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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2019/0168355, cited by applicant) in view of Ohta (US 2014/0024294).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing table (30A) for holding a polishing pad ([0102]); a holder (31A) for holding a polishing target object (16) such that the polishing target object faces the polishing pad (fig 1; [0105]); and an end point detector (810) that detects, based on a signal ([0171]); signal indicating motor current) indicating a state of polishing of the polishing target object by the polishing pad, a polishing end point indicating an end of the polishing ([0174]), wherein the end point detector is configured to: remove noise of the signal ([0172]); exponentiate the signal with an exponent greater than 1 ([0173]; the detector “squares” the signal, indicating an exponent of 2); and detect the polishing end point based on the exponentiated signal ([0176-0177]).
It is unclear in Suzuki if the exponentiation occurs as an alternative to the noise removal, or in addition to the noise removal ([0173] recites the current detection “may also generate the sum of squares of the absolute values” of the signal, which implies, but does not explicitly state the exponentiation occurring in addition to the previously described noise removal). However, it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Suzuki is silent as to the purpose of the exponentiation, Ohta teaches a polishing apparatus which detects an endpoint through exponentiating a signal, where the exponentiation emphasizes the magnitude of the change in signal over time ([0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the exponentiation taught by Suzuki to the signal subjected to the noise removal of Suzuki, achieving the predictable result of signal manipulation and conditioning to remove noise and mathematically emphasize the change in signal over time as taught by Suzuki ([0172]) and Ohta ([0052]).
Regarding claims 2-5, Suzuki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Suzuki further teaches the end point detector is configured to, in order to remove the noise of the signal: moving-average the signal (step S30; fig 19); differentiate a signal obtained by the moving averaging (step S32); and further moving-average a signal obtained by the differentiation (step S34; [0186-0188]); wherein the end point detector is configured to, in the exponentiation of the signal subjected to the noise removal, exponentiate an absolute value of the signal subjected to the noise removal with the exponent greater than 1 ([0173]; squares the absolute value); further comprising a motor (M3) for driving to rotate the polishing table ([0158]), wherein the signal is a signal based on a driving current of the motor ([0171]); and further comprising a motor (M1) for rotating the polishing target object ([0111]), wherein the signal is a signal based on a driving current of the motor ([0171]).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches a method of detecting a polishing end point indicating an end of polishing in a polishing apparatus, the polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing table (30A) for holding a polishing pad ([0102]); a holder (31A) for holding a polishing target object (16) such that the polishing target object faces the polishing pad (fig 1; [0105]);, the method comprising a step of acquiring a signal indicating a state of polishing of the polishing target object by the polishing pad ([0171]), a step of removing noise of the signal ([0172]), a step of exponentiating the signal with an exponent greater than 1 ([0173]; the detector “squares” the signal, indicating an exponent of 2); and a step of detecting the polishing end point based on the exponentiated signal ([0176-0177]).
It is unclear in Suzuki if the exponentiation occurs as an alternative to the noise removal, or in addition to the noise removal ([0173] recites the current detection “may also generate the sum of squares of the absolute values” of the signal, which implies, but does not explicitly state the exponentiation occurring in addition to the previously described noise removal). However, it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Suzuki is silent as to the purpose of the exponentiation, Ohta teaches a polishing method which detects an endpoint through exponentiating a signal, where the exponentiation emphasizes the magnitude of the change in signal over time ([0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the exponentiation step taught by Suzuki to the signal subjected to the noise removal step of Suzuki, achieving the predictable result of signal manipulation and conditioning to remove noise and mathematically emphasize the change in signal over time as taught by Suzuki ([0172]) and Ohta ([0052]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki and Ohta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuo (US 2005/0112998).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Suzuki does not teach an acoustic or ultrasonic sensor disposed near the polishing table or target object, where the signal is sensed by the acoustic or ultrasonic sensor (the sensor in Suzuki is a motor current sensor). Matsuo teaches a polishing apparatus for detecting a state of a polishing target object comprising an acoustic or ultrasonic sensor (35; [0054]) disposed near a polishing table (1) or polishing target object (4; shown in fig 2), wherein a signal indicating a state of polishing is a signal sensed by the acoustic or ultrasonic sensor ([0063]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acoustic or ultrasonic sensor near the polishing table or the polishing object of Suzuki (either as an alternative or in addition to the motor current sensor of Suzuki), as acoustic or ultrasonic sensors are known in the art for providing monitoring of a state of polishing of the polishing target object as taught by Matsuo ([0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar polishing apparatuses and methods are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723