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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 07/14/2023. Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a buffer tube which is formed within the nozzle body and communicates with the slit” should read as “a buffer tube which is formed within the nozzle body and communicates with the at least one slit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 pad-temperature measuring device for measuring the temperature of the polishing surface” in claim 1. Where in the instant case, the pad-temperature measuring device is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0019] to include the following: the pad-temperature measuring device 10 may be an infrared radiation thermometer or a thermocouple thermometer which measures the surface temperature of the polishing pad 3, or may be a temperature-distribution measuring device which acquires a temperature distribution (temperature profile) of the polishing pad 3 along a radial direction of the polishing pad 3. Examples of the temperature-distribution measuring device may include a thermography, a thermopile, and an infrared camera.
“a cleaning apparatus configured to clean the heating-fluid nozzle at a retreat-position located laterally to the polishing pad” in claim 6. Where in the instant case, the cleaning apparatus is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0075] to include the following: the cleaning apparatus 45 includes a plurality of sprays 46 for spraying a cleaning liquid (e.g., pure water) from above and below onto the heating-fluid nozzles 11, which have been moved to the retreat-position.
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 § 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0402552), alone, hereinafter referred to as Kumar.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a polishing apparatus [Kumar, fig 1A, 20] for polishing a substrate [Kumar, fig 1A, 10] by pressing the substrate held by a polishing head [Kumar, fig 1A, 70] against a polishing surface of a polishing pad [Kumar, fig 1A, 30] supported by a polishing table [Kumar, fig 1A, 24], comprising:
a pad-temperature regulating apparatus configured to regulate a temperature of the polishing surface based on a measurement value of a pad-temperature measuring device for measuring the temperature of the polishing surface [Kumar, fig 1A, 64 and 100, 64 is a temperature sensor connected to controller 12 which is also connected to 100 and page 2, pp 0027, where 64 can be a thermocouple or IR thermometer, which is functionally equivalent because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these as having insubstantial differences from the items disclosed in the Applicant’s specification and would have recognized the interchangeability of the items disclosed in the prior art and the items disclosed in the Applicant’s specification],
wherein the pad-temperature regulating apparatus [Kumar, fig 1A, 64 and 100] includes a fluid nozzle arranged above and spaced apart from the polishing surface [Kumar, fig 1A, 100 is above and spaced apart from 30]; and
wherein the fluid nozzle [Kumar, fig 1A, 100] includes:
an elongate nozzle body [Kumar, figs 1A and 1B, 110];
at least one slit formed along a longitudinal direction of the nozzle body for ejecting a fluid toward the polishing surface [Kumar, fig 2, 114 and page 4, pp 0058, 114 is formed along the body 110 as a slit];
a header tube which is formed within the nozzle body and into which the fluid is supplied [Kumar, page 3, pp 0036, pipes to facilitate the fluidic connections]; and
a buffer tube which is formed within the nozzle body and communicates with the slit [Kumar, fig 2, 116], and
a plurality of branch tubes for coupling the header tube to the buffer tube [Kumar, fig 2, 120].
Kumar does not explicitly disclose in this embodiment the fluid nozzle being a heating-fluid nozzle.
Kumar further teaches the polishing system can also include a heating system to dispense heating fluid [Kumar, page 5, pp 0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the fluid nozzle structure of the Kumar to also be used to with heating-fluid because it is desired and contemplated by Kumar to control the temperature of the polishing system by cooling and by heating in order to reach the desired temperature profile in order to control and reduce wafer-to-wafer non-uniformity [Kumar, page 1, pp 0009 and page 5, pp 0070, summarized].
Regarding claim 2, Kumar as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one slit extends to an end surface of a tip of the nozzle body [Kumar, fig 1A, 114 extends the length 100].
Regarding claim 3, Kumar as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the buffer tube and the header tube extend along the longitudinal direction of the nozzle body [Kumar, fig 1A, showing the 116 and the various connecting tube to each 120 extends along the length of 100].
Regarding claim 4, Kumar as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the nozzle body extends in an approximate radial direction of the polishing pad [Kumar, fig 1A, 100 extends in the radial direction of 30].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0402552), alone, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Soundararajan et al (US PGPUB No. 2020/0001426), hereinafter referred to as Kumar and Soundararajan, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar as modified discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the nozzle body is made of or coated with a material having chemical resistance and/or heat insulation.
Soundararajan teaches a polishing apparatus [Soundararajan, fig 1, 20] for polishing a substrate [Soundararajan, fig 1, 10] by pressing the substrate held by a polishing head [Soundararajan, fig 1, 70] against a polishing surface of a polishing pad supported by a polishing table [Soundararajan, fig 1, 30 held by 24], comprising: a fluid nozzle arranged above and spaced apart from the polishing surface [Soundararajan, fig 1, 100], wherein the nozzle body is made of or coated with a material having chemical resistance and/or heat insulation [Soundararajan, page 3, pp 0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nozzle body of Kumar with the coating and chemical resistance on the body of the nozzle as taught by Soundararajan because the coating can reduce pad wear [Soundararajan, page 4, pp 0046, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Wu et al (US Patent No. 11,633,833) teaches in figure 2A, a plurality of nozzles [225] that spray water onto the pad conditioner and onto the polishing head but does not spay on top of the units and does not spay the fluid dispensing nozzle [100].
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “a cleaning apparatus configured to clean the heating-fluid nozzle at a retreat-position located laterally to the polishing pad” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. The Office notes that the prior art does not disclose the limitation as interpreted under 112(f).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kohama et al (US PGPUB No. 2006/0105678) teaches in figures 21-23, a fluid nozzle [26g] that has a header tube [108] and a longitudinal slit [112].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723