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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Lift mechanism” in claim 2, because (A) the term “mechanism” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) raising and lowering a pad carrier designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of raising and lowering a pad carrier – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for raising and lowering a pad carrier. Examiner is interpreting “lift mechanism” to be a hard-stop, a ball screw assembly, a lead screw assembly, a displacement sensor, or an equivalent structure based on at least paragraph 0032 of Applicant’s specification.
“Lift actuator assembly” in claim 2, because (A) the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) raising and lowering a pad carrier designates a function performed by the assembly, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of raising and lowering a pad carrier – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for raising and lowering a pad carrier. Examiner is interpreting “lift actuator assembly” to be a generic, electric, pneumatic, or hydraulic motor or actuator based on at least paragraph 0033 of Applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” of a placeholder term but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “pad carrier assembly” in claims 7 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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 7-20 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.
The term “about” in claims 9, 14, and 19-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. It is unclear to examiner what range of values constitutes “about” in regards to angle measurements (claims 9 and 19), distance measurements (claim 14), and speed measurements (claim 20), and as the range of values use the term “about” at both ends of the ranges, it is unclear to examiner if the recited ends of the ranges are actually included in the range or not. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action examiner is interpreting the following limitations as recited below:
Regarding claim 9, “about 0.01° and about 6°” is being interpreted as --0.01° and 6°--
Regarding claim 14, “about +/- 10 micrometers (pm) to about +/- 40 pm” is being interpreted as --+/- 10 micrometers (pm) to +/- 40 pm--
Regarding claim 19, “about 1° and about 5°” is being interpreted as --1° and 5°--
Regarding claim 20, “about 750 to about 2500 RPM” is being interpreted as --750 to 2500 RPM--
Claims 8-14 and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 7-8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a pre-clean module for cleaning a substrate, comprising: a rotatable substrate table (Fig. 3 element 213) having a horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface (Fig. 3, the outer surface of element 214, where the element 214 is disposed horizontally as it extends both horizontally and vertically as it is a three dimensional object) for supporting a substrate (Fig. 3 element 205) thereon; a pad carrier assembly (Fig. 6 elements 220 and 231a), the pad carrier assembly comprising: a carrier column (Fig. 6 element 230); a carrier arm coupled to the carrier column (see annotated Fig. 6 below), extending radially outward from an axis of the carrier column (see annotated Fig. 6 below); a lift mechanism (Fig. 6, 0046 and 0048, where the connecting structure which connects the brush depth control assembly (231a) to the carrier column (230) corresponds to a lift mechanism) coupled to the carrier arm (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the lift mechanism is coupled to the carrier arm through the carrier column) and a linear rail assembly (see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the lift mechanism is coupled to the linear rail assembly through the carrier column); a lift actuator assembly (Fig. 6 element 231a) coupled to the carrier arm (Fig. 6, 0046 and 0048, where the lift actuator assembly is coupled to the carrier arm through the lift mechanism) and in mechanical communication with the lift mechanism (0046 and 0048); and a pad carrier (Fig. 3 elements 222, 222a, and 221) coupled to the linear rail assembly (Fig. 3, 0045, where the carrier column moves the pad carrier along the linear rail assembly) and configured to be raised and lowered by the lift mechanism and the lift actuator assembly with respect to the horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface of the substrate table (0048), the pad carrier comprising: a cleaning pad (Fig. 3 element 221); a pad motor (Fig. 3 element 222) configured to rotate the cleaning pad about a central motor axis (0044, where center axis corresponds to a central motor axis); and a shaft (Fig. 3 element 222a) that couples the pad motor to the cleaning pad (0044); and a system controller (Fig. 6 element 250).
Chen fails to disclose that the system controller is configured to determine a pad compression by using a change in cleaning pad height to determine the amount of pad compression.
Ko is also concerned with a pre-clean module and teaches the system controller (Fig. 3 element 108) is configured to determine a pad compression by using a change in cleaning pad height to determine the amount of pad compression (0070-0075, where the difference between positions Z1 and Z3 (i.e. “.DELTA.Z”) corresponds to a change in cleaning pad height due to pad wear, which also corresponds to a pad compression (which Applicant defines in paragraph 0051 of Applicant’s specification as an additional “cleaning distance” after the pad has contacted the substrate) as the “.DELTA.Z” is an additional cleaning distance which is added to the original cleaning distance to make a new cleaning distance in order to maintain consistent downward force). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen to make the system controller be configured to determine a pad compression by using a change in cleaning pad height to determine the amount of pad compression, as taught by Ko, because Ko teaches that having a system controller capable of determining a pad compression based on the axial position of the pad carrier will "improve consistency of compression from substrate-to-substrate" (0070) "thereby improving substrate-to-substrate uniformity" (0074).
PNG
media_image1.png
718
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the pad carrier is configured such that the central motor axis is at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier (Chen, Fig. 3, where an axis going into the page through the pad carrier corresponds to a vertical axis of the pad carrier and the central motor axis is at a 90 degree angle with the vertical axis of the pad carrier).
Regarding claim 10, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the cleaning pad comprises a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) material (Chen, 0039).
Regarding claim 14, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the system controller is configured to read the pad compression with precision to about +/- 10 micrometers (pm) to about +/- 40 pm and able to determine an applied pressure from a compression reference with an accuracy of +/- 0.04 psi. (Ko, 0070-0075, where determining the position in the Z direction corresponds to the system controller being capable of reading the pad compression with precision to about +/- 10 micrometers (pm) to about +/- 40 pm and taking the determined difference (Z3-Z1) of when the preset load value is reached and using that difference to advance the pad to a new position in the Z direction for a subsequent substrate to maintain pressure applied by the pad corresponds to the system controller being capable of determining an applied pressure from a compression reference with an accuracy of +/- 0.04 psi). Examiner notes that the system controller only needs to be capable of meeting the claimed precision and accuracy limitations and that because the system controller is being used in the same way as Applicant’s (e.g. finding the touch point of the pad to the substrate surface and then using the additional height change and a reference to find the applied force) that the system controller is also capable of meeting the precision and accuracy limitations as well.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko, and in further view of Chen et al. (US20170040160), hereinafter Chen’.
Regarding claim 8, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose the pad carrier is configured such that the central motor axis is at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier. Examiner notes that in this interpretation, the vertical axis of the pad carrier corresponds to an axis which is parallel to the central motor axis shown in Chen.
Chen’ is also concerned with a pre-clean module and teaches the pad carrier (Fig. 16 elements 1672, 1686,and 1674) is configured such that the central motor axis (see annotated Fig. 16 below) is at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier (see annotated Fig. 16 below, 0106). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen, as modified, to make the pad carrier be configured such that the central motor axis is at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier, as taught by Chen’, because Chen’ teaches that being able to have the pad motor, and therefore the central motor axis move between positions to be at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier "provides better access to the edge of substrate 100 for improved cleaning" (0106).
PNG
media_image2.png
644
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the angle is between about 0.01° and about 6° (Chen’, Fig. 16, 0106, where "between 1 and 10 degrees" has angles in the claimed range). However, Chen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the angle being between 0.01° and 6°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Chen, as modified, from between 1 and 10 degrees to between .01 and 6 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see 0036 of Applicant’s specification which indicates several different possible ranges of the angles including 1 to 10 degrees) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko, and in further view of Amsden et al. (US5778481), hereinafter Amsden.
Regarding claim 11, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose a pad processing surface of the cleaning pad includes a plurality of polishing features.
Amsden is also concerned with a pad used in cleaning of a substrate and teaches a pad processing surface (see annotated Fig. 1 below) of the cleaning pad (Fig. 1 element 10) includes a plurality of polishing features (Fig. 1 elements 19). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen, as modified, to include a plurality of polishing features on the pad processing surface, as taught by Amsden, because Amsden teaches that providing polishing features in a pattern (e.g. a spiral pattern) creates grooves on the surface of the pad which facilitates discharging of fluid on the surface of the pad (4:2-11).
PNG
media_image3.png
394
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the polishing features comprise a plurality of mesas (Amsden, Fig. 1 elements 19) disposed in a radial pattern (Amsden, Fig. 1, 4:2-5, where a "swirl" pattern corresponds to a radial pattern) extending from a surface of the pad (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses the polishing features comprise a plurality of spokes (Amsden, Fig. 1 elements 19) disposed in a radial pattern (Amsden, Fig. 1, 4:2-5, where a "swirl" pattern corresponds to a radial pattern) extending from a surface of the pad (Amsden, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claims 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko, and in further view of Ishibashi (US20220410343).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a pre-clean module, comprising: a rotatable substrate table (Fig. 3 element 213) having a horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface (Fig. 3, the outer surface of element 214, where the element 214 is disposed horizontally as it extends both horizontally and vertically as it is a three dimensional object) for supporting a substrate (Fig. 3 element 205) thereon; a system controller (Fig. 6 element 250); a pad carrier assembly (Fig. 6 elements 220 and 231a), the pad carrier assembly comprising: a carrier arm (see annotated Fig. 6 above); a lift mechanism (Fig. 6, 0046 and 0048, where the connecting structure which connects the brush depth control assembly (231a) to the carrier column (230) corresponds to a lift mechanism) coupled to the carrier arm (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the lift mechanism is coupled to the carrier arm through the carrier column) and a linear rail assembly (see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the lift mechanism is coupled to the linear rail assembly through the carrier column); a lift actuator assembly (Fig. 6 element 231a) coupled to the carrier arm (Fig. 6, 0046 and 0048, where the lift actuator assembly is coupled to the carrier arm through the lift mechanism) and in mechanical communication with the lift mechanism (0046 and 0048), wherein the lift actuator assembly is configured to apply less than 30 N (0047, where .1lb to about 2lb of force is equivalent to .44N to about 8.90N which is less than 30N) and is controlled by the system controller (0047-0049); a pad carrier (Fig. 3 elements 222, 222a, and 221) coupled to the linear rail assembly (Fig. 3, 0045, where the carrier column moves the pad carrier along the linear rail assembly) and configured to be moved by the lift mechanism and lift actuator assembly with respect to the horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface of the substrate table (0046), the pad carrier comprising: a pad motor (Fig. 3 element 222); a shaft (Fig. 3 element 222a); and a pad (Fig. 3 element 221) coupled to the pad motor by the shaft (Fig. 3, 0044), the pad comprising a PVA material (0039).
Chen fails to disclose the system controller is configured to calculate a force applied to a pad based on a compression of the pad, wherein the system controller is configured to determine the compression of the pad by using a change in pad height; and the pad motor is capable of sensing and communicating a real time experienced torque value.
Ko is also concerned with a pre-clean module and teaches the system controller (Fig. 3 element 108) is configured to calculate a force applied to a pad based on a compression of the pad, wherein the system controller is configured to determine the compression of the pad by using a change in pad height (0070-0075, where the difference between positions Z1 and Z3 (i.e. “.DELTA.Z”) corresponds to a change in pad height due to pad wear, which also corresponds to a pad compression (which Applicant defines in paragraph 0051 of Applicant’s specification as an additional “cleaning distance” after the pad has contacted the substrate) as the “.DELTA.Z” is an additional cleaning distance which is added to the original cleaning distance to make a new cleaning distance in order to maintain consistent downward force (i.e. a force applied to the pad based on the compression of the pad)). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen to make the system controller be configured to calculate a force applied to a pad based on a compression of a pad, wherein the system controller is configured to determine the compression of the pad by using a change in pad height, as taught by Ko, because Ko teaches that having a system controller capable of calculating a force applied to a pad based on a compression of a pad will "improve consistency of compression from substrate-to-substrate" (0070) "thereby improving substrate-to-substrate uniformity" (0074).
Chen, as modified, fails to disclose the pad motor is capable of sensing and communicating a real time experienced torque value.
Ishibashi is also concerned with a pre-clean module and teaches the pad motor (Fig. 3 element 93) is capable of sensing and communicating a real time experienced torque value (0104, 0256, and 0254). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen, as modified, to make the pad motor capable of sensing and communicating a real time experienced torque value, as taught by Ishibashi, because Ishibashi teaches that having a pad motor which is capable of sensing and communicating a real time experienced torque value can be used in a trained model to determine the replacement time of the cleaning pad (0254).
Regarding claim 18, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses a pad processing surface is at an angle (Chen, Fig. 3, where an axis going into the page through the pad carrier corresponds to a vertical axis of the pad carrier and the central motor axis is at a 90 degree angle with the vertical axis of the pad carrier).
Regarding claim 20, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to disclose the pad motor is capable of rotating the pad between about 750 to about 2500 RPM.
Ko teaches the pad motor (Fig. 3 element 336) is capable of rotating the pad between about 750 to about 2500 RPM. (0051, where "at least about 1000 rpm" is within the claimed range). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Chen, as modified, discloses the invention except that the pad motor is not capable of rotating at 750-2500 RPM. Ko shows that a pad motor capable of rotating at 750-2500 RPM is an equivalent structure known in the art (e.g. both motors are used to rotate cleaning pads to clean the surface of a substrate). Therefore, because these pad motor types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a pad motor capable of rotating at 750-2500 RPM for a pad motor which is not capable of rotating at 750-2500 RPM.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko, in further view of Ishibashi (US20220410343), and in further view of Amsden et al. (US5778481), hereinafter Amsden.
Regarding claim 16, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to disclose the cleaning pad further comprises a pad pattern.
Amsden is also concerned with a pad used in cleaning of a substrate and teaches the cleaning pad (Fig. 1 element 10) further comprises a pad pattern (Amsden, Fig. 1, 4:2-5, where a "swirl" pattern corresponds to a pattern and element 19 form said pattern).
Regarding claim 17, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses the pad pattern is a radial spokes pattern (Fig. 1, 4:2-5, where a “swirl” made of a plurality of spokes (19) corresponds to a radial spokes pattern).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20110265816), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ko et al. (US20130196572), hereinafter Ko, in further view of Ishibashi (US20220410343), and in further view of Chen et al. (US20170040160), hereinafter Chen’.
Regarding claim 18, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to disclose a pad processing surface is at an angle. Examiner notes that in this interpretation, the vertical axis of the pad carrier corresponds to an axis which is parallel to the central motor axis shown in Chen.
Chen’ is also concerned with a pre-clean module and teaches a pad processing surface (Fig. 16, where the surface of element 1674 which faces element 100 corresponds to a pad processing surface) is at an angle (see annotated Fig. 16 below, 0106). It 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 to modify the pre-clean module of Chen, as modified, to make the pad processing surface be at an angle, as taught by Chen’, because Chen’ teaches that being able to have the pad motor, and therefore the central motor axis move between positions to be at an angle with respect to a vertical axis of the pad carrier "provides better access to the edge of substrate 100 for improved cleaning" (0106).
Regarding claim 19, Chen, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses the angle is between about 1° and about 5° (Chen’, Fig. 16, 0106, where "between 1 and 10 degrees" has angle values within the claimed range). However, Chen, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the angle being between 1° and 5°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of Chen, as modified, from between 1 and 10 degrees to between 1 and 5 degrees as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see 0036 of Applicant’s specification which indicates several different possible ranges of the angles including 1 to 10 degrees) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “lift mechanism” and “lift actuator assembly” should not be interpreted under 112(f) and also should not be considered rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “lift” and “actuator” provide “a structural modifier to a person of ordinary skill in the art” and that specific examples are provided in at least paragraph 0032. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that “lift” and “actuator” do not provide a proper structural modifier as there are many structures which can perform the function of lifting and actuating. Examiner further finds that while the specific examples provided in the specification do provide structural examples for what the “lift mechanism” and “lift actuator assembly” can be, it does not limit the “lift mechanism” and “lift actuator assembly” to these structures. Examiner finds that 112(f) has been invoked to notify Applicant that these terms are being interpreted by examiner to be any of the specific structures listed in the specification or an equivalent structure.
Applicant argues that the term “about” used in claims 7 and 15 is sufficiently definite in view of MPEP 2173.05(b). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that it is unclear to examiner what range of values constitutes “about” in regards to angle measurements (claims 9 and 19), distance measurements (claim 14), and speed measurements (claim 20). Examiner notes that the ranges of values using the term “about” at both ends of the ranges, it is unclear to examiner if the recited ends of the ranges are actually included in the range or not, making the claimed ranges indefinite.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Applicant argues that Chen fails to disclose “a horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface” as recited in claims 7 and 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Chen does disclose a horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface (Fig. 3, the outer surface of element 214, where the element 214 is disposed horizontally as it extends both horizontally and vertically as it is a three dimensional object). See rejection of claims 7 and 15 above. Examiner finds that this same answer to the argument was provided in the final rejection filed 12/8/2025, and since Applicant has not refuted this interpretation, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that this also addresses Applicant’s argument that the pad carrier of Chen is configured to be raised and lowered with respect to the horizontally disposed substrate supporting surface as this argument was predicated on the horizontal disposition of the substrate supporting surface.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Applicant argues that Ko fails to teach or suggest “the system controller is configured to determine the compression of the pad by using a change in pad height” because Ko teaches using the load value obtained by a pressure sensor to determine the pad compression. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that claims 7 and 15 recite that the system controller is configured to use a change in the height of the cleaning pad to determine the amount of pad compression. Examiner finds that in paragraph 0051 of Applicant’s specification, “pad compression” is defined as an additional “cleaning distance” after the pad has contacted the substrate. Examiner thus finds that while adding this limitation to claims 7 and 15 does not make the claims indefinite, it does not meaningfully change the scope of the claims as the claims essentially claim that the system controller is configured to determine the pad compression based on the pad compression. Examiner further finds that Ko does teach that the pad compression is an additional cleaning distance (0070-0075, where the difference between positions Z1 and Z3 (i.e. “.DELTA.Z”) corresponds to a pad compression as the “.DELTA.Z” is an additional cleaning distance which is added to the original cleaning distance to make a new cleaning distance in order to maintain consistent downward force). See rejections of claims 7 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that Ishibashi fails to teach or suggest “the pad motor is capable of sensing and communicating a real time experience torque value”. It is unclear to examiner why Applicant believes that Ishibashi fails to disclose this limitation as at least paragraph 0104 explicitly teaches this limitation with “the electric motor 93 has a torque sensor 93b configured to measure a torque for rotating the drive shaft 93a” and “The torque sensor 93b and the vibration meter 97 are coupled to the controller 30 (see FIG. 1), and a measured value of the torque for rotating the drive shaft 93a and a measured value of the vibration generated in the bearing 90a are transmitted to the controller 30”. Since Applicant has not addressed why this does not meet the claimed limitation, examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive. See rejection of claim 15 above.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation stated to make the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections made for any of the modifications made in claims 7 and 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that motivations have been provided by examiner for each 35 U.S.C. 103 modification. See rejections of claims 7 and 15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaushal et al. (US20030060127) teaches “applying a compression force to spindle supporting the wafer in contact with the polishing pad, detecting a distance of displacement of the spindle toward the polishing pad, and correlating the distance of movement with compression distances of prior polishing pads of known quality” (0010).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights