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 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.
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: “a wear monitoring device” in claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 recites “a wear monitoring device”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as at least one computer and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0038] of the specification of the instant application).
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 10-18 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 10-18 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 10-18 recites at least one step or instruction for determining a time, detecting friction, and determining a wear index value, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, each of Claims 10-18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 10 recites A method of dressing a polishing surface of a polishing pad (additional element) and determining a time to replace the polishing pad used in a polishing apparatus for a workpiece, comprising:
dressing, by a dresser (additional element), the polishing surface of the polishing pad (observation or judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
detecting, by a detection sensor fixed to the dresser (additional element), friction between the dresser and the polishing pad by a detection sensor (additional element), fixed to the dresser while dressing a polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser during dressing of the polishing surface of the polishing pad(observation or judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determining, by a wear monitoring device (additional element), a wear index value from a plurality of output values of the detection sensor (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concepts in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
generating an alarm signal by the wear monitoring device when the wear index value is smaller than a predetermined lower limit (additional element); and
displaying information, based on the alarm signal, on a display of the wear monitoring device (observation or judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent Claims 11-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed. In particular, Claim 17 recites that the detection sensor is one of an acceleration sensor, an acoustic emission sensor, and a strain sensor. Such acceleration sensor, acoustic emission sensor and strain sensor collect data that represents insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 10 (and their respective dependent Claims 11-18) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 10 along with the unclaimed operation controller or computer that determines the wear index value.), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). Specifically, generating an alarm signal when the wear index value is smaller than a predetermined lower limit amounts to data gathering and outputting which represents insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a polishing pad, a dresser, and a detection sensor fixed to the dresser while dressing a polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser are generically recited polishing elements in independent Claim 10 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., determining a wear index value as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims10 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 10-18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a polishing pad, a dresser, and a detection sensor fixed to the dresser while dressing a polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser. Though not claimed, an operation controller or computer determines the wear index value. Further, generating an alarm signal when the wear index value is smaller than a predetermined lower limit amounts to data gathering and outputting which represents insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g) or well understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) according to MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The detection sensor and unclaimed operation controller are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, a detection center comprises one of an acceleration sensor, an acoustic emission sensor, a strain sensor or the like [0010] and [0028]. A polishing apparatus further comprises a polishing progress detector (e.g., an eddy current sensor or an optical film-thickness sensor as described in [0022]) configured to generate a polishing index value indicating progress of polishing of the workpiece and an operation controller configured to monitor the polishing index value, the operation controller being configured to correct the polishing index value based on the wear index value ([0010])…the operation controller 10 is composed of at least one computer ([0038]). The operation controller 10 includes a memory 10a storing programs therein, and an arithmetic device 10b configured to execute arithmetic operations according to instructions included in the programs. The memory 10a includes a main memory, such as a random-access memory (RAM) and an auxiliary memory, such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or solid-state drive (SSD). Examples of the arithmetic device 1Gb include a CPU (central processing unit) and a GPU (graphic processing unit). However, the specific configurations of the operation controller 10 are not limited to these examples. ([0016] and [0038]) Moreover, during polishing of the workpiece W, the operation controller 10 acquires the wear index value sent from the wear monitoring device 63 and uses the correlation data to determine the correction amount corresponding to the wear index value. Then, the operation controller 10 acquires the polishing index value sent from the polishing progress detector 42 during polishing of the workpiece W, and adds the correction amount to the polishing index value (or subtracts the correction amount from the polishing index value) to thereby correct the polishing index value [0051].Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the unclaimed term “operation controller” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the operation controller (computer) or the detection sensor fixed to the dresser while dressing a polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 10-18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claims 10-18 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 10 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 10-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 10-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoko (JP2010226007A) in view of Huang (2018/0071889) and Umemoto (2019/0351526).
Regarding Claim 1, Naoko teaches A polishing apparatus (Ref. 201, Fig. 1, [0032]) comprising:
a polishing table (Ref. 305, Fig. 2, [0032]) configured to support a polishing pad (Ref. 304, Fig. 2, [0032]);
a polishing head (Ref. 302, fig. 2, [0032]) configured to press a workpiece (Ref. 301, Fig. 2, [0032]) against a polishing surface of the polishing pad (Ref. 304, top surface, Fig. 2, [0032]);
a dresser (Ref. 307, Fig. 2, [0032]) configured to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad (Fig. 2, [0032]);
a detection sensor ([0072] describes a detection sensor to help detect degree of wear of dresser); and
a wear monitoring device (Ref. 221&222, Fig. 1, [0030&0035]) configured to determine a wear index value (Ref. 352, Fig. 4, [0038-0039]) from a plurality of output values of the detection sensor ([0038-0039, 0068-0069, 0080, &0072] discuss different output values from the detection sensor to help detect wear) and generate an alarm signal (Ref. 227, Fig. 1 [0030,0035&0039] describes a maintenance request being issued) when the wear index value is smaller than below a predetermined lower limit ([0080-0090] describes predicting life of a dresser and to replace dresser when the value calculated is outside of the threshold value).
Naoko fails to explicitly teach a detection sensor configured to detect friction between the dresser and the polishing pad. Huang teaches a polishing apparatus with a polishing head and dresser and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Huang teaches a polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) with a detection sensor (Ref. 150, Fig. 5, [0028]) configured to detect friction between the dresser and the polishing pad using acceleration readings ([0028] describes a change in friction) and a wear monitoring device (Ref. 190, [0028]) configured to processes the output values over time for various frequencies ([0028]) and generate an alarm signal when the wear index value is smaller than below a predetermined lower limit ([0028] describes the controller indicating to the user that the change in peak variation of the data is different due to friction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko, with the detection sensor to detect friction between the dresser and polishing pad, as taught by Huang, to provide the user with reliable detection techniques without the need for optical sensors and to detect the wear of one or more mechanical components in the system [0028].
Naoko as modified fails to explicitly teach the detection sensor being fixed to the dresser. Umemoto teaches a polishing apparatus with a polishing head and dresser and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Umemoto teaches A polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a polishing table (Ref. Ref. 2, Fig. 1, [0028]) configured to support a polishing pad (Ref. 3, Fig. 1, [0028]);
a polishing head (Ref. 1, fig. 1, [0028]) configured to press a workpiece (Ref. W, Fig. 1, [0028]) against a polishing surface of the polishing pad (Ref. 3a, top surface, Fig. 1, [0029]);
a dresser (Ref. 61, Fig. 1, [0045]) configured to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad (Fig. 1, [0044]);
a detection sensor (Ref. 70, Fig. 1, [0045]) being fixed to the dresser (Fig. 1, [0045]); and
a wear monitoring device (Ref. 50, Fig. 1, [0047]) configured to determine a wear index value ([0047] describes determining wear of the polishing pad) from a plurality of output values of the detection sensor ([0047] describes measurement values from the detection sensor). Given the teachings of Umemoto, the components of Umemoto and Nakao are known and the only difference is the attachment of the detection sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko as modified, to be fixed to the dresser, as taught by Umemoto, since such a modification of rearranging the detection sensor would achieve the predictable result of determining a wear index value from the output values of the detection sensors.
Regarding Claim 2, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of Huang that the sensor assembly transmitting frequencies for processing to a wear monitoring device ([0028]), Naoko as modified further teaches wherein the wear monitoring device is configured to perform a frequency analysis on the plurality of output values of the detection sensor arranged along a time axis to determine the wear index value and ([0049-0050] describes frequency analysis such as a Fourier Transform to determine degree of wear of the dresser, Naoko).
Regarding Claim 3, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein:
the frequency analysis is a Fourier transform ([0049]);
the wear monitoring device is configured to apply the Fourier transform to the plurality of output values of the detection sensor arranged along the time axis to create a power spectrum ([0049] describes calculated a frequency spectrum power density using a Fourier transform); and
the wear index value is a first peak value of the power spectrum (Fig. 7 [0071-0072 & 0103-0104] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit).
Regarding Claim 4, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the wear monitoring device is configured to calculate a plurality of relative output values of the detection sensor by subtracting the plurality of output values from a plurality of reference values ([0093] describes using a formula to subtract output values from reference values), respectively, and perform the frequency analysis on the plurality of relative output values arranged along a time axis to determine the wear index value ([0049] describes performing a frequency analysis using a Fourier transform from measurement values).
Regarding Claim 5, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein:
the frequency analysis is a Fourier transform ([0049]);
the wear monitoring device is configured to apply the Fourier transform to the plurality of relative output values arranged along the time axis to create a power spectrum ([0049] describes calculated a frequency spectrum power density using a Fourier transform); and
the wear index value is a first peak value of the power spectrum (Fig. 7 [0071-0072 & 0103-0104] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit)).
Regarding Claim 6, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the plurality of reference values are a plurality of initial output values of the detection sensor obtained when the dresser dressed the polishing pad for the first time ([0093] describes the reference values are a plurality of output values).
Regarding Claim 7, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the wear monitoring device is configured to detect abnormality of the polishing pad when a second peak value of the power spectrum (714) is larger than a predetermined upper limit (Ref. 713, Fig. 7, [0071-0072] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit).
Regarding Claim 8, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the detection sensor comprises one of an acceleration sensor, an acoustic emission sensor, and a strain sensor. Huang further teaches a detection sensor (Ref. 150, [0028]) wherein the detection sensor comprises one of an acceleration sensor ([0028] describes the sensor assembly to transmit acceleration readings as an acceleration sensor), an acoustic emission sensor, and a strain sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko as modified, to be an acceleration sensor, as taught by Huang, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of determining a wear from the output values of the detection sensors and to provide the user with reliable detection technic of wear in one or more components in the system [0028].
Regarding Claim 9, Naoko as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Naoko further teaches a polishing progress detector (Ref. 203, Fig. 2, [0030]) configured to generate a polishing index value indicating progress of polishing of the workpiece (Fig. 7, [0065]) and an operation controller (Ref. 231, Fig. 1, [0030]) configured to monitor the polishing index value ([0156]), the operation controller being configured to correct the polishing index value based on the wear index value ([0156]).
Regarding Claim 19, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the dresser includes a dressing disk (Ref. 307, fig. 2) and a dresser oscillation arm (Ref. 308, Fig. 1) configured to cause an oscillation of the dressing disk to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032] describes oscillating the dressing disk]), and a frequency at which the first peak value appears in the power spectrum corresponds to an oscillation frequency of the dressing disk ([0102] describes a frequency spectrum power density).
Regarding Claim 20, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the dresser includes a dressing disk (Ref. 307, fig. 2) and a dresser oscillation arm (Ref. 308, Fig. 1) configured to cause an oscillation of the dressing disk to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032] describes oscillating the dressing disk]), and a frequency at which the first peak value appears in the power spectrum corresponds to an oscillation frequency of the dressing disk ([0102] describes a frequency spectrum power density).
Claims 10-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoko (JP2010226007A) in view of Umemoto (2019/0351526).
Regarding Claim 10, Naoko teaches a method of dressing a polishing surface (Ref. 304, Fig. 2) of a polishing pad (Fig. 2) and determining a time to replace a polishing pad used in a polishing apparatus for a workpiece ([0037-0039]), comprising:
dressing, by a dresser (Ref. 307, Fig. 2, [0032]), the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032]);
detecting, by a detection sensor (Ref. 202,221,&222, Fig. 1, [0030]), friction between the dresser and the polishing pad during dressing of the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032]);
determining, by a wear monitoring device (Ref. 203, Fig. 1, [0030]), a wear index value (Ref. 352, Fig. 4, [0038-0039]) from a plurality of output values of the detection sensor ([0038-0039&0068-0069&0080] discuss output values from the detection sensor);
generating an alarm signal (Ref. 227, Fig. 1 [0030,0035&0039] describes a maintenance request being issued) by the wear monitoring device when the wear index value is smaller than a predetermined lower limit ([0080-0090] describes predicting life of a dresser and to replace dresser when the value calculated is outside of the threshold value); and
displaying information, based on the alarm signal, on a display of the wear monitoring device ([0030,0035&0039] describes a maintenance request being issued).
Naoko fails to explicitly teach the detection sensor being fixed to the dresser. Umemoto teaches a polishing apparatus with a polishing head and dresser and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Umemoto teaches A polishing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a polishing table (Ref. Ref. 2, Fig. 1, [0028]) configured to support a polishing pad (Ref. 3, Fig. 1, [0028]);
a polishing head (Ref. 1, fig. 1, [0028]) configured to press a workpiece (Ref. W, Fig. 1, [0028]) against a polishing surface of the polishing pad (Ref. 3a, top surface, Fig. 1, [0029]);
a dresser (Ref. 61, Fig. 1, [0045]) configured to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad (Fig. 1, [0044]);
a detection sensor (Ref. 70, Fig. 1, [0045]) configured to detect friction between the dresser and the polishing pad ([0045-0047]), the detection sensor being fixed to the dresser (Fig. 1, [0045]); and
a wear monitoring device (Ref. 50, Fig. 1, [0047]) configured to determine a wear index value ([0047] describes determining wear of the polishing pad) from a plurality of output values of the detection sensor ([0047] describes measurement values from the detection sensor). Given the teachings of Umemoto, the components of Umemoto and Nakao are known and the only difference is the attachment of the detection sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko, to be fixed to the dresser, as taught by Umemoto, since such a modification of rearranging the detection sensor would achieve the predictable result of determining a wear index value from the output values of the detection sensors.
Regarding Claim 11, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein determining the wear index value comprises performing a frequency analysis on the plurality of output values of the detection sensor arranged along a time axis to determine the wear index value ([0049-0050] describes frequency analysis such as a Fourier Transform to determine degree of wear of the dresser).
Regarding Claim 12, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein:
the frequency analysis is a Fourier transform ([0049]); and
determining the wear index value comprises applying the Fourier transform to the plurality of output values of the detection sensor arranged along the time axis to create a power spectrum ([0049] describes calculated a frequency spectrum power density using a Fourier transform), and
determining the wear index value which is a first peak value of the power spectrum (Fig. 7 [0071-0072 & 0103-0104] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit).
Regarding Claim 13, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein determining the wear index value comprises calculating a plurality of relative output values of the detection sensor by subtracting the plurality of output values from a plurality of reference values ([0093] describes using a formula to subtract output values from reference values), respectively, and performing the frequency analysis on the plurality of relative output values arranged along the time axis to determine the wear index value ([0049] describes performing a frequency analysis using a Fourier transform from measurement values).
Regarding Claim 14, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein:
the frequency analysis is a Fourier transform ([0049]); and
determining the wear index value comprises applying the Fourier transform to the plurality of relative output values arranged along the time axis to create a power spectrum ([0049] describes calculated a frequency spectrum power density using a Fourier transform), and
determining the wear index value which is a first peak value of the power spectrum (Fig. 7 [0071-0072 & 0103-0104] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit).
Regarding Claim 15, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein the plurality of reference values are a plurality of initial output values of the detection sensor obtained when the dresser dressed the polishing pad for the first time ([0093] describes the reference values are a plurality of output values).
Regarding Claim 16, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Naoko further teaches detecting abnormality of the polishing pad when a second peak value of the power spectrum (714) is larger than a predetermined upper limit (Ref. 713, Fig. 7, [0071-0072] describes the degree of wear is based upon comparing the different fluctuation range when the second range is larger than the predetermined upper limit).
Regarding Claim 17, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the detection sensor comprises one of an acceleration sensor, an acoustic emission sensor, and a strain sensor. Umemoto further teaches a detection sensor (Ref. 70, Fig. 1, [0045]) wherein the detection sensor comprises one of an acceleration sensor, an acoustic emission sensor ([0046] describes an ultrasonic sensor, an ultrasonic sensor emits sounds waves and would be a type of acoustic emission sensor), and a strain sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko in view of Umemoto, to be an acoustic emission sensor, as taught by Umemoto, since such a modification would achieve the predictable result of determining a wear index value from the output values of the detection sensors.
Regarding Claim 18, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Naoko further teaches correcting a polishing index value (Ref. 203, Fig. 2&7, [0030,0065]) indicating progress of polishing of the workpiece based on the wear index value ([0156]).
Regarding Claim 21, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein dressing the polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser comprises oscillating a dressing disk (Ref. 307, fig. 2) on the polishing surface of the polishing pad to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032] describes oscillating the dressing disk]), and a frequency at which the first peak value appears in the power spectrum corresponds to an oscillation frequency of the dressing disk ([0102] describes a frequency spectrum power density).
Regarding Claim 22, Naoko in view of Umemoto teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and Naoko further teaches wherein dressing the polishing surface of the polishing pad by the dresser comprises oscillating a dressing disk (Ref. 307, fig. 2) on the polishing surface of the polishing pad to dress the polishing surface of the polishing pad ([0032] describes oscillating the dressing disk]), and a frequency at which the first peak value appears in the power spectrum corresponds to an oscillation frequency of the dressing disk ([0102] describes a frequency spectrum power density).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract are acknowledged and examiner withdraws the Specification objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 10 is acknowledged but do not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. The current method claim collects and analyzes data but fails to be directed to any action for the dressing of the polishing surface, just generating an alarm signal or displaying information is merely an observation.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, applicant’s arguments that the prior art Huang does not necessarily imply friction is detected specifically between the dresser and polishing pad have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Naoko in view of Huang to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Further, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Given Huang teaches a polishing apparatus with a polishing head and dresser and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Naoko already teaches a detection sensor to help detect degree of wear of dresser between the dresser and polishing pad ([0072]). Huang is merely used to teach to detect friction using acceleration readings ([0028] describes a change in friction). Given the suggestion of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko, with the detection sensor to detect friction between the dresser and polishing pad, as taught by Huang, to provide the user with reliable detection techniques without the need for optical sensors and to detect the wear of one or more mechanical components in the system [0028].
In response to applicant's argument that Umemoto fails to teach a sensor that can be used to detect friction, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Examiner is merely using Umemoto is used to teach that there can be a detection sensor fixed to the dresser rather than the exact placement of the Umemoto sensor. Given the teachings of Umemoto it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the detection sensor, as taught by Naoko as modified, to be fixed to the dresser, as taught by Umemoto, since such a modification of rearranging the detection sensor would achieve the predictable result of determining a wear index value from the output values of the detection sensors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights