DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17966021 application filed October 14, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on June 18, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s withdrawal of claims 12-20 acknowledged.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretations
Applicant has elected Group I, which is drawn to an apparatus, in response to the Election/Restriction requirement. Group II, which is drawn to a computer-readable medium, and Group III, which is drawn to a method, are nonelected
Note that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. --The term "a strong gradient in a magnetic field between centers of two adjacent coils of the array of coils" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "strong gradient" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be clear the range of the gradient is considered to be “strong”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that any gradient in a magnetic field that causes an acceleration in the liquid is considered to be a strong gradient.
Claims 2-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar (U.S. Pat. No. 7377836), hereinafter “Molnar”, in view of Fukuyama et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6121704), hereinafter “Fukuyama”, Chen et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210327720), hereinafter “Chen”, Wong (U.S. Pat. No. 6083839), hereinafter “Wong”, and Wang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220193859), hereinafter “Wang”--Claims 1, 3, 10: Molnar teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) system (Fig. 1a-1c and 2; Col. 6, Line 63 through Col. 10, Line 18), comprisinga substrate 110;a holder 300 comprising a retainer ring 305 disposed below the substrate and secures the substrate 310;a liquid composition 200 disposed above the substrate 110 (Col. 66, Line 23 though Col. 67, Line 25);a magnetic finishing element 120, comprising a finishing element 130 and a magnet element 160, disposed above the liquid composition 200 (Col. 14, Line 52 through Col. 15, Line 44), wherein the finishing element 120 may comprise abrasives (Fig. 10a);an array of magnetic elements 320 disposed under the holder 300; anda computer-readable, program storage device or processor encoded with instructions to perform the preferred method of polishing (Col. 121, Lines 17-31). Molnar further discloses that the magnetic finishing element 120 may comprise a discrete finishing member finishing surface 142 (Col. 28, Lines 20-21; Col. 29, Lines 3-4) that appears to be substantially planar (Fig. 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a magnetic finishing element 120 having a substantially planar finishing surface 142 in the invention of Molnar. Molnar further teaches that a magnetic driver system such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,121,704, assigned to Fukuyama, may be used to impart the motion (Col. 66, Line 17). Fukuyama teaches that control current may be caused to flow through an array of electromagnetic coils to impart a motion on a component (abstract; Col. 6, Lines 15-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a programmable electronic controller that is capable of dynamically vary electrical current in the array of coils to adjust a magnetic coupling force applied to the liquid to control a polishing pressure against the panel independent of a vertical distance between the array of coils and the panel based on predefined polishing parameters in the CMP system of Molnar. It is noted that the substrate reads on the panel, the holder 300 reads on the holder device, the liquid composition 200 reads on the liquid, the magnetic finishing element 120 reads on the non-rotating, substantially planar plate recited in claim 1. Molnar further teaches that the liquid composition 200 may comprise various chemicals and solid abrasives, such as metal oxide particles (Col. 66, Lines 23 through Col. 67, Line 19) and/or abrasives that are detached from the finishing element and present in the liquid composition (Col. 67, Lines 20-25), and that the abrasives may comprise iron oxide (Col. 47, Lines 53-55). It is noted that iron oxide is a ferromagnetic material. Molnar further teaches that, regarding the magnetic finishing element 120, “free of a mechanical driving mechanism is preferred” (Col. 15, Lines 15-16), “free of any physically connected movement mechanism” (Col. 23, Lines 23-26), and that the system is “capable of supplying a parallel finishing motion to finishing elements solely through magnetic coupling forces” (Col. 1, Lines 63-66). Molnar further teaches that “(c)ontrolling the current and pressure can help improve yields when manufacturing high precision workpieces” (Col. 21, Lines 27-29) and that “(a) preferred group of magnetic process control parameters consist of parameters selected from the group consisting of the amount of magnetic coupling, magnetically induced operative finishing motions, and magnetically induced operative finishing pressure. A preferred group of magnetic process control parameters consist of parameters selected from the group consisting of the amount of magnetic coupling, magnetically induced operative finishing motions, and magnetically induced operative finishing down force. Changing at least one magnetic process control parameter during finishing is preferred and changing a plurality of magnetic process control parameters during finishing is more preferred”. (Col. 79, Lines 23-54). Molnar further teaches that the array of magnetic elements 320 can move in any desired direction to impart motion to the magnetic finishing element 120, wherein the magnets may be electromagnets (Col. 13, Lines 35 through Col. 16, Line 27), and that “(c)oupling magnetic driver systems to drive magnetically responsive refining elements to generate different motions such as linear motion, circular motion, and eccentric motion are known. Magnetic driver systems which transmit torque through nonmagnetic structures to drive mixing and pumping elements and the like are known in the mixing arts and can be adapted for use with the confidential magnetic finishing systems disclosed herein using the confidential teaching disclosed herein. Mechanical motion mechanisms to generate linear motions, planar motions (such as x-y motion) circular motion, and orbital motions. Control of the magnetic coupling between the magnetically responsive finishing element and driving magnet by varying the distance and/or using electronically adjustable magnetic fields is preferred.” may be applied (Col. 65, Line 60 through Col. 66, Line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to apply linear motion, planar motion (such as x-y motion), circular motion or orbital motion to the array of magnetic elements 320 during a polishing process to impart motion to the magnetic finishing element 120, while controlling a current to the magnets during the polishing. It is noted that this would change the magnetic field, thus magnetic force on the liquid composition comprising the ferromagnetic abrasive, while maintaining the same distance between the magnetic elements 320 and the substrate. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use electronically adjustable magnetic fields by the array of magnetic elements 320 to impart motion to the magnetic finishing element 120. It is noted that this would maintain the vertical distance between the magnetic elements 320 and the substrate. Molnar further teaches that “(a) preferred embodiment is directed to a method for refining comprising a step (A) applying a refining energy to a workpiece with a refining element; a step (B) providing an operative control subsystem having an operative sensor, a controller, and a processor and wherein the processor has access to (i) a process model, (ii) an assigned workpiece tracking code, and (iii) information in at least one memory device; a step (C) sensing progress of refining information with the operative sensor during a period of non-steady refining; a step (D) determining a change for at least one improved control parameter using at least in part at least (i) the process model, (ii) the assigned workpiece tracking code, (iii) the information in at least one memory device, and (iv) progress of refining information with the operative control subsystem during the period of non-steady refining; and a step (E) changing in real time the at least one process control parameter which changes the refining during the period of non-steady refining” (Col. 3, Lines 57 through Col. 4, Line 7). Molnar further teaches that the magnetic elements 320 are preferably controllable electromagnet in order to change the magnetic coupling force between the finishing element 120 and the magnetic elements 320 (Col. 13, Lines 30-31 and 60-67), but fails to teach that the magnetic elements 320 comprise array of coils. Wong, also directed to a CMP system comprising a substrate 310 that is secured to a holder 320 and a liquid composition comprising ferromagnetic materials 330 over the substrate and an array of magnetic elements 340 under the holder, teach that the magnetic elements 340 comprise magnetic coils that moves in a desirable directions and imparts motion on the liquid composition comprising ferromagnetic materials 330 to polish the substrate.(Fig. 3, Col. 4, Line 7 through Col. 5, Line 4). Chen, also directed to a CMP system comprising an array of electromagnetic systems (Fig. 7B and C), teaches that the electromagnetic systems comprises current-carrying coils ([0031]) that “may be individually controllable to produce magnetic fields with varying strength and orientation across the plurality of magnetic systems 703. For example, the voltage difference and/or the current running through the respective coils may vary across the plurality of magnetic systems 703” across the substrate in order to impart motion on the magnetizable abrasives in the slurry ([0034-0036), and wherein the magnetic field may be reduced, turned off or reversed ([0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use iron oxide for both the abrasives on the magnetic finishing element 120 and the metal oxide particles in the liquid composition 200 in the invention of Molnar not only to simplify manufacturing but also for the electromagnets to impart motion on the liquid composition 200 to polish the substrate, as taught by Wong and Chen. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to control the magnetic field by supplying appropriate voltage individually to each magnet elements by using a controller, as taught by Chen, in the invention of Molnar modified by Wong. Thus, the magnetic element 320 reads on the array of coils positioned underneath the holder recited in claim 1. Chen is silent about a method for controlling the electromagnetic systems comprises current-carrying coils to produce magnetic fields with varying strength and orientation across the plurality of magnetic systems. Wang, also directed to a CMP system comprising an array of electromagnetic devices (Fig. 2B and 2C, [0035]), teaches that the magnetic field strength and orientation can be controlled by an EM voltage source, wherein reversing an electric current through a coil in an electromagnetic device would reversing the orientation of the magnetic field ([0035-0037, 0068]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to control the magnetic field by supplying positive current to a first magnet coil in a first magnet element and negative current to an adjacent magnet coil in an adjacent magnet element in the invention of Molnar modified by Wong and Chen because Chen teaches to control the coils individually, such as by vary the current running through the coils, to produce magnetic fields with varying strength and orientation across the plurality of magnetic systems but is silent about a direction of the current, and Wang teaches that the orientation of magnetic field can be changed by reversing the current direction. It is noted that the changing of the magnetic field by changing the current through the coils would impart a force, thus causes an acceleration, on the iron oxide abrasives in the slurry without moving any solid parts of the CMP system. --Claim 2: Wong further teaches that the substrate may be a wafer (Col. 3, Lines 44-45).--Claims 4, 5: It is noted that the array of magnetic elements described by Molnar modified by Wong and Chen is capable of varying the current supplied to the individual coils, that would generate a magnetic field that impart a motion to the magnetic abrasives to polish the substrate.--Claim 7: It is noted that the substrate and the magnetic finishing element are capable of being immobile. Furthermore, since Wong teaches that the substrate is immobile while the electromagnets impart motion on the polishing slurry to polish the substrate, there is no need to move the magnetic finishing element to polish the substrate. Molnar further teaches that the electromagnets impart attraction on the magnetic element 160 in the magnetic finishing element so that the magnetic finishing element applies a pressure on the polishing slurry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a magnetic element without a finishing element that is stationary to simplify manufacturing and reduce cost.--Claim 9: It is noted that the array of magnetic elements described by Molnar modified by Wong and Chen is capable of being turned each coils individually according to a pattern.--Claim 11: Chen further teaches that the magnetic field may be reduced, turned off or reversed to attract or repel the magnetic abrasives in order to separate the magnetic abrasives for cleaning and recycling ([0048], Fig. 11)
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar in view of Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. ((U.S. PGPub. No. 20090067959), hereinafter “Takahashi”:--Claim 6: Molnar modified by Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang teaches the invention as above, wherein the array of magnetic elements 320 are individually controlled and moves in desired directions. Molnar further teaches that “(m)echanical motion mechanisms to generate linear motions, planar motions (such as x-y motion) circular motion, and orbital motions. Control of the magnetic coupling between the magnetically responsive finishing element and driving magnet by varying the distance and/or using electronically adjustable magnetic fields is preferred” may be applied to the holder 300 (Col. 66, Lines 4-8). Molnar, Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang fail to teach the array of magnetic elements 320 sits above a springloaded frame.
Takahashi, also directed to an apparatus for polishing a substrate comprising a stage that moves between different positions, teaches that the stage may comprise spring that would advantageously absorb excessive strokes so that a single air cylinder may be used ([0163]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a springloaded frame to support the array of magnetic elements 320 in the invention of Molnar modified by Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang because Takahashi teaches that this would advantageously absorb excessive strokes so that a single air cylinder may be used.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar in view of Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kahn et al. ((U.S. Pat. No. 6196907), hereinafter “Kahn”:--Claim 8: Molnar modified by Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang teaches the invention as above. Molnar, Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang fail to teach the magnetic finishing element 120 comprises holes for the liquid composition 200 to flow.
Kahn, also directed to an apparatus for polishing a substrate with a polishing liquid and a polishing pad 70 above the liquid composition, teaches that the polishing pad 70 comprises a polishing liquid delivery path comprises port 37, channel 52 and delivery holes 65, wherein the polishing liquid entered the polishing liquid is fed to the port 37, entering channel 52 then through the delivery holes 65 to the substrate to be polished (Col. 4, Lines 53-67; Fig. 3 and 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the polishing liquid delivery path taught by Kahn in the magnetic finishing element 120 in the invention of Molnar modified by Fukuyama, Wong, Chen and Wang because Kahn teaches that this would advantageously enable a shorter delivery path than a conventional polishing apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. --Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amendment has overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), this arguments is persuasive and the previous rejection is withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
