalline or polycrystalline diamond or colloidal silica alumina slurry, see [0018].
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that having abrasive materials/particles of a colloidal silica or diamond particle are functional equivalents providing the abrading for polishing of a substrate as desired. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted colloid having microabrasives with a diamond slurry. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of a modification that would amount to one known manner of providing the abrading for polishing of a substrate as desired.
Regarding the mixing of compressed air with the slurry to produce and atomized slurry, from the same or similar field of endeavor, LeCompte teaches a blasting system providing a slurry which has been mixed with compressed air (see tank Fig. 1C having a slurry mixture, 120; using an air compressor, 126 for compressed air to mix with a slurry mixture, 120 within said tank 102, passing through said pinch cutoff valve 106, and out of said blast nozzle, 122, see Col. 3: Lines 54 – 57, Col. 6, lines 16-39).
Both McClatchie and LeCompte employ slurries at pressures within the context of resurfacing apparatuses. McClatchie also intimates and suggests modifications to the slurry system, see at least [0045], [0048],and [0049]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify McClatchie et al with the teachings of LeCompte, i.e. the inclusion of pressurized air mixing with the slurry, because it allows for additional control of the ultimate output of misted/atomized slurry, which is contemplated and suggested by McClatchie. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. mixing compressed air with a slurry, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, McClatchie in view of Horimoto and LeCompte teaches the claimed invention as applied above, and further teaches
wherein the slurry dispensing system (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) is configured to periodically dispense the another set amount of diamond slurry onto the polishing surface (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22 that includes nozzle, 24 can be located downstream such that the application of slurry, 20 to the polishing pad can act to assist in conditioning or dressing the pad while simultaneous by adding fresh slurry, 20 to the polishing pad, 18, see [0027] and the flow rate of the slurry is between about 50 – 500 milliliters per min, and this rate of flow of the slurry can be adjusted, see [0049]).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the prior art discloses the slurry dispensing system (i.e. nozzle) and is therefore considered to have the structure that Applicant intends to use as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, McClatchie in view of Horimoto and LeCompte teaches the claimed invention as applied above, and further teaches
wherein the slurry dispensing system (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) is configured to periodically dispense the another set amount of diamond slurry onto the polishing surface so that the thickness of the layer of diamond slurry is maintained between 7 micrometers to 10 micrometers, inclusive. (McClatchie et al: intended that the thickness of the layer of slurry within the intended bounds is generally even, or constant, across the entire width, W, see [0032]).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the prior art discloses the slurry dispensing system (i.e. nozzle) which is adjustable, and is therefore considered to have the structure that Applicant intends to use as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, McClatchie in view of Horimoto and LeCompte teaches the claimed invention as applied above, and further teaches
wherein the slurry dispensing system (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) is configured to periodically spray the another set amount of diamond slurry onto the polishing surface at an angle between thirty degrees to fifty degrees, inclusive, from the normal to the surface of the polishing surface (McClatchie et al : The characteristics of the spray of slurry 20 are likewise dependent upon the geometric configuration of the spray tip 40. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, the size of the droplets, the angle at which the droplets exit the spray tip 40, see [0032] and The spray nozzle 24 provides numerous adjustable variables for adjusting the slurry distribution including, but not limited to, the pressure of the spray of slurry, the height of the spray nozzle above the polishing pad, the angle of the spray nozzle with respect to the polishing pad, see [0049]) and the angle of the spray nozzle 24 relative to the polishing pad 18 can be adjusted by the rotational movement of the mounting member 36, see [0051]).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the prior art discloses the slurry dispensing system (i.e. nozzle) and is therefore considered to have the structure that Applicant intends to use as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, McClatchie in view of Horimoto et al and LeCompte teaches the claimed invention as applied above, and further teaches
wherein the slurry dispensing system (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) includes a source of slurry to mix the diamond slurry with the compressed air to pneumatically spray the another set amount of diamond slurry onto the polishing surface (McClatchie et al: see [0045]; please also refer to the combination statement as applied above regarding the diamond abrasives).
Modified McClatchie teaches a source of slurry and the use of a peristaltic pump or any type of pump sufficient to transfer the slurry from the source to spray nozzle, see [0052], but is silent about the type of source being a spray box.
However, previously mentioned LeCompte teaches a blasting system having a slurry a source, including a spray box to mix (tank Fig. 1C having a slurry mixture, 120) and using compressed air to pneumatically spray (using an air compressor, 126 for compressed air to mix with a slurry mixture, 120 within said tank 102, passing through said pinch cutoff valve 106, and out of said blast nozzle, 122, see Col. 3: Lines 41 - 57).
As previously pointed out, both McClatchie and LeCompte employ slurries at pressures within the context of resurfacing apparatuses. McClatchie also intimates and suggests modifications to the slurry system, see at least [0045], [0048],and [0049]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify McClatchie with the teachings of a spray box to mix as taught by LeCompte because it allows for a container/tank for holding the slurry and air can occupy a smaller volume to provide for a higher pressure through the nozzle. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. mixing compressed air with a slurry, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClatchie et al (US 20060014478 A1) in view of Horimoto et al (US 20100016169 A1) and LeCompte (US 10569386 B2), and in further view of Redeker et al (US 6629881 B1).
Regarding claim 10, McClatchie in view of Horimoto and Le Compte teaches the claimed invention as applied above, and further teaches
wherein the slurry dispensing system (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22) includes a pump (McClatchie et al: a peristaltic pump (not shown), see [0052]) that is controlled by a controller (McClatchie et al: a control led by software is configured to distribute the slurry and adjustment of distribution of slurry, see [0029]) to dispense the another set amount of diamond slurry such that the another set amount of diamond slurry that is periodically dispensed onto the polishing surface by the pump is 0.1 milliliters per square inch to 0.2 milliliters per square inch, inclusive, of the diamond slurry, where the square inch is respect to the surface area of the polishing surface (McClatchie et al: slurry dispensing mechanism, 22 can be located downstream such that the application of slurry, 20 to the polishing pad can act to assist in conditioning or dressing the pad while simultaneous by adding fresh slurry, 20 to the polishing pad, 18, see [0027] and provided varying configurations with the use of nozzle, 24 with varying apertures, Fig. 4A-4C: 42 in the spray tip, 40, or a manifold, Fig. 8: 176, provides an even distribution/consistent thickness of slurry, 20, on polishing pad, see [0031 – 0032] and [0045]).
McClatchie et al discloses a "preferred" (defined as “liked better or best” in merriamwebster.com) a constant stream see [0035], which implies an alternative that isn't constant can be used.
McClatchie does not explicitly disclose the controller periodically dispenses. However, it'd be obvious to program the dispensing of slurry to be periodic given the control led by software is configured to distribute the slurry and adjustment of distribution of slurry, see [0029] and in addition Redeker et al teaches a method and apparatus for controlling slurry delivery during polishing having the controller periodically dispense (delivery rate of a fluid onto a pad is controlled to reduce the consumption of the fluid. In general, the fluid flow may be varied between a relatively lower flow rate and a relatively higher flow rate or, alternatively, the flow may be periodically terminated. Fluid flow may be controlled by any combination of pumps, controllers, valves, or other regulator/fluid flow control member, see Abstract).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that having the controller dispense the slurry periodically and the controller preferred constant stream in which flow from nozzle can be adjusted are elements that are functional equivalents providing the polishing pad is evenly covered with slurry and to not leave a portion of the polishing pad from coming into contact with the wafer. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted periodically with preferred constant stream with nozzle flow adjusted. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of a modification that would amount to one known manner of adjusting and providing for slurry to fully cover/evenly distribute over the polishing pad, as well as providing stability and continuity of polishing.
In addition, regarding the functional limitation " the slurry dispensing system is 0.1 milliliters per square inch to 0.2 milliliters per square inch, inclusive, of the diamond slurry, where the square inch is respect to the surface area of the polishing surface," Applicant identifies this in [0030], [0038] – [0040] as being done due to as it appears by the slurry dispensing system (i.e. nozzle). MPEP 2173.05(g) states that "[a] functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step." In this case, the structure for performing this function is considered to be the nozzle, 24. Since the prior art discloses this structure, then it therefore meets the claimed functional structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Manfredi (US 6,284,092), see Abstract.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723