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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8, 16, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/5/2025.
Priority
Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
a regulation apparatus that is designed, when the state vector deviates from the target state vector, to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, such that the state vector resulting from the control matches the target state vector in claims 3-7, 9-10, 12-13.
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.
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 3-7, 9-10, 12-13 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 “a regulation apparatus that is designed, when the state vector deviates from the target state vector, to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, such that the state vector resulting from the control matches the target state vector” 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. Therefore, the claim failsto comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
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.
Claims 3-7, 9-10, 12-13 are 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 “a regulation apparatus that is designed, when the state vector deviates from the target state vector, to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, such that the state vector resulting from the control matches the target state vector” 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. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama US 2022/0072679 A1.
Re claims 1, 17, Maruyama teaches a double-sided or single-sided machine tool [fig. 3], comprising:
a first working disk 1 and a counter-bearing element [2, 3], wherein the first working disk and the counter-bearing element can be driven rotationally relative to each other by means of a rotary drive, and wherein a working gap [between wafer W] is formed between the first working disk and the counter- bearing element for the double-sided or single-sided machining of flat workpieces [W];
sensors that record measurement data relating to at least one of tool parameters or operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool during operation of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool [¶129, “data collection performed in step 1 is extensive. For example, the data to be collected includes measured values of various sensors arranged in the polishing apparatus”]; and
a control apparatus [fig. 5] that obtains the measurement data recorded by the sensors during operation of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, wherein the control apparatus comprises an artificial neural network that is designed to create a state vector [R] of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool from the measurement data and to compare the state vector with a target state vector [¶128, “machine learning using a neural network or quantum computing is performed to construct a learned model for maintaining the temperature behavior curve R within a predetermined allowable range. Typically, the learned model is constructed to output prediction or diagnostic results for the input data. For example, when at least one temperature behavior parameter is input to the learned model, the learned model predicts and outputs the at least one temperature behavior parameter to be changed and the change value thereof in order to maintain the temperature behavior curve R within the predetermined allowable range”]; and
a method comprising:
obtaining, by a control apparatus [fig. 5], the measurement data [fig. 11];
creating, using an artificial neural network, a state vector [R] of the double-sided or single- sided machine tool from the measurement data; and
comparing the state vector with at least one target state vector ¶128.
Re claim 3, Maruyama further teaches a regulation apparatus [memory 110, processing device 120] that is designed, when the state vector deviates from the target state vector, to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, such that the state vector resulting from the control matches the target state vector ¶128.
Re claim 4, Maruyama further teaches wherein the regulation apparatus is integrated in the control apparatus [fig. 5].
Re claim 5, Maruyama further teaches wherein the regulation apparatus is designed to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool based on an adjustment rule stored in the regulation apparatus [deep learning machines by definition use stored rules to create, compare, and adjust parameters].
Re claim 14, Maruyama further teaches wherein the sensors comprise measuring apparatuses for measuring a temperature of at least one of the first working disk, the counter-bearing element, or other machine components of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool [Abstract].
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) 2, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 2022/0072679 A1 in view of Nakamura US 2021/0291312 A1.
Re claim 2, Maruyama teaches the invention of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to teach wherein the control apparatus is designed to issue a warning message when the state vector deviates from the target state vector.
However, Nakamura teaches wherein the control apparatus is designed to issue a warning message when a variable satisfies a deterioration condition [¶47, “wherein the processor performs control to issue a warning for urging a maintenance, when the output estimated value satisfies a predetermined polishing deterioration condition”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the warning of Nakamura with the controller of Maruyama in order to yield the predictable result of warning the user when the system is in a deterioration condition.
Re claim 9, Maruyama further teaches a regulation apparatus [memory 110, processing device 120] that is designed, when the state vector deviates from the target state vector, to control at least one of the tool parameters or the operating parameters of the double-sided or single-sided machine tool, such that the state vector resulting from the control matches the target state vector ¶128.
Re claim 10, Maruyama further teaches wherein the regulation apparatus is integrated in the control apparatus [fig. 5].
Claim(s) 6-7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 2022/0072679 A1 in view of Yi US 7,001,243 B1.
Re claims 6, 11-12, Maruyama teaches the invention of claim 3 as discussed above but fails to teach wherein an additional artificial neural network is provided that is designed to assess the measurement data by means of machine learning and to create or modify an adjustment rule stored in the regulation apparatus.
However, Yi teaches [Abstract] a CMP process with two distinct neural networks, one that estimate a result [construed as the comparison between measurement and threshold] and an additional neural network to tune the control parameters [since in order to tune the control parameter, one would be effectively adjusting the rules in the learning model].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the additional artificial neural network of Yi in the machine tool of Maruyama in order to yield the predictable result of minimizing the difference between the actual result and the desired result.
Re claims 7, 13, Maruyama and Yi teach wherein the regulation apparatus is integrated in the additional artificial neural network [since the regulation apparatus will be part of the control apparatus,
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 2022/0072679 A1 in view of Boller US 2022/0097205 A1.
Re claim 15, Maruyama further teaches wherein:
the counter-bearing element is formed by a second working disk 2; and
the working gap is formed between the first working disk and the second working disk for double-sided or single-sided machining of flat workpieces [W].
Maruyama does not teach the first working disk and second working disk are arranged coaxially to each other and can be driven rotationally relative to each other.
However, Boller teaches the equivalence between double side and on side machining were the first working disk and second working disk are arranged coaxially to each other and can be driven rotationally relative to each other.
Thus, Maruyama and Boller each disclose double and single side machines. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the machine of Boller could have been substituted for the machine of Maruyama because both serve the purpose of providing for polishing wafers. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the machine of Boller for the machine of Maruyama according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing polishing of flat wafer.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723