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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/22/2026 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 use the word “means” or “step” 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:
“Moving mechanism” in claims 1 and 4.
“Grinding unit” in claims 1 and 4.
“Load measurement unit” in claims 1 and 4.
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 § 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeishi (US20210098316), supplied by Applicant in IDS filed 10/22/2025 in view of Kimura et al. (JP2020019082A), attached as a PDF in office action filed 9/30/2025 and hereinafter referred to as Kimura.
Regarding claim 1, Takeishi discloses an origin determination method for use in determining an origin of a moving mechanism (Fig. 2 element 5), where a lower end (0038, where "lower surface of the polishing pad" corresponds to a lower end of the grinding stone) of a grinding stone (Fig. 2 element 76) of a grinding wheel (Fig. 2 element 74) and a holding surface (Fig. 1 element 300a) of a chuck table (Fig. 2 element 30, 0025) capable of holding a plate-shaped workpiece (Fig. 2 element W) thereon (0025) come into contact with each other (0038), in a grinding machine (Fig. 1 element 1) including;
the chuck table that has the holding surface (Fig. 1),
a grinding unit (Fig. 1 element 7) that has a spindle (Fig. 2 element 70) on which the grinding wheel with the grinding stone included thereon is mounted (Fig. 2, 0032) and grinds with the grinding wheel the workpiece held on the holding surface (0057),
the moving mechanism that has a motor (Fig. 2 element 52) and moves the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other in a moving direction intersecting the holding surface (Fig. 2, where the Z direction corresponds to a moving direction), and
a load measurement unit (Fig. 2 elements 38, 0030) that has a load sensor (Fig. 2 any one of elements 38) and measures a load applied to the holding surface (0030),
the origin determination method comprising:
an adjustment step of adjusting a positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit by the moving mechanism such that the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are brought into a state in which the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are not in contact along the moving direction and correspond to an initial contact status (0044),
a moving step of, after the adjustment step, moving the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other by the moving mechanism such that the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are brought closer to each other by a predetermined distance along the moving direction (0046 and 0044, where "preset distance of 50 μm" corresponds to predetermined distance), and
a contact determination step of, after the moving step, measuring with the load sensor an initial load applied to the holding surface when the grinding stones and the holding surface first come into contact, and determining whether the initial load has reached a predetermined threshold (0047-0050, where "preset threshold value" corresponds to a predetermined threshold),
repeating the moving step responsive to the measurement value of the load applied to the holding surface not reaching the predetermined threshold (0051); and
repeating the contact determination step by measuring a subsequent load applied to the holding surface and determining whether the subsequent load has reached the predetermined threshold (0052-0055),
wherein a positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit is determined to be the origin of the moving mechanism when the measurement value of the subsequent load reaches the predetermined threshold (0038, where "a relative distance in the Z direction from the holding surface 300a of the holding unit 30 to the lower surface of the polishing pad 76" corresponds to a positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit and where the operation used to determine contact between the grinding unit and the wafer described in paragraphs 0044-0054 is the same operation used to determine the contact between chuck table and the grinding unit).
Takeishi fails to disclose that the predetermined distance is less than 15 μm along the moving direction so that a load between the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface does not exceed 500 N when the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface come in contact with each other and the grinding wheel has multiple grinding stones.
Takeishi discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is less than 15 µm. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table (and therefore also the possibility of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure) and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure and therefore also increases the probability of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi to be less than 15 µm based on the grinding stone (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraphs 0052-0055 of Applicant’s specification contemplate several different predetermined distance ranges and paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Takeishi, as modified, then discloses the predetermined distance is less than 15 μm along the moving direction (see modification described in the paragraph directly above) so that a load between the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface does not exceed 500 N when the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface come in contact with each other (according to paragraphs 0052-0053 of Applicant’s specification, when the predetermined distance is 15 μm or less the load will not exceed 500 N).
Takeishi, as modified, fails to disclose the grinding wheel has multiple grinding stones.
Kimura is also concerned with an origin determination method and teaches the grinding wheel (Fig. 1 element 64) has multiple grinding stones (Fig. 1 element 641, 0015). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Takeishi, as modified, discloses the invention except that the grinding wheel has a single grinding stone instead of multiple grinding stones. Kimura shows that a grinding wheel having multiple grinding stones is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both grinding wheels are used to polish a workpiece). Therefore, because these two grinding wheel 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 grinding wheel having multiple grinding stones for a grinding wheel having a single grinding stone.
Regarding claim 2, Takeishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface. Takeishi, as modified, discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (Takeishi, 0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi, as modified, to be 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface based on the grinding stones (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Regarding claim 3, Takeishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is 1 µm or greater. Takeishi, as modified, discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is 1 µm or greater. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table (and therefore also the possibility of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure) and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (Takeishi, 0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure and therefore also increases the probability of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi, as modified, to be 1 µm or greater based on the grinding stones (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraphs 0052-0055 of Applicant’s specification contemplate several different predetermined distance ranges and paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Regarding claim 4, Takeishi discloses a grinding machine comprising:
a chuck table (Fig. 2 element 30, 0025) that has a holding surface (Fig. 1 element 300a) capable of holding a plate-shaped workpiece (Fig. 2 element W) thereon (0025);
a grinding unit (Fig. 1 element 7) that has a spindle (Fig. 2 element 70) on which a grinding wheel (Fig. 2 element 74) with a grinding stone (Fig. 2 element 76) included thereon is mounted (Fig. 2, 0032) and grinds with the grinding wheel the workpiece held on the chuck table (0057);
a moving mechanism (Fig. 2 element 5) that has a motor (Fig. 2 element 52), and moves the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other in a moving direction intersecting the holding surface (Fig. 2, where the Z direction corresponds to a moving direction);
a load measurement unit (Fig. 2 elements 38) that has a load sensor (Fig. 2 any one of elements 38), and measures a load applied to the holding surface (0030); and
a controller (Fig. 2 element 9) that has a processing device (0036, where “a central processing unit (CPU)” corresponds to a processing device) and a storage device (Fig. 2 element 90), and can control the moving mechanism and the load measurement unit according to a program stored in the storage device (0036 and 0038-0039, where the stored values of “relative distance” and “thickness” stored in the storage device correspond to part of a program),
wherein the controller is configured to perform, according to the program,
a procedure of adjusting a positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit (0038, where "a relative distance in the Z direction from the holding surface 300a of the holding unit 30 to the lower surface of the polishing pad 76" corresponds to a positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit) by the moving mechanism such that lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are brought into a state in which the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are not in contact along the moving direction and correspond to an initial contact status (0044),
a procedure of, after the procedure of adjusting the positional relation, moving the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other by the moving mechanism such that the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface are brought closer to each other by a predetermined distance along the moving direction (0046 and 0044, where "preset distance of 50 μm" corresponds to predetermined distance), and
a procedure of, after the procedure of moving the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other, measuring with the load sensor an initial load applied to the holding surface when the grinding stones and the holding surface first come into contact, and determining whether the initial load has reached a predetermined threshold (0047-0050, where "preset threshold value" corresponds to a predetermined threshold),
a procedure of repeating the procedure of moving the chuck table and the grinding unit relative to each other, the procedure of measuring with the load sensor a subsequent load applied to the holding surface, and the procedure of determining whether the subsequent load has reached the predetermined threshold, the procedure of repeating being responsive to the measurement value of the load applied to the holding surface not reaching the predetermined threshold (0051-0055),
wherein the positional relation between the chuck table and the grinding unit is set to be an origin of the moving mechanism when the measurement value of the subsequent load reaches the predetermined threshold (0038, where the operation used to determine contact between the grinding unit and the wafer described in paragraphs 0044-0054 is the same operation used to determine the contact between chuck table and the grinding unit).
Takeishi fails to disclose that the predetermined distance is less than 15 μm along the moving direction so that a load between the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface does not exceed 500 N when the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface come in contact with each other and the grinding wheel has multiple grinding stones.
Takeishi discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is less than 15 µm. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table (and therefore also the possibility of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure) and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure and therefore also increases the probability of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi to be less than 15 µm based on the grinding stone (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraphs 0052-0055 of Applicant’s specification contemplate several different predetermined distance ranges and paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Takeishi, as modified, then discloses the predetermined distance is less than 15 μm along the moving direction (see modification described in the paragraph directly above) so that a load between the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface does not exceed 500 N when the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface come in contact with each other (according to paragraphs 0052-0053 of Applicant’s specification, when the predetermined distance is 15 μm or less the load will not exceed 500 N).
Takeishi, as modified, fails to disclose that the grinding wheel has multiple grinding stones.
Kimura is also concerned with a grinding machine and teaches the grinding wheel (Fig. 1 element 64) has multiple grinding stones (Fig. 1 element 641, 0015). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Takeishi, as modified, discloses the invention except that the grinding wheel has a single grinding stone instead of multiple grinding stones. Kimura shows that a grinding wheel having multiple grinding stones is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both grinding wheels are used to polish a workpiece). Therefore, because these two grinding wheel 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 grinding wheel having multiple grinding stones for a grinding wheel having a single grinding stone.
Regarding claim 5, Takeishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface. Takeishi, as modified, discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (Takeishi, 0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi, as modified, to be 1/7,000 or greater and 1/133 or smaller of the distance along the moving direction between the lower ends of the grinding stones and the holding surface based on the grinding stones (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Regarding claim 6, Takeishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 4, as described above, but fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is 1 µm or greater. Takeishi, as modified, discloses that “the values for the preset distance…may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” (Takeishi, 0046), but is silent to the specific claimed distance range. In other words, Takeishi, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the predetermined distance is to possess/range between is 1 µm or greater. The predetermined distance is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that accuracy of contact pressure between the polishing pad and the holding surface of the chuck table (and therefore also the possibility of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure) and the speed at which the contact pressure determination is performed are directly proportional to the predetermined distance (Takeishi, 0046, 0005, and 0010, where increasing the predetermined distance increases the speed, but decreases the accuracy of contact pressure and decreasing the predetermined distance decreases the speed, but increases the accuracy of contact pressure and therefore also increases the probability of preventing damage caused by excess contact pressure). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is a predetermined distance, was disclosed in the prior art by Takeishi, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the predetermined distance disclosed by Takeishi, as modified, to be 1 µm or greater based on the grinding stones (i.e. polishing pad) being used. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed predetermined distance range in the specification as paragraphs 0052-0055 of Applicant’s specification contemplate several different predetermined distance ranges and paragraph 0055 of Applicant’s specification states that “another predetermined distance outside this range may be adopted if the possibility of damage to the holding plate 30 and the grinding stones 62 can be suppressed low”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Taskeishi fails to disclose “a preset distance of less than 15 μm”. While examiner agrees that Takeishi does not explicitly disclose this limitation, examiner has previously rejected this limitation in the Final Rejection filed 2/6/2026. As Applicant has not addressed why examiner’s interpretation is incorrect, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Takeishi fails to disclose “a predetermined distance of less than 15 μm along the moving direction so that a load between the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface does not exceed 500 N when the lower end of the grinding stone and the holding surface come in contact with each other and the grinding wheel has multiple grinding stones” because Takeishi teaches using a polishing pad which is formed of felt instead of grinding stones. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that 0046 of Takeishi discloses that “the preset distance and the preset lowering speed mentioned above may be changed to suitable values according to the kind of the polishing pad” and that 0033 of Takeishi discloses that the polishing pad being formed of felt is merely an example when it states “For example, the polishing pad 76 is formed from a nonwoven fabric such as felt”. Examiner further finds that Applicant has not defined what classifies a structure as being considered “a grinding stone”. Is it the hardness, is it the grit, is it some other variable, or a combination of these? Examiner finds that the polishing pad of Takeishi is an equivalent structure to a grinding stone as both are capable of removing material from a surface and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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