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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/12/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggests the following title: --GRINDING APPARATUS WITH TABLE AND CHUCK COVERS--.
The amended statement of incorporation by reference to International Application No. PCT/JP2021/007824 and Japanese Application Nos. 2020-052488 and 2020-1691269 (09/23/2022 Preliminary Amendment at 2) is ineffective because it was added on the date of entry into the U.S. national phase, which is after the filing date of this application. The filing date of this U.S. national stage application is the filing date of the associated international application, which is 03/02/2021. MPEP § 1893.03(b). Thus, the specification amendment of 09/23/2022 is new matter. MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)(B). To be clear, the objection is not to the priority claim; the objection is only with respect to the incorporation-by-reference statement.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the rotation center line” (claim 1, lines 3 and 9; claim 15, line 4; claim 19, line 4 (four instances)) should be changed to --the vertical rotation center line--;
“wherein the second arc-shaped cylindrical member is disposed at an outer side than the first arc-shaped cylindrical member in a diametrical direction of the table” (claim 17, line 2-3) is awkward and should be changed to clarify that the second arc-shaped cylindrical member is disposed at a more radially distant position relative to the vertical rotation center line of the table compared to the first arc-shaped cylindrical member;
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the table cover includes an inclined member of a conical shape having a decreasing height as the inclined member goes away from the [vertical] rotation center line of the table while having a constant height in a rotation direction of the table” (lines 8-10). Although the specification uses similar language (Spec. ¶¶ 0028, 0039, 0076), this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “goes away” means in this context; does this refer to a reference position of the inclined member? Also, it is unclear what “a constant height in a rotation direction of the table” means; does this refer to a reference position in the radial direction from the table’s vertical rotation center line? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the table cover includes an inclined member having a conical shape, where (as viewed in the perspective of Spec. Figs. 4 and 6) the vertical height of the inclined member decreases as the distance from the vertical rotation center line of the table increases, where the inclined member has a constant circumferential height for any given radial distance away from the table’s vertical rotation center line (Spec. ¶¶ 0028, 0039, 0076). Claims 2-19 and 21 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the table cover is divided into multiple division covers between the chucks neighboring in the rotation direction of the table, and the multiple division covers are individually provided to the table in a removable manner.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does this limitation mean that the “table cover” is divided into multiple division covers (e.g., four separate covers), or does the term “multiple division covers” refer to the vertical structure that lies between each chuck table (element 15 or 45)? The phrase “between the chucks neighboring in the rotation direction of the table” is awkward but appears to suggest that this limitation refers to element 15. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each of the multiple chucks is disposed on a rotary table”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does “a rotary table” refer to another table other than the “table” recited in claim 1? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 5-10 and 12 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the chuck cover includes an annular member of a conical shape having a decreasing height as the annular member goes away from a rotation center line of the chuck while having a constant height in a rotation direction of the chuck.” Although the specification uses similar language (Spec. ¶¶ 0028, 0039, 0076), this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “goes away” means in this context; does this refer to a reference position of the annular member? Also, it is unclear what “a constant height in a rotation direction of the chuck” means; does this refer to a reference position in the radial direction from the chuck’s rotation center line? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the chuck cover includes an annular member having a conical shape, where (as viewed in the perspective of Spec. Figs. 4 (but see § 112(a) rejection below)) the vertical height of the annular member decreases as the distance from the rotation center line of the chuck increases, where the annular member has a constant circumferential height for any given radial distance away from the chuck’s rotation center line (Spec. ¶¶ 0028, 0039, 0076). Claims 6-10 and 12 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 5.
Claims 11-13 recite the limitation “a rotary table on which the chuck is mounted”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does “a rotary table” refer to another table other than the “table” recited in claim 1? And what does “the table” (claim 11, line 9; claim 12, line 12) refer to? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 14-17 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the rotary table includes multiple distinct rotary tables, and the table rotatably supports the multiple chucks with the multiple rotary tables therebetween, and the table is rotated about the rotation center line different from the rotation center line of the chuck”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does the “rotary table” refer to another table other than the “table” recited in claim 1, and what does “the table” (line 3) refer to? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 16-17 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 15.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a diametrical direction of the table”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does this refer to the “rotary table” of claim 13 or the “table” recited in claim 1? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 4-5, 11-15, and 21 recite the limitation “the chuck”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. It is unclear if the term “the chuck” refers to the “multiple chucks” or “each chuck”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 5-10, 12, and 14-17 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation from one or more parent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites limitation “wherein the chuck cover includes an annular member of a conical shape having a decreasing height as the annular member goes away from a rotation center line of the chuck while having a constant height in a rotation direction of the chuck.” This limitation appears to pertain to the species of Fig. 4. However, claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends) requires a “second nozzle” (as presently amended), which is only described in the context of Fig. 6; but the species of Fig. 6 does not have “an annular member of a conical shape” (see Fig. 6, element 71b of chuck cover 70). Based on this disclosure in the specification, one skilled in the relevant art would not conclude that the inventor had possession of the recited invention of claim 5. MPEP § 2163(I)(A) (“issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”); see LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention...however, LizardTech has failed...[a]fter reading the patent, a person of skill in the art would not understand...LizardTech to have invented a method for making a seamless DWT, except by ‘maintaining updating sums of DWT coefficients’”). Accordingly, claim 5 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Similarly, the following claims (which depend from claim 1) fail to comply with the written description requirement because they pertain to the species of Fig. 4 but not the species of Fig. 6 which is claimed in claim 1:
Claim 7 - “the inclined member of the table cover is provided with a hole through which the cylindrical member is inserted” (this feature is not disclosed in the context of Fig. 6);
Claim 8 - “the inclined member of the table cover is provided with a hole through which the cylindrical member is inserted” (this feature is not disclosed in the context of Fig. 6);
Claim 9 - “a stand” (no “stand” is disclosed in the context of Fig. 6);
Claim 10 - the recited features are not disclosed in the context of Fig. 6;
Claim 12 - “a stand” (no “stand” is disclosed in the context of Fig. 6).
Claims 6-10 and 12 are rejected on the basis they incorporate one or more of these limitations discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is JP 2013188813 A (“Genoen”) (citations are to the translation filed on 02/11/2025), JP 2018122398 A (“Genoen2”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith), and US 20180354067 A1 (“Iizuka”).
Regarding claim 1, Genoen discloses a grinding apparatus (Figs. 1-2, grinding apparatus 10), comprising:
a table configured to be rotated around a vertical rotation center line (Figs. 1-2, table 2 rotates around vertical axis of shaft 4);
multiple chucks disposed at a distance therebetween around the [vertical] rotation center line of the table (Figs. 1-2, three chucks 1 disposed at a distance around vertical axis of shaft 4),
a first nozzle configured to supply a processing liquid to a substrate held by the chuck (Figs. 1-2, first nozzle (lower portion of element 27 (near reference 25)) supplies a processing liquid via supply path 27 and source 26 to substrate W);
and a table cover configured to receive the processing liquid falling from above the table (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0019, 0021, 0025, 0027, 0030, table cover 6 (including upper surface 60) receives processing liquid falling from above table 2),
wherein the table cover includes an inclined member of a conical shape having a decreasing height as the inclined member goes away from the [vertical] rotation center line of the table while having a constant height in a rotation direction of the table (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0019, 0021, 0025, 0027, 0030, table cover 6 includes inclined member having upper surface 60 that has the recited height characteristics (see § 112(b) rejection and interpretation).
Genoen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each chuck is provided with a chuck cover surrounding the chuck;
wherein the grinding apparatus further comprises a second nozzle configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the inclined member from a location between a top portion of the inclined member of the table cover and the chuck, the location being positioned, when viewed from above, so as not to overlap with the chuck and to be between the vertical rotation center line and the chuck cover (“a top portion of the inclined member” is interpreted as the highest vertical point of the table cover, which in connection with the previous limitation (“a conical shape having a decreasing height...”), means that the “top portion of the inclined member” is the portion located closest to the table’s vertical rotation center line).
Genoen2 discloses a grinding apparatus (Figs. 1, 9-10, grinding apparatus 10), comprising:
a table... (Fig. 1, top surface of element 11);
wherein each chuck is provided with a chuck cover surrounding the chuck (Figs. 9-10, chuck 21B (including elements 22 and 23) has a chuck cover T that surrounds the chuck);
a first nozzle configured to supply a processing liquid to a substrate held by the chuck (Figs. 9-10, first nozzle (lower portion of element 1 (near reference 136)) supplies a processing liquid from source 15 to substrate W);
and a table cover configured to receive the processing liquid falling from above the table (Figs. 9-10; table cover 16 (including conical inclined member (below reference 28 in Fig. 9) receives processing liquid falling from above table 11),
wherein the table cover includes an inclined member of a conical shape having a decreasing height...while having a constant height... (Figs. 9-10, table cover 16 (including the conical inclined member) has a decreasing height as the distance away from the center of the chuck increases, and has a constant circumferential height for any given radial distance away from the center of the chuck).
Iizuka discloses a grinding apparatus (Fig. 2, grinding apparatus as shown), comprising:
a table configured to be rotated around a vertical rotation center line (Fig. 2, table 18 rotates around its central vertical axis);
multiple chucks disposed at a distance therebetween around the [vertical] rotation center line of the table (Fig. 2, four chucks 20 disposed at a distance around vertical axis of table 18),
wherein the grinding apparatus further comprises a second nozzle configured to supply a cleaning liquid to the inclined member from a location between a top portion of the inclined member of the table cover and the chuck, the location being positioned, when viewed from above, so as not to overlap with the chuck and to be between the vertical rotation center line and the chuck cover (Figs. 2, 4, second nozzle 54 supplies cleaning liquid (note nozzle position is between chucks 20 and the table element 18a)).
Although Genoen, Genoen2, and Iizuka together teach all of the limitations recited in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have combined these teachings to implement the recited combination of claim 1 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure. For instance, although both Genoen and Genoen2 teach the use of covers, they do not disclose a second nozzle configured to supply a cleaning liquid at the recited location. Genoen2, despite teaching both a chuck cover and an inclined table cover, does not teach the covers in the context of a rotating table having multiple chucks where the inclination of the table cover starts from the vertical rotation center line of the table (the inclined table cover of Genoen2 is inclined relative to the center axis of the single chuck of the table). Further, while Iizuka teaches a rotating table having multiple chucks with a second nozzle configured to supply a cleaning liquid at the recited location (Iizuka Fig. 4, the position of nozzle 54 is equivalent to the recited location if there were an inclined table cover present), Iizuka does not disclose the use of a chuck cover or table cover and does not teach anything regarding the importance of the second nozzle location with respect to the table 18 (e.g., positioned for cleaning the table or to facilitate drainage off the table) (see Iizuka ¶¶ 0044, 0078, 0082-0083; Figs. 2, 4).
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 2-19 and 21 are allowable for depending from claim 1 (subject to overcoming the claim objections and § 112 rejections where relevant).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 20 has been canceled. New claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Examiner has indicated allowable subject matter for claim 1 (and its dependents), which recites a combination of structure that distinguishes the claimed combination over the prior art of record (subject to overcoming the relevant claim objections and § 112 rejections). Examiner suggests canceling claims 5-10 and 12 in order to overcome the majority of the § 112 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20180050436 A1 (“Yamanaka”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with an inclined chuck cover and table cover (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5);
US 5113622 A (“Nishiguchi”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with an inclined table cover (Abstr.; Figs. 4-5);
US 4481741 (“Bouladon”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with an inclined table cover (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3);
US 9238256 B2 (“Kurusu”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with a cover (Abstr.; Figs. 3, 8-11);
US 20050118938 A1 (“Mizomoto”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with a movable cleaning nozzle (Fig. 13; ¶ 0056);
JP 2014054693 A (“Goto”) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus with an inclined table cover (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights