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
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) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 5,647,969 in IDS) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 6,352,469).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi teaches a method of operating a planarization system, comprising: supplying a first fluid (26) and a second fluid (14a), wherein the first fluid and the second fluid comprise a slurry; polishing a substrate (16) with the first and the second fluids; collecting, by a module (3 4 21), a third fluid (5) created by polishing the substrate; and extracting a fourth fluid (fluid leaving element 4) from the third fluid, wherein the fourth fluid is fluidly connected to a source of the second fluid (Figs. 1-2 and C4/L38-C6/L40).
Hayashi teaches that the third fluid is stored and treated in various ways to provide the silica particles of specific sizing/concentration while removing undesirable particles but fails to teach the module is a flotation module. Miyazaki teaches that in providing a slurry for a chemical mechanical polishing, it is beneficial to treat any incoming slurry via filters (1009 1020) and a flotation module (1004) that provides bubbles via elements (1039 1040) in order to encourage reaggregation of the particles into the desired size prior to use in the polishing step (Fig. 13 and C21/L25-62). While Miyazaki does not teach the slurry being prepared is a spent polishing slurry like in Hayashi, it teaches similar principles of treating a slurry meant for polishing via filters and other means in order to ensure the proper sizing of particles. As such, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide a flotation module as taught in Miyazaki in the Hayashi method along with the filters in order to ensure the desired particle sizing for polishing.
Regarding claims 15-16 and 19, Miyazaki teaches that the flotation module includes an agitator/bubble generating means immersed in the third fluid in order to move/agitate the slurry thereby causing opportunities for aggregation (Fig. 13 and C21/L25-62).
Regarding claim 17, both Hayashi and Miyazaki teach providing filters downstream of initial treatment steps (Hayashi (2) Miyazaki (1020)).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi teaches that various chemical and physical properties of the fourth fluid are monitored via a detection module (22 23 24).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi teaches the ratio of the first and second fluids is controlled via regulator (26a) (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Independent claims 1 and 7 provide a method of operating the allowed apparatus of the parent application, now US patent 11,642,754. It is noted that while a flotation module would have been an obvious matter, providing the claimed flotation module with air dispensers along with specific chemicals in the flotation module was not found in the prior art when applied to recycling a chemical mechanical polishing slurry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER KEYWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-3479. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 MT (11-7 ET).
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/PETER KEYWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777