Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/376,356

POLISHING HEAD WITH FLEXURE EXTENDING THROUGH PRESSURE CHAMBER

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Examiner
HOLIZNA, CALEB ANDREW
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
85 granted / 127 resolved
-3.1% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+36.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
184
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
48.6%
+8.6% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 127 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner finds that Species II encompasses claims 1-3, 6-17, and 20-21, and therefore these claims are being examined for this action. Claims 4-5 and 18-19 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected species. Claim Objections Claims 1, 6-7, 15, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claims 1 and 15, the recitation of "to defining a plurality of pressurizable lower chambers" should read --which defines a plurality of pressurizable lower chambers--. Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “The carrier head of claim 1” should read --The carrier head of claim 2-- as “the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber” recited in claim 6 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1, but does have antecedent basis in claim 2. It appears that this is a clerical error and therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “The carrier head of claim 1” to be --The carrier head of claim 2--. Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner notes that under the interpretation of claim 6 described above, the recitation of “the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber” does have proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 15, the recitation of "the lower carrier body" should read "a lower carrier body" for proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 20, the recitation of “The carrier head of claim 15” should read --The carrier head of claim 16-- as “the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber” recited in claim 20 lacks antecedent basis in claim 15, but does have antecedent basis in claim 16. It appears that this is a clerical error and therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “The carrier head of claim 15” to be --The carrier head of claim 16--. Regarding claim 21, the recitation of “the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner notes that under the interpretation of claim 20 described above, the recitation of “the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber” does have proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. 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 7 and 21 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. Claims 7 and 21 recite the limitation "the support plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Also, it is unclear to examiner what the metes and bounds of "the support plate" are. Is the support plate a part of the membrane support or a separate element? For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting "the support plate" to be --the membrane support--. 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, 6-10, 12, 14-16, 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 1, 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), wherein the housing includes an upper carrier body (Fig. 4 element 102) and a lower carrier body (Fig. 4 element 104) that is vertically movable relative to the upper carrier body (6:17-19), a first flexible seal (Fig. 4 element 202) forming a first pressurizable chamber (Fig. 4 element 200) between the upper carrier body and the lower carrier body (Fig. 4); a membrane assembly (Fig. 4 elements 114, 118, and 106) arranged beneath the lower carrier body (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) to defining 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 second flexible seal (Fig. 4 element 152, 6:21-24) forming a second pressurizable chamber (Fig. 4 element 250, 8:64-66 and 6:10-13, where element 104 is part of forming the second pressurizable chamber and element 152 is a subset of element 104) between the lower carrier body and the membrane support (Fig. 4); and a flexure (Fig. 4 element 116) connecting the membrane support to the lower carrier body (Fig. 4, 5:56-60), the flexure extending through the second pressurizable chamber (Fig. 4, where the space between the bottom of the flexure and the top of the flexible membrane supported by element 222 is also a part of the second pressurizable chamber). Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses 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 339 885 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the first portion of the second pressurizable 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 second pressurizable chamber, including the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber, is circular and the second pressurizable chamber has a hole in the middle to accommodate other elements of the lower carrier body and therefore the second pressurizable chamber is annular) surrounding a downward projection of the lower carrier body (Fig. 4 and see annotated Fig. 6 above, where element 154 corresponds to a downward projection of the lower carrier body). Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further discloses the second portion of the second pressurizable 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 second pressurizable chamber is disk-shaped (i.e. generally in the shape of a disk) and extends across substantially all of the membrane support). Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the flexure is arranged horizontally between the lower carrier body and the membrane support (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the flexure is arranged between an annular upper portion of the membrane support (Fig. 4 element 240, 8:40-41) and a downward projection of the lower carrier body (Fig. 4 element 140, where element 140 is a subset of the lower carrier body which projects in the downward direction and is therefore considered a downward projection of the lower carrier body). Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the membrane support comprises a plate (Fig. 4 element 166) horizontally spanning above the plurality of pressurizable lower chambers (Fig. 4, where the plate defines the top of the plurality of pressurizable lower chambers and is therefore above the plurality of pressurizable lower chambers). Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a retaining ring (Fig. 4 element 110) connected to the lower carrier body (Fig. 4, 6:25-26), wherein wear on the retaining ring causes a distance between the membrane support and the lower carrier body to decrease (Fig. 4, where when the retaining ring wears, a vertical distance between the membrane support and the lower carrier body will decrease). Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the flexure is sufficiently stiff to vertically center the membrane assembly within the housing (Fig. 4, 5:56-64, where the membrane assembly, specifically the membrane support, being "suspended beneath" the housing means that the flexure is sufficiently stiff to vertically center the membrane assembly within the housing). 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 lower carrier body (Fig. 4 element 104), 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) to defining 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, 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, where the space between the bottom of the flexure and the top of the flexible membrane supported by element 222 is also a part of the pressurizable upper chamber). Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further discloses a first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber above the flexure is fluidically connected to a second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber below the flexure (see annotated Fig. 6 above, 8:64-66, where second pressurizable chamber corresponds to the pressurizable upper chamber and the pressurizable upper 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 pressurizable upper chamber are within that space and therefore the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber above the flexure is fluidically connected to the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber below the flexure). Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 16, 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) surrounding a downward projection of the lower carrier body (Fig. 4 and see annotated Fig. 6 above, where element 154 corresponds to a downward projection of the lower carrier body). 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). 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 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US6080050), hereinafter Chen, in view of Vintila et al. (US20240213060), hereinafter Vintila. Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the flexure includes a plurality of apertures fluidically connecting the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber to the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber. Vintila is also concerned with solving the problem of allowing relative motion between two objects while keeping the two objects connected and teaches the flexure (Fig. 3 element 115) includes a plurality of apertures (see annotated Fig. 3 below). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Chen discloses the invention except that the flexure is solid instead of the flexure having a plurality of apertures. Vintila shows that a flexure having a plurality of apertures is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both flexures provide relative movement between two objects while keeping the two objects connected). Therefore, because these two flexure 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 flexure having a plurality of apertures for a solid flexure. Chen as modified then yields the flexure includes a plurality of apertures (Vintila, see annotated Fig. 3 below) fluidically connecting the first portion of the second pressurizable chamber to the second portion of the second pressurizable chamber (Chen, see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the plurality of apertures in the flexure further fluidically connects the first and second portions of the second pressurizable chamber). PNG media_image2.png 455 782 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, but fails to disclose 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 is also concerned with solving the problem of allowing relative motion between two objects while keeping the two objects connected and teaches the flexure (Fig. 3 element 115) includes a plurality of apertures (see annotated Fig. 3 below). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Chen discloses the invention except that the flexure is solid instead of the flexure having a plurality of apertures. Vintila shows that a flexure having a plurality of apertures is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both flexures provide relative movement between two objects while keeping the two objects connected). Therefore, because these two flexure 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 flexure having a plurality of apertures for a solid flexure. Chen as modified then yields the flexure includes a plurality of apertures (Vintila, see annotated Fig. 3 above) fluidically connecting the first portion of the pressurizable upper chamber to the second portion of the pressurizable upper chamber (Chen, see annotated Fig. 6 above, where the plurality of apertures in the flexure further fluidically connects the first and second portions of the second pressurizable chamber). Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US6080050), hereinafter Chen. Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses that the plate has a Shore A hardness (i.e. rigidity) of 40 durometer (6:66-7:6). Chen fails to disclose that the plate is more rigid than the flexible membrane. Chen discloses that the flexible membrane is made of an “elastic material, such as chloroprene or ethylene propolyne rubber” (8:50-53) which would possess a rigidity, but is silent to the specific rigidity. In other words, Chen fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values that the rigidity of the flexible membrane is to possess/range between is less than a Shore A hardness value of 40 durometer (i.e. that the rigidity of the plate is higher than the rigidity of the flexible membrane). The rigidity of the flexible membrane is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the flexibility, sealing ability, and durability of the flexible membrane is directly proportional to the rigidity of the flexible membrane. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the flexible membrane has a rigidity, was disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flexible membrane disclosed by Chen to have a Shore A value (i.e. rigidity) less than 40 durometer. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US6080050), hereinafter Chen, in view of Zuniga et al. (20210053178), hereinafter Zuniga. Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the flexure is sufficiently stiff to horizontally center the membrane assembly within the housing. Zuniga is also concerned with a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing and teaches the flexure (Fig. 1B element 900) is sufficiently stiff to horizontally center the membrane assembly within the housing (0026). 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 carrier head of Chen to make the flexure be sufficiently stiff to horizontally center the membrane assembly within the housing, as taught by Zuniga, because having the horizontal position of the membrane assembly stay constant allows for improved uniform polishing of the substrate as the polisher will not accidentally missing a portion of the substrate due to the substrate being off-center with the housing. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599280
CLEANING ROLLER FOR CLEANING ROBOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583079
WAFER POLISHING METHOD AND WAFER POLISHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569620
TOOL FOR SERVICING AN AUTO-INJECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12558756
PROFILE CONTROL DURING POLISHING OF A STACK OF ADJACENT CONDUCTIVE LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12528155
ELECTRIC TOOL GRINDING MACHINE WITH STATIC ELECTRICITY DISSIPATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 127 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month