FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s submission that the Sun reference US 2022/0193863 was disclosed (published on 6/23/2022) by the inventor or joint inventor 1 year or less before the effective filing date (8/18/2022) of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner is requiring an affidavit from the inventors. Per MPEP 2153.01 (a) (see below), it was NOT readily apparent that the publication US 2022/0193863 is an inventor-originated disclosure because of at least these two reasons: 1) the inventor of US 2022/0193863, Sun Lizhong, is not part of the inventive entity of the instant application and 2) document WO 2020/199193 to Sun, describes the same invention as the publication US 2022/0193863 and was disclosed before the grace period (published 10/8/2020).
MPEP 2153.01 (a) states:
What evidence is necessary to show that the disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure requires case-by-case treatment, depending upon whether it is apparent from the disclosure itself or the patent application specification that the disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure.
A disclosure made within the grace period is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if it is apparent from the disclosure itself that it is an inventor-originated disclosure. Specifically, Office personnel may not apply a disclosure as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure: (1) was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; (2) names the inventor or a joint inventor as an author or an inventor; and (3) does not name additional persons as authors on a printed publication or joint inventors on a patent. This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons named as authors in the publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A, B, and C, and the publication names as authors A and B), and the publication is one year or less before the effective filing date, it is apparent that the disclosure is a grace period inventor disclosure, and the publication is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). If, however, the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies.
The Office has provided a mechanism for filing an affidavit or declaration (under 37 CFR 1.130 ) to establish that a disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) due to an exception in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b). See MPEP § 717. In the situations in which it is not apparent from the grace period disclosure itself or the patent application specification that the disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure, the applicant may establish that the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception applies by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a). MPEP § 2155.01 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that a disclosure was an inventor-originated disclosure made during the grace period.
The Examiner has added to the rejections below the prior art of Sun WO 2020/199193. This prior art was not used in the previous Office action. However, the Examiner believes that he has given a fair opportunity to Applicant to react to the thrust of the rejection, since the new rejection is based on the exact same disclosure as the previous rejection. This Office action has been made final because It has been held that "the ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered ‘new’ is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to react to the thrust of the rejection." Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1302, 190 USPQ at 426.
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(s) 1-5, 7, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams US 5,664,990 A in view of Sato US 10,850,365 B2 and Sun US 2022/0193863 or WO 2020/199193.
Re claims 1, 18-19, Adams teaches a method of polishing a substrate 10 [fig. 2], comprising:
dispensing a polishing fluid 31 onto a surface of a polishing pad [13, 14];
urging the substrate against the surface of the polishing pad while rotating a platen 15, the platen having the polishing pad disposed thereon;
collecting the polishing fluid using a fluid reuse system [23, 46, 47, 59],
wherein:
the fluid reuse system comprises a catch basin 23 coupled to the platen, the catch basin being configured to abut the platen 15 [fig. 3] and to rotate 22 with the platen; and
at least some of the polishing fluid 31 dispensed onto the polishing pad being collected in a trough 35 of the catch basin [fig. 3];
the polishing fluid being collected by a vacuum device [41, 45, 46], the vacuum device comprising a suction tube 41 disposed within the trough;
filtering [at filter 56] the polishing fluid of contaminants; and
dispensing [with pipe 59] the polishing fluid collected using the catch basin onto the surface of the polishing pad.
a polishing system [figs. 2-3], comprising:
a catch basin 23 sized to surround sized and to abut a polishing pad 14 secured to a platen 15, the catch basin comprising:
an outer wall 38 disposed radially outward; and
a base portion [portion creating the trough 35] connecting the outer wall, the base portion configured to couple the catch basin 23 to the platen such that the catch basin rotates 22 with the platen and the polishing pad, wherein:
and
a radially inward facing surface of the catch basin is further defined by an arc radius which is equal to an arc radius of the platen that the catch basin is sized to surround [fig. 2], the radially inward facing surface of the catch basin configured to allow for a polishing fluid to flow radially outward from the polishing pad into the trough 35;
a first vacuum device [41, 45, 46], the first vacuum device comprising a suction tube 46;
wherein the suction tube 41 is disposed within the trough 35 of the catch basin 23, wherein the suction tube is stationary in relation to the catch basin when rotating [fig. 2]; and
a polishing fluid recycle module [46, 47, 59], wherein the first vacuum device draws a polishing fluid out of the trough and sends the polishing fluid to the polishing fluid recycle module for reuse [fig. 2].
Adams does not teach the catch basin comprises an inner wall, and that the outer wall, the inner wall, and the base portion collectively define the trough.
However, Sato teaches a catch basin 7 [fig. 3] sized to comprising an inner wall (see fig. annotated below), an outer wall 7b, and a base portion 7a defining a through.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the inner wall and the rotating outer wall/base portion into a single combined apparatus. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate both the rotating inner wall of Sato and the rotating outer wall/base portion of Adams into a combined apparatus before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required. Furthermore, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results. No new functionality would arise from the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements as discussed above in order to yield the predictable result of a through that rotates with the polishing pad and platen.
The combination above does not specifically teach wherein the base portion comprises a plurality of holes, the holes being configured to receive a fastener, wherein the fastener couples the catch basin to the platen such that the catch basin rotates with the platen and the polishing pad.
Sun teaches using fasteners to assemble the catch basin in polishing systems [¶20, “the catch basin 201a is disposed in a fixed in relationship to the base plate 120 and is fixedly coupled thereto by using one or more brackets or other suitable fastener assemblies”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fastened the catch basin to the rotating platen and polishing pad, as suggested by Sun, in order to yield the predictable result of using well-known mechanical system to attach the elements together.
Re claims 2, 20, The combination above does not specifically teach wherein the suction tube is sized to be spaced apart from the base portion of the catch basin by a gap of up to 5 mm. However, it is noticeable that the suction tube has to have a specific space apart distance to be able to suck in most of the polishing fluid without touching the rotating through. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the space between the suction tube and the catch basing to up to 5mm since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In this case the distance has been disclosed and thus it follow that it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable distance by routing extermination. MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Re claims 3-4, The combination above teaches the invention as discussed. Sato further teaches wherein the outer wall, the inner wall, and the base portion comprise a hydrophobic that is a polymeric material [vinyl chloride, “the waste liquid receiver 7 is preferably made of a synthetic resin such as vinyl chloride”].
Re claim 5, The combination above teaches the invention as discussed. Sato further teaches wherein a top portion of the inner wall comprises a beveled edge on a trough facing surface of the inner wall [fig. 3].
Re claims 7, 21, The combination above for claims 1 and 18, do not specifically teach a second vacuum device spaced apart from the first vacuum device along the trough, wherein the first vacuum device is configured to collect a polishing fluid, and wherein the second vacuum device is configured to collect waste fluids.
Sun teaches preventing collection of undesired contaminated fluids into the reusable system and a plurality of vacuum devices 210 [¶41, “the vacuum is not applied during periods when undesirable fluids or fluids unsuitable for reuse are flowing from the edges of the polishing pad. For example, in some embodiments, the vacuum is not applied during polishing pad rinse or polishing pad conditioning operations.”]. Since vacuum polishing pad rinse to the polishing liquid reuse system is undesirable, it follows that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second vacuum in Adams, in order to yield the predictable result of taking out other undesirable fluids different from the reusable polishing fluid from a catch basin that does not use a drain system, as it is the case in Adams.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights