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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
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 15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US6080050), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4 element 100) for attachment to a drive shaft (Fig. 3 element 74, 4:63-67),
a membrane assembly (Fig. 4 elements 114, 118, and 106) arranged beneath the housing (Fig. 4), the membrane assembly including a membrane support (Fig. 4 element 114) and a flexible membrane (Fig. 4 element 118) secured to the membrane support (Fig. 4, 5:56-60) which defines a plurality of pressurizable lower chambers (Fig. 6 elements 194, 6:46-55, where both the membrane support and the flexible membrane are used in conjunction with element 106 to define the plurality of pressurizable lower chambers), the flexible membrane having a lower surface that provides a substrate mounting surface (Fig. 6 element 108, 9:9-11, where element 108 corresponds to both a lower surface of the flexible membrane and a substrate mounting surface); and
a flexible seal (Fig. 4 element 152, 6:21-24) forming a pressurizable upper chamber (Fig. 4 element 250 and the additional portion show in annotated Fig. 4 below, 8:64-66 and 6:10-13, where element 104 is part of forming the pressurizable upper chamber and element 152 is a subset of element 104) between the housing and the membrane support (Fig. 4); and
a flexure (Fig. 4 element 116) connecting the membrane support to the housing (Fig. 4, 5:56-60), the flexure extending through the pressurizable upper chamber (Fig. 4 and see annotated Fig. 4 below),
wherein a first portion of the second pressurizable chamber above the flexure is fluidically connected to a second portion of the second pressurizable chamber below the flexure (see annotated Fig. 6 below, 8:64-66, where the second pressurizable chamber being defined by the space between elements 118, 114, 116, and 104 means that there is fluidic connection in that space and both the first and second portions of the second pressurizable chamber are within that space and therefore the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber above the flexure is fluidically connected to the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber below the flexure)
PNG
media_image1.png
371
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
339
885
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber is an annular chamber (see annotated Fig. 6 above and Figs. 3-6, where the carrier head is shown to be cylindrical in shape and therefore the pressurizable upper chamber, including the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber, is circular and the pressurizable upper chamber has a hole in the middle to accommodate other elements of the housing and therefore the pressurizable upper chamber is annular).
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 20, as described above, and further discloses the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber is a disk-shaped chamber extending across substantially all of the membrane support (Fig. 4 and see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber is disk-shaped (i.e. generally in the shape of a disk) and extends across substantially all of the membrane support).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, and 6-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the closest art of record, Chen et al. (US6080050), fails to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features: “the flexure…dividing the second pressurizable chamber into first and second portions, wherein the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber above the flexure is fluidically connected to the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber below the flexure”. Examiner finds that the flexure being the structure which is responsible for the “dividing” of the first and second portions means that the first and second portions cannot have an arbitrary boundary between them, as the flexure acts as the boundary. Under this interpretation, examiner finds that the first portion would need to be interpreted as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below, and that under this interpretation, Chen fails to disclose that the first and second portions are “fluidically connected”.
Claims 3 and 6-14 are allowed as being dependent on an allowed claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
371
551
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 17 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 17, the closest arts of record, Chen et al. (US6080050) and Vintila et al. (US20240213060), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features: “the flexure includes a plurality of apertures fluidically connecting the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber to the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber”. Vintila was previously relied upon to teach this limitation into Chen. Examiner finds that Chen already teaches that the first and second portions of the pressurizable upper chamber are fluidically connected (see annotated Fig. 6 above) and therefore, examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the flexure of Chen to have a plurality of apertures, as taught by Vintila, because the flexure of Chen is used to create a pressurizable chamber, which allows the flexure to move up and down due to the pressure differential, and by placing a plurality of holes in the flexure this pressure differential would no longer exist which would render the flexure of Chen inoperable for its intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (US6080050), hereinafter Chen. Examiner notes that the new rejection clarifies that the combination of element 250 and the additional portion shown in annotated Fig. 4 above is used to read on the claimed pressurizable upper chamber. Below are a list of arguments made by Applicant to other limitations which examiner does not find persuasive:
Applicant argues that Chen fails to disclose “the flexure extending through the pressurizable upper chamber” because if the second portion shown in annotated Fig. 4’ above was ever in fluid communication with the first portion shown in annotated Fig. 4’ above, then the air would leak to the outside atmosphere because one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined, even though “Fig. 4 illustrates the flexible membrane contacting the retaining ring”, that “the region indicated by the Office is instead vented to the atmosphere to enable the formation of a pressure difference across the flexure”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that the only thing shown in the drawings of Chen is that the flexible membrane contacts the retaining ring, which would produce a seal and thus allow, when the flexure is not installed, for the second portion shown in annotated Fig. 4’ above to be pressurized as well. Examiner notes that a chamber is a broad term and does not exclude sub-chambers from existing within the overall chamber and that both parts of the chamber shown in annotated Fig. 4’ above are sub-chambers of the overall upper pressurizable chamber. Therefore, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen fails to disclose ‘a flexure…dividing the second pressurizable chamber into first and second portions,’ because the flexure itself does not divide the two portions shown in annotated Fig. 6 above. Examiner finds that this argument is specifically drawn to claim 1, and that claim 15 does not require that the flexure itself is “dividing” the upper pressurizable chamber into first and second portions. Therefore, examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights