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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“pad break-in device” in claim 1 and 17, corresponding to the structure disclosed in [0041] for pad break in apparatus 600;
“tilting device” in claim 2, 10, corresponding to tilting device 101;
“hand elevating device” in claim 3, 11, corresponding to hand elevating device 110, disclosed as “air cylinder, a linear actuator, or a combination of an electric motor and gears, or the like” ([0046]);
“lifting mechanism” in claim 6, corresponding to lifting mechanism 20 with lifting rod 21 and rod actuator 22;
“pad monitoring device” in claim 8, claimed as an “image processing device” or a “non-contact shape measuring device” corresponding to the description in [0041],
“polishing table rotating device” in claim 16, corresponding to polishing-head rotating device 28 that an electric motor, a torque transmission device, etc.
“engaging member” in claims 25-26, corresponding to engaging protrusions 150
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.
The term “pad-break in device” in claims 7-8 and “lifting mechanism” in claim 18 are provided with sufficient structure as to not invoke a section 112(f) interpretation. The term “pad transporting device” and “polishing device” is recited in claim 1 (and dependent claims) to not invoke section 112(f), despite the recitation of a nonce term ”device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 8, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “tilting device” (claims 2 and 10) and “pad monitoring device” (claim 8) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With respect to the “tilting device” in claims 2 and 10, the disclosure does not provide for structure that performs the tilting, only providing for functionality associated with the tilting device ([0010,0012,0044,0046,0056,0072] describe how the tilting device 101 tilts the liquid receiving tray, pad structure, holding hands [or rotate the liquid receiving tray and the holding hand about an axis parallel to the holding hand] without describing the structure for performing the functionality; furthermore, the instant figures, for example, fig. 4 shows the tilting device as a rectangular box structure, which is insufficient for describing structure that performs the claimed functionality).
As for the “pad monitoring device”, “image processing device” and “non-contact shape measuring device” in claim 8, the disclosure provides that “the pad monitoring device 80 detects the surface condition of the polishing pad 2 during the break-in process and determines an end of the break-in process of the polishing pad 2 based on the detected surface condition of the polishing pad 2. Specific configurations of the pad monitoring device 80 are not particularly limited as long as the pad monitoring device 80 can detect the surface condition of the polishing pad 2. For example, the pad monitoring device 80 comprises an image processing device, a non-contact shape measuring device, or the like” ([0041]). While the disclosure and claim recites that that the pad monitoring device can be an “image processing device, a non-contact shape measuring device”, it does not actually describe what the “image processing device” or “non-contact shape monitoring device” is, in terms of structure (it is not clear if the image processing device would be a camera, or some other arrangement, for example, to process an image; or how the non-contact shape monitoring device functions or is structurally arranged). The instant figures for pad monitoring device 80 does not provide sufficient structure as it is shown as stacked rectangular boxes in fig. 3.
Therefore, the claims lack written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 8, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “tilting device” (claims 2 and 10) and “pad monitoring device” (claim 8) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With respect to the “tilting device” in claims 2 and 10, the disclosure does not provide for structure that performs the tilting, only providing for functionality associated with the tilting device ([0010,0012,0044,0046,0056,0072] describe how the tilting device 101 tilts the liquid receiving tray, pad structure, holding hands [or rotate the liquid receiving tray and the holding hand about an axis parallel to the holding hand] without describing the structure for performing the functionality; furthermore, the instant figures, for example, fig. 4 shows the tilting device as a rectangular box structure, which is insufficient for describing structure that performs the claimed functionality).
As for the “pad monitoring device”, “image processing device” and “non-contact shape measuring device” in claim 8, the disclosure provides that “the pad monitoring device 80 detects the surface condition of the polishing pad 2 during the break-in process and determines an end of the break-in process of the polishing pad 2 based on the detected surface condition of the polishing pad 2. Specific configurations of the pad monitoring device 80 are not particularly limited as long as the pad monitoring device 80 can detect the surface condition of the polishing pad 2. For example, the pad monitoring device 80 comprises an image processing device, a non-contact shape measuring device, or the like” ([0041]). While the disclosure and claim recites that that the pad monitoring device can be an “image processing device, a non-contact shape measuring device”, it does not actually describe what the “image processing device” or “non-contact shape monitoring device” is, in terms of structure (it is not clear if the image processing device would be a camera, or some other arrangement, for example, to process an image; or how the non-contact shape monitoring device functions or is structurally arranged). The instant figures for pad monitoring device 80 does not provide sufficient structure as it is shown as stacked rectangular boxes in fig. 3.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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) 1-4, 5, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Berkstresser (US 20030114079 A1), Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A).
With respect to claim 1, Sato-’991 discloses A processing system comprising:
a polishing device configured to polish a workpiece (polishing apparatus 11, fig. 8, described as part of system in [0057]; the apparatus itself is described in [0005] to polish a wafer [workpiece]);
a pad break-in device configured to perform a pad break-on process of a polishing pad (the off-line setup apparatus as part of the system in [0019]; [0008-0009] provide further background description of the offline-setup apparatus using a brush and a dummy wafer as in [0006-0007]; 112(f) equivalent as it performs the claimed functionality; examiner notes that Sato-’991 describes improvements relative to a background transport carriage by allowing the transport carriage to fit in narrower spaces as in [0030, 0032] for space efficiency, and a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that the pad break in device and polishing device is part of the system described); and
a pad transporting device configured to transport a pad structure, the pad structure including at least the polishing pad (pad transporting carriage 1, in fig. 3, configured to transport a turn table 2 which includes a pad 12, fig. 7 attached as in [0019] and [0003]),
the polishing device includes a polishing head configured to press the workpiece against the polishing pad (polishing head 15, [0003,0005], fig. 7-8, which slides [presses/holds] the workpiece against the polishing pad)
the pad transporting device includes a holding hand configured to hold the pad structure (holding hands/grips as fall prevention mechanism 9, fig. 5; [0055]), and a liquid receiving tray arranged under the holding hand and configured to receive liquid dropped from the pad structure (liquid receiving tray as turn table holding section 3, figs. 1-3, which structurally can receive liquid that us dropped from the pad structure; [0052]), the liquid receiving tray having a width and a length larger than those of the pad structure (the pad structure is not explicitly required by the claim as part of either the pad break-in device, pad transporting device or polishing device, but rather as an element that the pad break-in device, pad transporting device, or polishing device is configured to interface with, and the examiner submits that the liquid receiving tray can structurally interface with a pad that is smaller than it’s length and width; furthermore, fig. 4 shows at least a width of the tray is smaller than the pad structure in an outlined circle, however the machine can functionally interface with a smaller pad, the pad structure does not have to be round).
however, does not explicitly disclose
the polishing device includes a polishing table, a pad chuck configured to fix the pad structure, transported by the pad transporting device, to the polishing table, the liquid receiving tray including a weir extending along an edge of the liquid receiving tray.
Berkstresser, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a polishing device that includes a polishing table (polishing table 25, fig. 3 underneath a plate 20 with a pad 10 on top of plate 20, fig. 3 [plate 20 in Berkstresser is analogous to the turn table 2 in Sato-’991 which has a polishing pad attached], [0024]), a pad chuck configured to fix the pad structure (vacuum 30 on surface 17, fig. 2; [0024], forming a vacuum chuck by allowing attachment as described in [0030]) , transported by the pad transporting device, to the polishing table (this allows attachment of a polishing pad through a robot as in [0031], thus would meet the functional limitations when applied to Sato-’991). Berkstresser teaches that this arrangement reduces the down time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad, without an increase in wear or cost ([0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the polishing device of Sato-’991 with the polishing table and chuck arrangement of Berkstresser for the purpose of reducing the time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad without an increase in wear or cost.
Halley, in the same filed of endeavor, related to polishing teaches that the polishing agent used is caustic and that one would want to protect the surrounding environment from said fluid (col 6 lines 38-63).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would want to protect the surrounding environment from the effect of a caustic polishing fluid, as shown by Halley.
Huang, in the same filed of endeavor, related to semiconductor fabrication (and CMP as in col 1 lines 40-47) teaches of providing a weir (a wall) on a semiconductor equipment tray (weir 28, fig. 2, col 4 lines 44-62, as part of an arrangement with a drain; with trays 14, 16, 18 fig. 1 in col 4 lines 31-44; the arrangement is corrosion resistant in col 2 line 61 - col 3 line 7). Huang teaches that this arrangement prevents damage to the floor, and injury from contact with acidic/alkaline liquid (col 1 lines 26-40), with the arrangement being applicable to processing tools (col 1 lines 13-26 [examiner notes that the polishing pad is a processing tool]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad transporting device of Sato-’991 with the drain line of Huang, for the propose of preventing damage and injuries caused by polishing liquid. The also examiner respectfully submits that the teachings of Huang, in providing for a tray that catches corrosive fluid from semiconductor processing equipment during transport, also provides for the necessary teachings to modify Sato-’991, such that the liquid collecting tray is sufficiently large [bigger than the pad structure in length and width], in order to effectively prevent injury to the floor from liquid.
With respect to claim 2, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the pad transporting device further includes a tilting device configured to rotate the liquid receiving tray and the holding hand about an axis parallel to the holding hand to tilt the liquid receiving tray and the holding hand (Sato-’991, tilting device as inclination mechanism 8, fig. 1; [0052]; 112(f) equivalent as it performs the claimed functionality, rotates parallel to holding hand, as holding hand and liquid receiving tray rotate together as in figs. 1-2; examiner notes that the axis is not specifically defined, and can be any axis drawn parallel to holding hand 9, fig. 5, can be across the top surface of the holding hand relative to figure).
With respect to claim 3, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the pad transporting device further includes a hand elevating device configured to vertically move the holding hand (Sato-’991, elevating mechanism 5, fig. 1, [0062-0064], which can move the hand 9 up as it is attached to the tray 3 as in [0055]; 112(f) equivalent as it performs the claimed functionality).
With respect to claim 4, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the pad transporting device further includes a drain line coupled to the liquid receiving tray. Sato-’991, however teaches that a polishing agent is supplied to the surface of the polishing pad during operation ([0003-0004]).
Huang, in the same filed of endeavor, further teaches of providing a drain line as part of a tray in a transporting device (drain line as drain holes and drain pipes to drain tank 30, as part of a cart 10, with trays 14, 16, 18 fig. 1 in col 4 lines 31-44; the arrangement is corrosion resistant in col 2 line 61 - col 3 line 7). Huang teaches that this arrangement prevents damage to the floor, and injury from contact with acidic/alkaline liquid (col 1 lines 26-40), with the arrangement being applicable to processing tools (col 1 lines 13-26 [examiner notes that the polishing pad is a processing tool]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad transporting device of Sato-’991 with the drain line of Huang, for the propose of preventing damage and injuries caused by polishing liquid.
With respect to claim 5, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the pad structure includes the polishing pad and a support plate supporting the polishing pad (pad structure includes turn table 2 [support plate] which includes a pad [polishing pad] 12, fig. 7 attached as in [0019] and [0003]).
With respect to claim 17, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the pad transporting device is configured to transport a pad structure from the pad break-in device to the polishing device (the pad transporting device can be functionally used to transport the pad structure in the manner claimed as in [0009,0011,0019], as noted in claim 1, Sato-’991 describes improvements relative to a background transport carriage by allowing the transport carriage to fit in narrower spaces as in [0030, 0032] for space efficiency, and a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would understand that the pad break in device and polishing device is part of the system described, and used with the improved transport carriage/pad transporting device of Sato-’991).
With respect to claim 20, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the pad transporting device further includes a main body coupled to the holding hand (Sato991, main body 4, fig. 1; [0056], coupled directly or indirectly through overall assembly), and the liquid receiving tray is movable relative to the main body (Sato991, liquid receiving tray 3 is tiltable as in figs. 1-3) and movable together with the holding hand (Sato991, wheels 18, figs. 1-2 can move whole pad transporting device together; [0060]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Berkstresser (US 20030114079 A1) Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A) and further in view of Min (US 20060105686 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Sato-’991 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing device includes a lifting mechanism configured to receive the pad structure from the pad transporting device and to place the pad structure on the polishing table.
Min, in the same filed of endeavor, related to polishing teaches of a polishing device includes that a lifting mechanism configured to receive the pad structure from the pad transporting device and to place the pad structure on the polishing table (lifting mechanism as push rods 210, fig. 4, [0034]; structurally arranged to receive a pad structure [indirectly/directly] from the pad transporting device). Min teaches that this arrangement allows a user to conveniently change the polishing pad in a short amount of time ([0014, 0037])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad transporting device of Sato-’991 with the lifting mechanism of Min for the purpose of making it quicker to change the polishing pad.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Berkstresser (US 20030114079 A1) Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A) and further in view of Ono (US 20050221720 A1) and Wu (US 20050260924 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Sato-’991 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the pad break-in device includes a processing table configured to hold the pad structure, a processing head configured to press a dummy workpiece against the polishing pad of the pad structure on the processing table; and a liquid supply nozzle configured to supply liquid onto the polishing pad of the pad structure on the processing table. Sato-’991, however, teaches that the pad break in device uses a dummy wafer by actually polishing the dummy wafer, and that providing a separate break-in device improves throughput (Sato-’991, [0006-0008]).
Ono, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches of a pad break in device (device is used to initialize a polishing pad), wherein the pad break-in device includes a processing table configured to hold the pad structure (table 1, fig. 1, with a polishing pad 2; [0027]) a processing head configured to press a dummy workpiece against the polishing pad of the pad structure on the processing table (polishing head 4 holds dummy wafer 3’, fig .1; [0029], dummy wafer is brought into contact with a polishing pad). Ono teaches that providing this arrangement with relative movement between the table and workpiece [thus providing for the structure of having a head and table] enables the detection of completion of initialization of the polishing pad ([0015] - through a current sensor 8, fig. 1, described in [0010, 0033]), which in turn improves efficiency ([0014]), and that this arrangement can be used with any polishing apparatus ([0053])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad break in device with the arrangement of Ono, including a table, head, and current sensor for the purpose of improving efficiency.
Regarding the liquid supply nozzle configured to supply liquid onto the polishing pad of the pad structure on the processing table, Wu, in the same field of endeavor, relating to polishing, teaches of teaches of supplying fluid to the polishing pad during break in (rinse fluid 161 described in [0035] which is suppled through arm 160, fig. 1A described in [0028]; break in described in [0034]), and that the rinse fluid acts with a pad conditioner (conditioner 140, fig. 1, [0035]). Wu teaches that this provides an effect of a uniform polishing pad ([0035]), which advantageously avoids a first wafer effect and avoids having to discard patterned wafers ([0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad break in device with the arrangement of Wu, including liquid supply nozzle for the purpose of reducing wasted wafers, by increasing polishing pad uniformity by having a rinse and condition capability.
With respect to claim 8, Sato-’991 as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches wherein the pad break-in device further includes a pad monitoring device configured to monitor the break-in process of the polishing pad (Ono, current sensor 8, fig. 1, [0010, 0033], monitors break in/initialization completion, 112(f) equivalent by functionally monitoring the break in process to detect completion). Ono further teaches, that instead of using the current sensor, the pad can be monitored using a non-contact shape measuring device configured to detect a surface condition of the polishing pad (by emitting light to the polishing pad and measuring a change of reflected light from the polishing pad to detect removal of a surface layer [shape] in [0054], a sensor/device would have measured the reflected light). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Sato-’991 with a non-contact shape measuring device configured to detect a surface condition of the polishing pad, as further taught by Ono, for the same purpose of detecting completion of initialization of the polishing pad. The modification would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A).
With respect to claim 9, Sato-’991-’991 discloses: A pad transporting apparatus for transporting a pad structure including at least a polishing pad (pad transporting carriage 1, in fig. 3, configured to transport a turn table 2 which includes a pad 12, fig. 7 attached as in [0019] and [0003]), comprising: a holding hand configured to hold the pad structure (holding hands/grips as fall prevention mechanism 9, fig. 5; [0055]); and a liquid receiving tray arranged under the holding hand and configured to receive liquid dropped from the pad structure (liquid receiving tray as turn table holding section 3, figs. 1-3, which structurally can receive liquid that us dropped from the pad structure; [0052]), the liquid receiving tray having a width and a length larger than those of the pad structure (the pad structure is not explicitly required by the claim as part pad transporting device but rather as an element that the pad transporting device is configured to interface with, and the examiner submits that the liquid receiving tray can structurally interface with a pad that is smaller than it’s length and width; furthermore, fig. 4 shows at least a width of the tray is smaller than the pad structure in an outlined circle, however the machine can functionally interface with a smaller pad; the pad structure does not have to be round), however does not explicitly disclose the liquid receiving tray including a weir extending along an edge of the liquid receiving tray.
Halley, in the same filed of endeavor, related to polishing teaches that the polishing agent used is caustic and that one would want to protect the surrounding environment from said fluid (col 6 lines 38-63).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would want to protect the surrounding environment from the effect of a caustic polishing fluid, as shown by Halley.
Huang, in the same filed of endeavor, related to semiconductor fabrication (and CMP as in col 1 lines 40-47) teaches of providing a weir (a wall) on a semiconductor equipment tray (weir 28, fig. 2, col 4 lines 44-62, as part of an arrangement with a drain; with trays 14, 16, 18 fig. 1 in col 4 lines 31-44; the arrangement is corrosion resistant in col 2 line 61 - col 3 line 7). Huang teaches that this arrangement prevents damage to the floor, and injury from contact with acidic/alkaline liquid (col 1 lines 26-40), with the arrangement being applicable to processing tools (col 1 lines 13-26 [examiner notes that the polishing pad is a processing tool]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad transporting device of Sato-’991-’991 with the drain line of Huang, for the propose of preventing damage and injuries caused by polishing liquid. The also examiner respectfully submits that the teachings of Huang, in providing for a tray that catches corrosive fluid from semiconductor processing equipment during transport, also provides for the necessary teachings to modify Sato-’991-’991, such that the liquid collecting tray is sufficiently large [bigger than the pad structure in length and width], in order to effectively prevent injury to the floor from liquid.
With respect to claim 10, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches a tilting device configured to tilt the liquid receiving tray and the holding hand (Sato-’991, tilting device as inclination mechanism 8, fig. 1; [0052]; 112(f) equivalent as it performs the claimed functionality, rotates parallel to holding hand, as holding hand and liquid receiving tray rotate together as in figs. 1-2; examiner notes that the axis is not specifically defined, and can be any axis drawn parallel to holding hand 9, fig. 5, can be across the top surface of the holding hand relative to figure).
With respect to claim 11, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches a hand elevating device configured to vertically move the holding hand (Sato-’991, elevating mechanism 5, fig. 1, [0062-0064], which can move the hand 9 up as it is attached to the tray 3 as in [0055]; 112(f) equivalent as it performs the claimed functionality).
With respect to claim 12, Sato-’991, as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the pad transporting device further includes a drain line coupled to the liquid receiving tray. Sato-’991, however teaches that a polishing agent is supplied to the surface of the polishing pad during operation ([0003-0004]).
Huang, further teaches of providing a drain line as part of a tray in a transporting device (drain line as drain holes and drain pipes to drain tank 30, as part of a cart 10, with trays 14, 16, 18 fig. 1 in col 4 lines 31-44; the arrangement is corrosion resistant in col 2 line 61 - col 3 line 7). Huang teaches that this arrangement prevents damage to the floor, and injury from contact with acidic/alkaline liquid (col 1 lines 26-40), with the arrangement being applicable to processing tools (col 1 lines 13-26 [examiner notes that the polishing pad is a processing tool]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the pad transporting device of Sato-’991 with the drain line of Huang, for the propose of preventing damage and injuries caused by polishing liquid.
With respect to claim 13, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein the pad structure includes the polishing pad and a support plate supporting the polishing pad (Sato-’991, pad structure not explicitly claimed, only the pad transport apparatus is functionally for transporting the pad structure however pad structure includes turn table 2 [support plate] which includes a pad [polishing pad] 12, fig. 7 attached as in [0019] and [0003]).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Sato-‘991)
With respect to claim 21, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein the liquid receiving tray has a hollow portion that allows entry of a lifting rod for elevating the pad structure (Sato-‘991, notched cutout, adjacent to 10 fig. 4, that can receive a lifting rod [depending on the rod size] for elevating the pad structure - lifting rod not explicitly claimed).
With respect to claim 23, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein the pad transporting device further includes a main body coupled to the holding hand (Sato-‘991, main body 4, fig. 1; [0056], coupled directly or indirectly through overall assembly), and the liquid receiving tray is movable relative to the main body (Sato-‘991, liquid receiving tray 3 is tiltable as in figs. 1-3) and movable together with the holding hand (Sato-‘991, wheels 18, figs. 1-2 can move whole pad transporting device together; [0060]).
Claim(s) 16, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-‘008 (US 20180222008 A1) in view of Berkstresser (US 20030114079 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Sato-‘008 discloses A polishing apparatus for polishing a workpiece ([0001,0002]), comprising: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad (polishing table 3, fig. 1; with pad 2, [0037]); a liquid receiving tray detachably attached [to a polishing table] (liquid receiving tray 7, fig. 1, [0037], detachable either irreversibly or reversibly as described in [0038], and partially removable with a side plate 7b in [0040]); a polishing-table rotating device configured to rotate the polishing table and the liquid receiving tray (turntable 3 rotates in [0037], and as part of background art in [0003], the table rotates; furthermore, as the tray is attached to the table in [0037-0038], it would rotate with the table); and a polishing head configured to press the workpiece against the polishing pad (polishing head 4, fig. 1; [0037]; abstract, the polishing head rubs the wafer against the pad), however does not explicitly disclose support plate configured to support a polishing pad; the liquid receiving tray detachably attached to a side surface of the support plate; the polishing table configured to hold the support plate; the polishing-table rotating device configured to rotate the support plate, a pad chuck configured to fix the support plate to the polishing table.
Berkstresser, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a polishing device that includes a support plate configured to support a polishing pad (a pad 10 on top of [support] plate 20, fig. 3, [0026]), a polishing table configured to hold the support plate (polishing table 25, fig. 3 underneath a plate 20 with a pad 10 on top of plate 20, fig. 3; [0026]), a pad chuck configured to fix the pad structure (vacuum 30 on surface 17, fig. 2; [0024], forming a vacuum chuck by allowing attachment as described in [0030]), Berkstresser teaches that this arrangement reduces the down time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad, without an increase in wear or cost ([0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the polishing device of Sato-’008 with the support plate, polishing table and chuck arrangement of Berkstresser for the purpose of reducing the time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad without an increase in wear or cost. The arrangement would have resulted in the liquid receiving tray detachably attached [directly or indirectly] to a side surface of the support plate, through the overall assembly of the modified apparatus, with the polishing-table rotating device configured to rotate the support plate that is underneath the polishing pad, and the support plage is held on the table itself by the chuck.
Specifically, regarding a polishing-table rotating device, the examiner submits that equivalent to polishing table rotation device, meeting a section 112(f) interpretation is implicitly found in Sato-’008, however, alternatively, Berkstresser provides that typical CMP machines include a drive assembly (112(f) equivalent as a mechanism to rotate a polishing table) to do such ([0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the polishing device of Sato-’008 with the drive assembly of Berkstresser, in order to provide a mechanical arrangement to rotate the polishing table, and reduce labor necessary to manually rotate the table.
With respect to claim 24, Sato-’008, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 16 above, and further teaches wherein the liquid receiving tray includes a bottom portion arranged outwardly of a side surface of the support plate (Sato-’008, 7a, fig. 1; [0040], extends in outward direction of a support plate of Berkstresser, which is under the polishing pad) and a weir extending upward from an outer edge of the bottom portion (Sato-’008, 7b, fig. 1; [0040], is a weir, being a dam/upward barrier to contain liquid).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Berkstresser (US 20030114079 A1), Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A) and further in view of Kennedy (US 6379221 B1) and Inaba (JP H09150362 A).
With respect to claim 18, Sato-‘991 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach includes a lifting mechanism including a lifting rod and a rod actuator configured to elevate the lifting rod to receive the pad structure from the pad transporting device and to lower the lifting rod to place the pad structure onto the polishing table, and the liquid receiving tray has a hollow portion that allows entry of the lifting rod.
Kennedy, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a polishing device including a lifting mechanism including a lifting rod (lifting mechanisms 212 in figs. 8 that are rods that protrude, and are pneumatically activated in col 8 line 61 to col 9 line 10) and a rod actuator configured to elevate the lifting rod to receive the pad structure (the pneumatic drive described col 6 line 63-col 7 line 8; col 8 line 61 to col 9 line 10 describes how it similarly pneumatically activated) from a pad transporting device (lifting mechanism interfaces manipulator 204, fig. 8) and to lower the lifting rod to place the pad structure onto the polishing table (col 8 line 61 to col 9 line 10, where the lifting mechanism can lower the pad, and is pneumatically deactivated). Kennedy teaches that this arrangement reduces labor and accidental damage of the polishing pad (col 3 lines 1-8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the polishing device sato-‘991 with the lifting mechanism of Kennedy for the purpose of reducing labor needed to replace the polishing pad, and also reducing accidental damage.
Regarding the limitation of the liquid receiving tray has a hollow portion that allows entry of the lifting rod, Inaba, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, provides for a liquid receiving tray that holds a polishing pad (cassette 64, fig. 4; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9; holds pad 22) with a groove [hollow portion] that allows entry to a pin in the polishing machine (groove 78, fig. 2, allows entry of an analogous pin structure 50 that holds the polishing pad; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9; the arrangement activates a shield 80, fig. 2). Inaba teaches that this arrangement prevents drippage, keeping the environment clean (page 6 lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the liquid receiving tray of Sato-‘991 to have a hollow portion that allows entry of the lifting rod, as taught by Inaba, because this arrangement allows for a shield to keep the room clean from fluid when receiving the polishing pad.
With respect to claim 19, Sato-‘991 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid receiving tray includes a shutter covering the hollow portion. However, as mentioned above, Inaba further teaches of teach wherein the liquid receiving tray includes a shutter covering the hollow portion (a shield 80, fig. 2; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9). Inaba, again, teaches that this arrangement prevents drippage, keeping the environment clean (page 6 lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the liquid receiving tray of Sato-‘991 to include a shutter covering the hollow portion, as taught by Inaba, because this arrangement allows for a shield to keep the room clean from fluid when receiving the polishing pad.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Halley (US 6527621 B1) and Huang (US 6119736 A) and further in view of Inaba (JP H09150362 A).
With respect to claim 22, Sato-‘991 as modified teaches the limitations of claim 21 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the liquid receiving tray includes a shutter covering the hollow portion.
Inaba, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, provides for a liquid receiving tray that holds a polishing pad (cassette 64, fig. 4; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9; holds pad 22) with a groove [hollow portion] that allows entry to a pin in the polishing machine (groove 78, fig. 2, allows entry of an analogous pin structure 50 that holds the polishing pad; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9; the arrangement activates a shield 80, fig. 2), and a shutter covering the hollow portion (80, fig. 2; page 5 last line to page 6 line 9) Inaba teaches that this arrangement prevents drippage, keeping the environment clean (page 6 lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the liquid receiving tray of Sato-‘991 to have a a shutter covering the hollow portion, as taught by Inaba, because this arrangement allows for a shield to keep the room clean from fluid when receiving the polishing pad.
PNG
media_image2.png
393
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 25 (Sato-’991)
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Bowman (US 6244941 B1)
With respect to claim 25, Sato-’991 discloses A processing system comprising:
a polishing device configured to polish a workpiece by pressing the workpiece against a polishing pad (polishing apparatus 11, fig. 8, described as part of system in [0057]; the apparatus itself is described in [0005] to polish a wafer [workpiece], sliding [and pressing given that polishing is done by abrading surfaces] wafer against polishing pad in [0005] using head 15, fig. 7-8);
a pad transporting device configured to transport a pad structure, the pad structure including at least the polishing pad (pad transporting carriage 1, in fig. 3, configured to transport a turn table 2 which includes a pad 12, fig. 7 attached as in [0019] and [0003]),
and
the polishing device includes a polishing head configured to press the workpiece against the polishing pad (polishing head 15, [0003,0005], fig. 7-8, which slides [presses/holds] the workpiece against the polishing pad)
the pad transporting device includes a holding hand configured to hold the pad structure (holding hands/grips as fall prevention mechanism 9, fig. 5; [0055]), and a liquid receiving tray arranged under the holding hand and configured to receive liquid dropped from the pad structure (liquid receiving tray as turn table holding section 3, figs. 1-3, which structurally can receive liquid that us dropped from the pad structure; [0052]), the liquid receiving tray including a first tray fixed to the holding hand, (fall prevention mechanism 9, fig. 5 is fixed to turn table holding section 3, is fixed to the holding hand; see fig 5 relative to pad in figs. 3-4);
however, does not explicitly disclose
the polishing device includes a polishing table, a pad chuck configured to fix the pad structure, transported by the pad transporting device, to the polishing table, and a second tray removably coupled to the first tray, the polishing device further includes an engaging member configured to engage with the second tray and separate the second tray from the first tray when the first tray is moved.
Bowman, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a polishing device that includes a polishing table (polishing table 328, fig. 6; col 6 lines 25-40, with a pad 326 on top, see fig. 5) a second tray (a tray 330, fig. 6; col 6 lines 25-40) a pad chuck configured to fix the pad structure (electromagnets 338, fig. 6; col 6 lines 41-63) transported by the pad transporting device, to the polishing table (this allows attachment of a polishing pad through a robot as in col 8 liens 14-23, thus would meet the functional limitations when applied to Sato-’991). Bowman also teaches of an engaging member configured to engage with the second tray (pins 342, figs. 6, 7b-7c; col 7 lines 11-23, through holes 344 in the second tray; see the second tray 330 in fig. 7a).
Bowman teaches that this arrangement reduces the down time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad (col 2 lines 51-57)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the polishing device of Sato-’991 with the polishing table, second tray, chuck arrangement, and engaging member of Bowman for the purpose of reducing the down time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad. The arrangement the engaging member would have configured to engage with the second tray and separate the second tray from the first tray when the first tray is moved, by operating together with the pad chuck to hold the second tray when the pad transporter of Sato-’991 places the second tray on the polishing device. The arrangement would also provide for the second tray being arranged under the holding hand of the pad transporter (see ann. fig. 25 of Sato-’991 where the hand extends both above and below the pad structure).
With respect to claim 26, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, and further teaches wherein the engaging member comprises an engaging protrusion inserted into an engaging hole formed in the second tray (Bowman pins 342, figs. 6, 7b-7c; col 7 lines 11-23, engage with holes 344 in the second tray).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato-’991 (US 20170304991 A1) in view of Bowman (US 6244941 B1) and further in view of Kennedy (US 6379221 B1).
With respect to claim 27, Sato-’991, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 25 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing device further includes an actuator configured to move the engaging member toward and away from the polishing table.
Kennedy, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a polishing device including with an engaging member that lifts (lifting mechanisms 212 in figs. 8 that are rods that protrude and retract, and are pneumatically activated in col 8 line 61 to col 9 line 10) and a actuator configured to move the engaging member toward and away from the polishing table (the pneumatic drive described col 6 line 63-col 7 line 8; col 8 line 61 to col 9 line 10 describes how it similarly pneumatically activated) and accepts polishing pads from a pad transporting device (lifting mechanism interfaces manipulator 204, fig. 8). Kennedy teaches that this arrangement reduces labor and accidental damage of the polishing pad (col 3 lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the engaging member Sato-‘991, as modified, with the actuator of Kennedy for the purpose of reducing labor needed to replace the polishing pad, and also reducing accidental damage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(a)/(b) rejection on claims 2 and 10 (response pages 7-8), the examiner respectfully submits that adding additional functionality to the claim does not overcome the rejection, and that the rejection finds it’s basis under a 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. “The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. […] However, “[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure” in the context of a means plus function limitation” See MPEP 2181. Applicant argued that with the additional limitations in the claim, the structure functions or acts would be known and clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and there is no necessary structure such as a motor, pneumatic actuator or handwheel, that causes such claimed functional motion.
Similarly, regarding the rejection of claim 8 (response page 8), the disclosure does not actually provide what an image processing device or a non-contact shape measuring device would be, and the necessary structure such as a computer, camera, photocell, laser, ultrasonic sensor, was not described in the specification.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection over Sato (response page 9), and the 35 USC 103 rejection applied to claim 1 (response claim 11), the examiner notes that the pad structure is not actually recited as a required element of the claim; but rather it is something the structure recited in the claim interacts with; and that Sato can functionally hold a polishing pad structure that meets the size limitations (also the pad structure does not have to be round). Alternatively, Huang, in providing for a tray that catches corrosive fluid from semiconductor processing equipment during transport, also provides for the necessary teachings to modify Sato, such that the liquid collecting tray is sufficiently large [bigger than the pad structure], in order to effectively prevent injury to the floor from liquid. Regarding the weir, Huang also provides for an edge/wall to prevent injury to the floor.
Regarding claim 16, the agreements are moot, as Sun is not applied. No specific arguments were presented with respect to the dependent claims.
Regarding the new claim 25, Bowman provides for an engaging member with a second tray, usable with a robotic pad transporter, providing for a reduction in the down time needed to remove/replace the polishing pad. Sato-’991 provides for a first tray fixed to a hand, as explained in the rejection of claim 25 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 6019665 A) explains that “As is commonly defined in semiconductor manufacturing, a weir is a dam-like structure which has walls to limit the flow of a liquid”, providing that a term otherwise used in civil construction is known in the art of semiconductor manufacturing.
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 at 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 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723