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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (KR 20040085995, "Moon") in view of Williams et al. (US 6110025, "Williams") and Chang et al. (US 7597608, "Chang").
1. Moon teaches a pad conditioner (500), comprising:
a shaft (connecting conditioner 500 to drive system 600, see Moon fig. 1);
an outer disk assembly comprising: an outer disk main body (534) and a conditioning surface (516) disposed on a bottom surface of the outer disk main body; and
an inner disk assembly concentric to the outer disk assembly (see Moon figs. 2 and 4a) and comprising an inner disk main body (532) and a plurality of inner disks (513,514) disposed on a bottom surface of the inner disk main body (see Moon fig. 2).
Moon further teaches that the disk assemblies are capable of independent vertical movement (Moon Translation [32]-[35]).
Moon does not teach the presence of a a gimbal assembly attached to the shaft, the gimbal assembly comprising an upper portion and a lower portion; a bearing ring connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly, the bearing ring contacting a rolling element; that the outer disk assembly is connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly, the outer disk assembly comprising an outer disk flexure connected to the outer disk main body at an end of the outer disk flexure opposite the lower portion and to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly; or that the inner disk assembly is connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly concentrically to the outer disk assembly, the inner disk assembly comprising an inner disk flexure connected to the inner disk main body and to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly.
However, Williams teaches a polishing system configured to independently press inner and outer disk assemblies (annular rings 174 and 164, see Williams fig. 11), wherein the system comprises a shaft (22); a gimbal assembly (see Williams fig. 2) attached to the shaft, the gimbal assembly comprising an upper portion (25) and a lower portion (29); a bearing ring (rolling element 24 sits in a ring, Williams fig. 2) connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly (ring is connected to 29 via 25, see Williams fig. 2), the bearing ring contacting a rolling element (ring contacts rolling element 24, Williams fig. 2), and
concentric disk flexures connecting the disk assemblies to a lower portion of the gimbal assembly (flexures 162 and 158 respectively connect rings 164 and 174 to the lower end 29 of the gimbal assembly, see Williams figs. 2 and 11 and 7:17-54, 11:66-12:51), wherein the outer disk flexure (162) is connected to the outer disk main body (164) at an end of the outer disk flexure opposite the lower portion (end of 162 in contact with upper surface of 164, which is positioned facing—and therefore opposing— a bottom surface of lower portion 29, see Williams fig. 11) and to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly (end of 162 contacts 29, see Williams fig. 11).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conditioner of Moon to incorporate the teachings of Williams regarding methods for driving inner and outer disk assemblies while applying independent vertical loads thereto such that the conditioner included a gimbal assembly attached to the shaft, the gimbal assembly comprising an upper portion and a lower portion; a bearing ring connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly, the bearing ring contacting a rolling element; wherein the outer disk assembly is connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly, the outer disk assembly comprising an outer disk flexure connected to the outer disk main body at an end of the outer disk flexure opposite the lower portion and to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly; and wherein the inner disk assembly is connected to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly concentrically to the outer disk assembly, the inner disk assembly comprising an inner disk flexure connected to the inner disk main body and to the lower portion of the gimbal assembly, as known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the CMP arts would be familiar with both carrier head design and conditioner design, and would have been familiar with the sorts of mechanisms including flexures and universal joints used in carrier head design to enable independent vertical movement of retainer rings while maintaining a pressing force in a direction normal to a pad surface, and would have found it advantageous to adapt those mechanisms for use in a closely related conditioner, and the implementation of such a variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moon as modified does not teach that the outer disk assembly comprises a plurality of outer disks disposed on a bottom thereof.
However, Chang teaches the use of pluralities of disk-shaped conditioning elements (206) on a conditioner (104) that has been divided into independently controllable inner and outer regions (zones P1 and P2 have different sets of individual conditioning elements 206 thereunder, see Chang figs. 2a-2c).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the conditioner of Moon as modified according to the teachings of Chang regarding shape for conditioning elements such that that the outer disk assembly comprised a plurality of outer disks disposed on a bottom thereof, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one art-recognized equivalent (Chang teaches that a variety of shapes may be used, Chang 5:28-56) for another, the results of such a substitution being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2. Moon as modified teaches the pad conditioner of claim 1, wherein the outer disk main body has a toroidal shape and the inner disk main body has a circular shape (all bodies are circular, and the outer body is toroidal, as it is positioned outside the inner body, see Moon figs. 2 and 4a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the relevant motivation to use the teachings from Williams to modify the conditioner of Moon is based on the understanding that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, the motivation to modify the conditioner of Moon as modified by Williams according to the teachings from Chang is that of a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Furthermore, although the amended claim does recite slightly more detail regarding the structural relationships between the flexures and gimbal, it does so with broad language (e.g., “connected to” instead of “in direct contact with” or “directly connected to”). Consequently,
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hung et al. (US 6565705) and White et al. (US 6409579), which teach relevant aspects of carrier heads including retaining rings with pad-conditioning elements.
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights