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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 30, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character “112” has been used to designate both as the upper portion of the retaining ring (Specification page 4, line 14) and as the inner surface of the retaining ring (Specification page 4, line 24)
reference character “110” has been used to designate both the lower portion of the retaining ring (Specification page 4, line 15) and the retaining ring as a whole (Specification line page 4, 24).
reference characters “112” and “108” have both been used to designate as the inner surface (Specification page 4, line 10 and line 24).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagengast et al. (US Patent No: 10,322,492).
In reference to claim 1, Nagengast et al. discloses a retaining ring (Figure 2, 110) for a carrier head of a chemical mechanical polishing system (Col 1, lines 12-13), the retaining ring comprising an annular outer portion (Figure 2, 110), the annular outer portion having a cylindrical outer surface (Figure 2, 118); a plurality of flanges (Figure 2, 152) projecting radially inward from the annular outer portion with adjacent flanges separated by a gap (Figure 2, 150) and with inner ends of the plurality of flanges providing an inner surface (Figure 2, 116) to contact a substrate held in the carrier head, wherein each flange of the plurality of flanges (Figure 2, 152) is canted relative to a respective radial direction from the flange (see annotated Figure 2).
In reference to claim 3, Nagengast et al. discloses that each flange of the plurality of flanges (Figure 3, 152), a midline (Figure 3, 164) of the flange forms an oblique angle (Figure 3, a) of 30-60 with a radial segment (Figure 3, R) that passes through the center of the retaining ring and through the midline (Column 4 lines 53-56).
In reference to claim 4, Nagengast et al. discloses that the oblique angle is between 40 and 50 (Column 4 lines 53-56).
In reference to claim 5, Nagengast et al. discloses that the oblique angle is 45 (Column 4 lines 53-56).
In reference to claim 6, Nagengast et al. discloses that the plurality of channels, which are aligned with the flanges (see annotated Figure 2), may be spaced uniformly around the annular body (Column 4, lines 36-39).
In reference to claim 7, Nagengast et al. discloses that the plurality of flanges consists of eight to thirty flanges (Column 4, lines 36-39) which falls between the claimed range of twenty to eighty.
In reference to claim 9, Nagengast et al. discloses the inner end surface (see annotated Figure 3) of each flange (Figures 2 and 3, 152) of the plurality of flanges is angled normal to the respective radial direction of the flange (see annotated Figures 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 10, Nagengast et al. discloses a plurality of channels (see annotated Figures 2 and 3) are formed in a lower surface of the annular outer portion (see annotated Figure 2), each channel of the plurality of channels extending from a gap (Figure 2, 150) to the outer surface of the annular outer portion (Figure 3, 118).
In reference to claim 15, Nagengast discloses each channel being canted relative to a respective radial direction from the channel (see annotated Figure 3).
In reference to claim 16, Nagengast discloses each channel being canted at the same angle as the gap from which the channel extends (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
978
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagengast (US Patent No: 10,322,492). in view of Kim (US Patent No: 8,858,302).
In reference to claim 2, Nagengast et al. discloses that the lower portion of the retainer ring which includes the flanges may consist of PPS, PAEK, PEEK or PEKK (Nagengast Column 3, lines 62-65) but fails to specifically state that the material is flexible. However, Kim discloses a retainer ring that is formed using engineering plastics such as: PTFE, PEEK, PPS, and PET (Kim Column 5, lines 64-67 and Column 6, lines 1-5). While both prior arts do not explicitly state that the engineering plastics are flexible, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the engineering plastics used to form a retainer ring need to be sufficiently flexible so that in operation, one or more flanges contacted by the substrate will flex radially outward.
Claims 8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagengast (US Patent No: 10,322,492). in view of the application’s specifications.
In reference to claim 8, Nagengast et al. discloses an inner circle formed by the inner end surface of each flange (Column 4, lines 11-14 and Figure 2, 116) having a diameter that is about 1-2mm larger than the substrate diameter. However, Nagengast et al. does not expressly disclose the inner diameter being 302-305 mm. 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 device of Nagengast et al. to have an inner diameter of between 302 mm and 305 mm since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In this case, the retainer ring of Nagengast et al. would not operate differently with the claimed diameter. Further it appears that the application’s specification discloses the substrate’s diameter is 300 mm and Nagengast et al. discloses that the inner diameter must be 1-2mm larger than the substrate diameter. The use of Nagengast et al.’s ring would mean that the inner diameter can be 302 mm which falls within the range of the claim.
In reference to claims 11 and 12, Nagengast et al. discloses channels and gaps along the ring but does not expressly disclose that there are fewer channels than gaps or that there is one channel for every ten gaps. 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 ratio of channels to gaps of the retainer ring of Nagengast et al since the applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that there may be one channel within the claimed ranges of gaps (Specification page 6, lines 9-10).
In reference to claim 13, Nagengast et al. discloses the channels and flanges extending across the radial width of the retainer ring (Column 4, lines 47-50) with the option to modify the width to provide the desired percentage of contact area (Column 5, lines 30-33) but does not expressly state that the channels have a height less than the height of the plurality of flanges. Since the applicant places no criticality on the height relation claimed (Specification page 4, lines 21-32), 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 heights of the channels and flanges on the retainer ring of Nagengast et al to ensure contact with the substrate edge and spread the reaction force over a circumferential zone.
In reference to claim 14, Nagengast et al discloses that the channels can extend across the radial width of the retaining ring but does not expressly state that the channel has a width equal to a width of the gap. Since the applicant places no criticality on the width of the channels and gap (Specification page 5, lines 1-6), 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 widths of the channels and gaps on the retainer ring of Nagengast et al to ensure uniform spacing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISHA JOY U FRANCISCO whose telephone number is (571) 272-1224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 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, 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.
/TRISHA JOY U FRANCISCO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723