DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishishita, JP 2017183503 (as cited in previous Office Action) in view of Halley, US Patent 6,629,874 (newly submitted)
Regarding claim 6, Kishishita teaches a wafer processing system comprising:
a holding table 134 that holds a back surface of a first wafer W (Figure 2),
an outer edge removing unit 16 that removes an outer edge of the first wafer held by the holding table from the front surface (by performing a chamfering process);
a polishing unit 18 that polishes the front surface of the first wafer with the outer edge removed by the outer edge removing unit;
a cleaning unit 20 that cleans the first wafer polished by the polishing unit; and
a delivery unit (transfer arm 114 provided on slide blocks 112 on guide 110) that delivers the first wafer between the outer edge removing unit, the polishing unit, and the cleaning unit (figure 1).
Kishishita fails to teach the first wafer having a wiring layer formed on a front surface thereof and the outer removing unit having a processing liquid supply part that supplies a processing liquid onto the front surface of the first wafer, wherein the processing unit has the processing liquid on the from surface,
However, Halley teaches the outer removing unit having a processing liquid supply part 400 that supplies a processing liquid (slurry) onto the front surface of the first wafer 115, wherein the processing unit has the processing liquid on the from surface (figure 5) by teaching a generally-known polishing apparatus that uses slurry in order to planarize the surface of the wafer.
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 teachings of Halley with that of Kishishita because processing liquid supply ports are generally-used for delivering polishing solutions (or slurries) to wafers in order to further aid in the polishing technique.
Kishishita and Halley fail to teach the first wafer having a wiring layer formed on a front surface thereof
However, these limitation is directed toward materials or articles worked upon in the apparatus.
According to the MPEP, Section 2115, material or articles work upon does not limit apparatus claims. Therefore, this limitation does not the apparatus in terms of patentability. "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and "not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used." 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based "upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process." The court noted that "the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core" in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
Regarding claim 7, Halley teaches the polishing unit includes a polishing pad that is brought into contact with the first wafer, and a polishing liquid supply unit that supplies a polishing liquid to a processing point (figure 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the polishing step is started in a state where a processing liquid supplied in the outer edge removing step remains on the front surface of the first wafer...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 2-4 are dependent upon claim 1 and are allowed as well. The cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899