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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprises at least one of a distance sensor or a shape measuring sensor” renders the claims unclear. Claim 10 depends on claim 1 which requires “a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor” in lines 4-6. It is unclear if the limitations in claim 10 add additional sensors to the non-contact surface-measurement sensor or if they are descriptive of the type of sensor already included through the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a surface property judging method, which is considered to be a process. Claims 11-20 are directed to a surface property judging system, which is considered to be a machine. Therefore claims 1-20 each fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a surface property evaluation method comprising “generating surface data containing a plurality of shape index values indicative of the topography or geometry of the polishing pad surface of the polishing pad;
producing a histogram indicating a distribution of the plurality of shape index values based on the surface data; and
determining whether the polishing pad remains suitable for polishing based on the histogram” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0104]-[0170] of the instant disclosure, teach the generating, producing, and judging to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the judging could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 further recites the additional elements “rotating a polishing table together with a polishing pad which is supported by the polishing table” and “measuring a surface of the polishing pad using a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor”. The additional elements of the rotating a polishing table together with a polishing pad which is supported by the polishing table and measuring a surface of the polishing pad using a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the rotating and measuring and the at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The measurement and sensor limitations in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “rotating a polishing table together with a polishing pad which is supported by the polishing table” and “measuring a surface of the polishing pad using a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the rotating a polishing table together with a polishing pad which is supported by the polishing table and measuring a surface of the polishing pad using a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the rotating, measuring, and the sensor limitations are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The rotation, measurement, and sensor limitations in the claim are thus insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-9 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 1 above.
Claim 10 recites the further additional element of “a distance sensor or a shape measuring sensor”. The additional elements of a distance sensor and a shape measuring sensor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the distance sensor and the shape measuring sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The distance sensor and the shape measuring sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim 11 is directed to a surface property evaluation system comprising “configured to generate surface data containing a plurality of shape index values indicative of the topography or geometry of the polishing pad surface of a rotating polishing pad; and
one or more processors coupled with a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to produce a histogram indicating a distribution of the plurality of shape index values based on the surface data, and to determine whether the polishing pad remains suitable for polishing based on the histogram” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0104]-[0170] of the instant disclosure, teach the generating, producing, and determining to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the judging could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor configured to generate surface data containing a plurality of shape index values indicative of the topography or geometry of the polishing pad surface of a rotating polishing pad” and the structure of the “one or more processors”. The additional elements of the non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measurement optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor, the rotating polishing pad, and the one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The non-contact surface-measurement sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of the “a non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measuring optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor configured to generate surface data containing a plurality of shape index values indicative of the topography or geometry of the polishing pad surface of a rotating polishing pad” and the structure of the “one or more processors” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measurement optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor, the rotating polishing pad, and the one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the non-contact surface-measurement sensor comprising at least one of a laser displacement sensor, a shape-measurement optical sensor, or an ultrasonic distance sensor is considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The non-contact surface-measurement limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The one or more processors are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Claims 12-19 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 11 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 11 above.
Claim 20 recites the further additional element of “a distance sensor or a shape measuring sensor”. The additional elements of a distance sensor and a shape measuring sensor are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. The additional element of the distance sensor and the shape measuring sensor are considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The distance sensor and the shape measuring sensor limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination with the above identified the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore claim 20 is not eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments that the claims are directed to a concrete CMP measurement method carried out with particular non-contact metrology hardware on pages 9-11, it is considered that the number of options for the claimed non-contact surface measurement sensor argues against the specificity of the claimed measurement. Further, the measurement is considered to be required for the performance of the above claimed abstract idea.
With respect to the argument that the claims expressly require shape-index values indicative of pad topography or geometry on page 11, it is considered that the shape-index values indicative of pad topography or geometry are part of the abstract characterization of the surface and therefore are not an additional element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Asai et al. ( US PGPub 2003/0228045 A1) and Fujimoto (US 2003/0107736 A1) teach systems with similarities to the disclosed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights