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Claims 1-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-5, in the reply filed on 2/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected Species A, Fig. 1, without traverse in an interview on 3/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the polishing pad" in third to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (JP2020170740A, machine translation relied on) in view of Tanoue (WO 2019239801 A1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 4, as best understood, Yuki discloses a processing method for a workpiece, comprising: a processing step of holding a workpiece W1 by a holding unit 31, and processing the workpiece held by the holding unit; a first cleaning step of, after the processing step is carried out, holding the workpiece by a spinner table 51, and supplying a cleaning fluid containing water to the workpiece to clean the workpiece (bottom of page 4 and page 5); and a second cleaning step of, supplying a polishing cleaning liquid to the workpiece and causing the polishing pad to abut on the workpiece and polish the workpiece to clean the workpiece (page 4). Yuki does not disclose the second cleaning step of polishing is performed after the first cleaning step is carried out. However, Tanoue teaches a second cleaning step of polishing is performed after a first cleaning step is carried out (page 21). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform polishing after cleaning, as taught by Tanoue, for the purpose of clearing away debris such that the surface is free of said debris when polishing which avoids damage to the component as these debris could be pressed into the surface by the polishing pad during polishing and also since changing the sequence of the steps would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent a showing of unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the steps in a desired order absent a showing of unexpected results. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.04
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Tanoue, in further view of KR 102344807 B1 (machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 5, Yuki does not disclose a third cleaning step of, after the second cleaning step is carried out, supplying a second polishing cleaning liquid different from the polishing cleaning liquid to the workpiece and causing the polishing pad to polish the workpiece to clean the workpiece. However, KR 102344807 B1 teaches supplying a second polishing cleaning liquid different from the polishing cleaning liquid to the workpiece and causing the polishing pad to polish the workpiece to clean the workpiece (page 14: “It is also a countermeasure to use a polishing slurry used for the polishing treatment that is different from the polishing slurry used in all subsequent polishing steps (for example, a polishing slurry from which a high polishing rate is obtained).” ). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply a second polishing cleaning liquid different from the polishing cleaning liquid to the workpiece, as taught by KR 102344807 B1, for the purpose of providing a polishing cleaning liquid appropriate for the polishing being performed such that debris and imperfections are addressed in an effective manner and also since this allows a progression of polishing which is beneficial since “when partial polishing is performed before full polishing, the slurry remaining on the wafer surface after partial polishing is removed by polishing in the subsequent total polishing step, so cleaning performance in subsequent cleaning steps It is possible to reduce the impact to , compared with the case where partial grinding|polishing is performed after whole grinding|polishing” (page 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights