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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the sensor” should read --the at least one sensor-- to maintain consistent terminology. 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:
“Gimbal control feature” in claims 1, 5, and 8, because (A) the term “feature” is a generic placeholder, see above; (B) “gimbal control” designates a function performed by the mechanism, and (C) no additional structure is specified, to support the claimed function of “gimbal control” – in effect the language is equivalent to a predetermined means for controlling a gimbal. Examiner is interpreting “gimbal control feauture” to be an annular structure lined with magnets, a passive annular structure that comprises a ferromagnetic material, or an equivalent structure as discussed in at least paragraph 0033 of Applicant's specification.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “gimbal control feature” in claims 2-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (US20020033230), hereinafter Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a pad conditioning assembly (Fig. 1 element 1), comprising:
a base (Fig. 1 element 14);
an arm (Fig. 1 element 16) coupled to the base (Fig. 1);
a conditioning head (Fig. 2 element 30, excluding element 33) coupled to the arm (Fig. 1);
a gimbal control assembly (Fig. 2 elements 50 and 33) mounted to the conditioning head (Fig. 2, 0031, where at least element 33 of the gimbal control assembly is mounted to the conditioning head), comprising:
at least one electromagnet (Fig. 2 element 58) coupled to the conditioning head (Fig. 1, where the at least one electromagnet is coupled to the conditioning head through elements 57, 17, and 20) and a gimbal flexure (Fig. 2 element 33, 0044, where the at least one electromagnet is coupled to the gimbal flexure through the conditioning head and elements 57, 17, and 20), the gimbal flexure configured to couple to a pad conditioning disk (Fig. 2 element 40 corresponds to a pad conditioning disk and Fig. 2 shows the gimbal flexure coupled to the pad conditioning disk); and
a gimbal control feature (Fig. 2 elements 54 and 55) coupled to the gimbal flexure (Fig. 2, 0035 and 0033, where the gimbal control feature is coupled to the gimbal flexure through elements 51, 52, 53, and 41); and
a controller configured to control operation of the pad conditioning assembly (0010 and 0038, where "control system" and "control device" are the same and correspond to a controller). Examiner notes that the assembly being for “pad conditioning” and the head being a “conditioning” head are considered to be intended use and examiner finds that the assembly disclosed by Hayashi can be used for pad conditioning and the head can be used for conditioning as well.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the gimbal control feature is an annular feature (Fig. 2, 0035) lined with magnets (Fig. 2 elements 54 and 55) configured to interact with the at least one electromagnet (0039-0040) or wherein the gimbal control feature is a passive annular feature comprising a ferromagnetic material (Fig. 2, 0035, where the gimbal control feature being permanent magnets means that the gimbal control mechanism comprises a ferromagnetic material and is passive (i.e. the permanent magnet continuously generates a magnetic field without needing an external power source) configured to interact with the at least one electromagnet (0039-0040).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the controller is configured to apply a bias to the gimbal control feature using the at least one electromagnet (0038 and 0046-0047).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the bias is applied toward an outer edge of a platen (Fig. 1, where element 13 corresponds to a platen; 0038 and 0046-0047, where when the "areas where the polishing surface (polishing pad 43) tends to float upward from the surface of the wafer" correspond to an outer edge of the of the polishing surface, the bias is applied toward an outer edge of the platen).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the bias is applied toward a center of a platen (Fig. 1, where element 13 corresponds to a platen; 0038 and 0046-0047, where when the "areas where the polishing surface (polishing pad 43) tends to float upward from the surface of the wafer" correspond to a center of the polishing surface, the bias is applied toward a center of the platen).
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 3 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US20020033230), hereinafter Hayashi, in view of Yoon et al. (US20070128991), hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the pad conditioning disk is configured to rub against a surface of a polishing pad (the pad conditioning disk is capable of (i.e. configured to) rub against and abrade (through the use of abrasive slurry) a surface of a polishing pad).
Hayashi fails to disclose the pad conditioning disk comprises abrasive particles.
Yoon is also concerned with a pad used in a CMP system and teaches the pad conditioning disk (Fig. 4 element 30) comprises abrasive particles (Fig. 4 element 36, 0037). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hayashi discloses the invention except that the pad conditioning disk does not comprise abrasive particles (it instead has an abrasive slurry applied to the abrading surface) instead of the pad conditioning disk comprising abrasive particles. Yoon shows that a pad conditioning disk comprising abrasive particles is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both disks are used for abrading a workpiece). Therefore, because these conditioning disk types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a pad conditioning disk which does not comprise abrasive particles for a pad conditioning disk which does contain abrasive particles.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses a gimbal control assembly (Fig. 2 elements 50 and 33), comprising:
at least one electromagnet (Fig. 2 element 58) coupled to a conditioning head (Fig. 2 element 30, excluding element 33) of a pad conditioner (Fig. 1 element 1, where Fig. 1 shows the at least one electromagnet coupled to the conditioning head) and a gimbal flexure (Fig. 2 element 33, 0044, where the at least one electromagnet is coupled to the gimbal flexure through the conditioning head and elements 57, 17, and 20);
the gimbal flexure configured to couple to a pad conditioning disk of the pad conditioner (Fig. 2 element 40 corresponds to a pad conditioning disk and Fig. 2 shows the gimbal flexure coupled to the pad conditioning disk), the pad conditioning disk is configured to rub against a surface of a polishing pad (the pad conditioning disk is capable of (i.e. configured to) rub against and abrade (through the use of abrasive slurry) a surface of a polishing pad); and
a gimbal control feature (Fig. 2 elements 54 and 55) configured to couple to the gimbal flexure (Fig. 2, 0035 and 0033, where the gimbal control feature is coupled to the gimbal flexure through elements 51, 52, 53, and 41). Examiner notes that the gimbal control assembly being used in a “pad conditioner” and with a “conditioning head” are considered to be intended use and examiner finds that the gimbal control assembly disclosed by Hayashi can be used in a pad conditioner with a conditioning head.
Hayashi fails to disclose the pad conditioning disk comprises abrasive particles.
Yoon is also concerned with a pad used in a CMP system and teaches the pad conditioning disk (Fig. 4 element 30) comprises abrasive particles (Fig. 4 element 36, 0037). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Hayashi discloses the invention except that the pad conditioning disk does not comprise abrasive particles (it instead has an abrasive slurry applied to the abrading surface) instead of the pad conditioning disk comprising abrasive particles. Yoon shows that a pad conditioning disk comprising abrasive particles is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both disks are used for abrading a workpiece). Therefore, because these conditioning disk types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a pad conditioning disk which does not comprise abrasive particles for a pad conditioning disk which does contain abrasive particles.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the at least one electromagnet comprises a first electromagnet (Hayashi, Fig. 4 any one of elements 58) and a second electromagnet (Hayashi, Fig. 4, element 58 which is positioned opposite to the first electromagnet).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet are aligned along a first axis (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the first and second electromagnets correspond to the electromagnets shown in Fig. 2) that is parallel to a pad conditioning arm (Hayashi, Fig. 1 element 16) coupled to the conditioning head (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 1 below and Fig. 4, where the first axis is shown to be parallel to the pad conditioning arm) and configured to control a pitch of the pad conditioning disk (Hayashi, 0040, where controlling the tilt of the polishing member corresponds to controlling a pitch of the pad conditioning disk).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the first electromagnet and the second electromagnet are aligned along a second axis (Hayashi, Fig. 1, where an axis going into the page through element 30 corresponds to a second axis and where the first and second electromagnets correspond to the electromagnets opposite to those shown in Fig. 2) that is perpendicular to a pad conditioning arm (Hayashi, Fig. 1 element 16) coupled to the conditioning head (Hayashi, Fig. 1, where the second axis is perpendicular to the pad conditioning arm).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the at least one electromagnet comprises a first electromagnet, a second electromagnet, and a third electromagnet (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
567
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the first electromagnet, the second electromagnet, and the third electromagnet are separated by a first angle (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 4 above, where the first angle is an arc angle between the centers of the first and second electromagnets), a second angle (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 4 above, where the second angle is an arc angle between the centers of the second and third electromagnets), and a third angle (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 4 above, where the first angle is an arc angle between the centers of the third and first electromagnets), a sum of the first angle, second angle, and third angle equal to 360 degrees (Hayashi, the arc angles added together cover the entire circle which equals 360 degrees).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the at least one electromagnet comprises a first electromagnet, a second electromagnet, a third electromagnet, and a fourth electromagnet (Hayashi, see annotated Fig. 4’ below).
PNG
media_image3.png
567
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US20020033230), hereinafter Hayashi, in view of Oh et al. (US20220388116), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is configured to provide a distance data stream to the controller (0046 and 0038, where the structure used to determine the "position of the polishing member 40 relative to the rotating table 13" corresponds to at least one sensor configured (i.e. capable of) providing a distance data stream (i.e. distance information relating to the distance between the polishing member and polishing table) and the gimbal control assembly (50) applying “a corrective moment to the polishing member” based on the data from the sensor means that the at least one sensor is sending that data to whatever controls the gimbal control assembly, which is the controller according to paragraph 0038).
Hayashi fails to disclose that the at least one sensor is disposed on the arm.
Oh is also concerned with a pad conditioning assembly and teaches the at least one sensor (Fig. 2 element 238) is disposed on the arm (Fig. 2 element 132). It 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 to modify the pad conditioning assembly of Hayashi to have the at least one sensor be disposed on the arm, as taught by Oh, because Oh teaches that having at least one sensor disposed on the arm allows for determining “a distance Z2 between an end of the arm displacement sensor 238 to the metallic surface of the platen body 114 disposed there beneath” (0033) which can then enable “a better polishing pad thickness profile to be created which accurately accounts for recesses or non-uniformities in thickness of the polishing pad” (0036). Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the at least one sensor on the arm because the arm can remain at a fixed height during operation which allows for accurate measuring of the distance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, specifically that Hayashi fails to disclose that the pad conditioning disk comprises abrasive particles and that Hayashi fails to disclose the at least one sensor being disposed on the arm, 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.
Applicant's arguments, specifically all of the arguments other than the arguments discussed above, filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that what examiner is using to read on the pad conditioning assembly is actually a polishing head for a wafer and that “a polishing pad being prevented from over polishing the outer rim of a substrate wafer by tilting is fundamentally different from a pad conditioner (smaller than a polishing pad) conditioning a polishing pad especially where tilting of the pad conditioner is a desired outcome for effective conditioning”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (see MPEP 2114-II) and examiner finds that the apparatus disclosed by Hayashi contains all of the structural elements recited and therefore the apparatus of Hayashi anticipates the apparatus of the instant invention. Examiner further finds that examiner stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 8 that “the assembly being for “pad conditioning” and the head being a “conditioning” head are considered to be intended use and examiner finds that the assembly disclosed by Hayashi can be used for pad conditioning and the head can be used for conditioning as well” and that Applicant has not argued why this interpretation is incorrect.
Applicant argues that Hayashi fails to disclose each of the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Applicant has not provided any reasoning that examiner’s interpretation for each limitation in claims 1 and 8 are improper, and therefore examiner finds this argument unpersuasive and maintains the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishikawa et al. (US20020142703) teaches a sensor (Fig. 4 element 30) attached to an arm (Fig. 4 element 25) to measure distance (0099).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
