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, previously cited) in view of Ohta (US 2014/0024294, previously cited).
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 (MPEP 2143 I. A.). 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 (MPEP 2143 I. A.). 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that the office action does not identify in Suzuki any disclosure of applying exponentiation to a signal after noise removal. However, this is rendered obvious by the prior art as a whole and incorporating the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill. As discussed in MPEP 2143 I. A., it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The result of noise removal and exponentiation is known in the art of signal conditioning for endpoint detection based on the teachings of Suzuki and Ohta. To a person of ordinary skill, these techniques would be obvious to combine to condition a detected signal for the obvious purposes of removing noise and mathematically emphasizing the change in signal over time as taught by Suzuki ([0172]) and Ohta ([0052]). These techniques, when combined, provide the exact functionality that a person of ordinary skill would expect, and thus would have been obvious to combine for a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant further argues that Ohta’s exponentiation “is not applied to a signal itself, but to a derived quantity representing the difference between two datasets.” However, the claimed signal and the signal described by Suzuki is a set of data. There is no indication in Ohta that the described exponentiation would not apply to other signals, particularly in light of the disclosure of Suzuki, which does explicitly disclose applying exponentiation to a measured signal ([0173]). Applicant argues that the office action does not map the difference-based operation of Ohta onto the signal of Suzuki. However, this is not necessary to meet the claims. Ohta is provided as evidence that a person of ordinary skill would know the effects of exponentiation on a signal. This is to support the office’s conclusion that the effects of combining noise reduction and exponentiation, which are both already described by Suzuki, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant argues that the squaring operation of Ohta is inseparable from the context in which it is applied. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ohta’s exponentiation applies to a signal in order to emphasize the change in the signal over time. There is no reason why this would not be applicable to the signal of Suzuki. Additionally, Suzuki already contemplates the usage of exponentiation on its signal ([0173]), indicating that the squaring operation described by Ohta is applicable to the signal of Suzuki.
Applicant argues that the office has not articulated why a person of ordinary skill would apply the claimed exponentiation after noise removal. However, as discussed above, the results of exponentiation of any signal are known to a person of ordinary skill. These results may be achieved when applied to a raw signal or to a signal which has already had its noise removed. As the signal of Suzuki which has had its noise removed would benefit from a subsequent exponentiation, the claimed exponentiation of that signal would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
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.
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
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights