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Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/22/2026.
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application filed on 01/22/2026. Claims 9-24 are currently pending. Claims 1-8 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 21-24 are newly presented. Claims 9-15 and 21-24 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2024 and 10/22/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "84” in figure 6 has been used to designate both the channels and outer diameter surface. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, lines 1-2 “the first linear portion and the second linear portion” should be “the first linear section and the second linear section”
In claim 24, line 2 “a radial segment an angle of 20-45°” should be “[[a]] the radial segment at an angle of 20-45°”
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 21-23 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 21 recites the limitation "a third linear section of a leading edge" and "a fourth linear section of a trailing edge" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to multiple/different leading and trailing edges or if the applicant is referring back to the leading edge and trailing edge as introduced in claim 9, lines 7-8, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret a single leading edge further having a third linear section and a single trailing edge further having a fourth linear section.
Claims 22-23 depends on claim 21 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prabhu (US Pub. No. 2009/0021024).
Regarding claim 9, Prabhu discloses: a retaining ring (Figures 1 and 10 element 101 and see also paragraphs 0019 and 0034) for a carrier head of a chemical mechanical polishing system (see paragraph 0019), the retaining ring comprising:
an annular body (elements 105/110) having an inner diameter surface (element 112), an outer diameter surface (see figure 10 annotated below Detail A), an upper surface configured for attachment to the carrier head (see paragraph 0025 where the prior art disclose element 110 (portions of annular body) having “an upper surface (not shown)” includes “holes with screw sheaths to receive fasteners, such as bolts, screws, or other hardware, for securing the retaining ring 101 to the carrier head”), and a lower surface (element 107) to contact a polishing pad (see paragraph 0020), wherein the lower surface has a plurality of channels (element 125 and see also paragraph 0021) extending from the inner diameter surface to the outer diameter surface (see figure 10 annotated below), wherein each channel of the plurality of channels include a portion adjacent the outer diameter surface having a first linear section of a leading edge (see figure 10 annotated below Detail B showing a portion of the a first linear section of a leading edge (Detail B) being adjacent to the outer diameter surface (Detail A)) of the channel and a second linear section of a trailing edge (see figure 10 annotated below Detail C showing a portion of the a second linear section of a trailing edge (Detail C) being adjacent to the outer diameter surface (Detail A)) of the channel that is angled relative to the first linear section such that the portion of the channel therebetween narrows from inside to outside (see figure 10 annotated below showing a portion (box) of the second linear section of the trailing edge (Detail C) being angled relative to a portion (straight line portion below the box) of the first linear section (Detail B) such that the portion (box) of the channel therebetween narrows from inside to outside (see box section showing the channel gradually narrowing from an inside portion to an outside portion of both linear sections that form the channel), and wherein the plurality of channels are flared at the inner diameter surface of the retaining ring to widen from outside in more rapidly than the portion of the channel (see paragraph 0034 and see also figure 10 annotated below showing the portion of the channel (above the box) being flared at the inner dimeter surface (element 112), thus widens from outside in more rapidly than the portion of the channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
1228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 11-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhu (US Pub. No. 2009/0021024).
Regarding claim 11, Prabhu discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further discloses alternate embodiments (Figures 6-7), but appears to be silent wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25°.
Prabhu teaches an alternate embodiment retaining ring (Figure 6 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a plurality of channels (element 125) having a first linear portion (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) and second linear portion (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B). Prabhu further teaches wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25° (see paragraph 0031 where the prior art discloses the grooves (element 125 which comprise the first and second linear portions (Detail A/B)) are “angled of between 15° and 60°”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 15° and would therefore be within the claimed angle range of 5-25°).
PNG
media_image2.png
713
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prabhu with alternate embodiment of Prabhu in order to provide wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25°. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having angled linear portions of the plurality of channels would necessarily provide the predictable result of continuing to allow slurry to flow under the retaining ring during polishing. Lastly, applicant has placed no critically on the claimed angle range or provides any unexpected result, simply stating that the liner portions “can” form an angle of 5-25° and additional offers that the linear portions can be “parallel” (see page 13, ll. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Prabhu discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further shows in figure 10 that the channel (element 125) comprises a width/length that occupies a surface area of the bottom surface (element 107). However, Prabhu appears to be silent wherein the plurality of channels occupy at least half of the surface area of the bottom surface.
However, would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prabhu’s width of the channels in order to provide wherein the plurality of channels occupy at least half of the surface area of the bottom surface, since such modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the channels occupy at least half the surface area would necessarily increase the flow of slurry to and from the substrate while also allowing the slurry to treat additional surface areas of the substrate due to increase of surface area of the plurality of channels.
Regarding claim 13, Prabhu modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 12, wherein the plurality of channels occupy 50-75% of the surface area of the bottom surface (see rejection of claim 12 above wherein the plurality of channels occupy at least half (i.e. 50%) of the surface area of the bottom surface, thus being within the claimed range percentage.).
Regarding claim 14, Prabhu discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further discloses alternate embodiments (Figures 6-7), but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring.
Prabhu teaches an alternate embodiment retaining ring (Figure 6 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a plurality of channels (element 125) and wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring (see figure 6 showing portions of the plurality of channels (element 125) substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prabhu with alternate embodiment of Prabhu in order to provide wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a channels distributed at a desired manner including at substantially equal intervals would necessarily provide the predictable result of continuing to allow slurry to flow under the retaining ring during polishing. Lastly, applicant has placed no critically on the plurality of channels being spaced at substantially equal intervals provides any unexpected result, simply stating that the channels “can be” distributed at substantially equal angular intervals around the center (see page 11, ll. 28-29).
Regarding claim 15, Prabhu discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further discloses alternate embodiments (Figures 6-7), but appears to be silent wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment that extends from a center of the retaining ring to the respective channel.
Prabhu teaches an alternate embodiment retaining ring (Figure 6 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a plurality of channels (element 125) and wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) that extends from a center (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B) of the retaining ring to the respective channel (see figure 6 annotated below showing portions of the plurality of channels (sidewalls relative to the dotted line passing through the channel) being canted relative to the radial segment (Detail A) that extends from the center (Detail B) of the retaining ring).
PNG
media_image3.png
746
926
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Prabhu with alternate embodiment of Prabhu in order to provide wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment that extends from a center of the retaining ring to the respective channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a channels distributed at a desired manner including being canted relative to a radial segment would necessarily provide the predictable result of continuing to allow slurry to flow under the retaining ring during polishing. Lastly, applicant has placed no critically on the plurality of channels being canted relative to the radial segment provides any unexpected result, simply stating that the channels “can be” canted relative to the radial segment (see page 12, ll. 28-29).
Regarding claim 24, Prabhu modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 9 and 15, but appears to be silent wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment an angle of 20-45°.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first angle would result in a difference in function of the Prabhu modified retaining ring. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle of Prabhu modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating that “can be” canted at an oblique angle, e.g. 20-45°, relative to the radial segment (see page 12, ll. 14-17) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle to be of 20-45° as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 9-10, 12-15, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohama (US Pub. No. 2006/0105678), as evidence by Reedy (US Pub. No. 2016/0346897).
Regarding claim 9, Kohama discloses: a retaining ring (Figures 2 and 6 element 56 and see also paragraphs 0096/0104) for a carrier head (element 24) of a chemical mechanical polishing system (element 20), the retaining ring comprising:
an annular body (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A) having an inner diameter surface (element 72), an outer diameter surface (element 70), an upper surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail B) configured for attachment to the carrier head (see figure 2 annotated below), and a lower surface (see figure 2 annotated below Detail C) to contact a polishing pad (element 52), wherein the lower surface has a plurality of channels (element 74 and see also paragraph 0102) extending from the inner diameter surface to the outer diameter surface (see figure 6), wherein each channel of the plurality of channels include a portion adjacent the outer diameter surface having a first linear section (see figure 6 annotated below Detail D) of a leading edge (see figure 6 annotated below Detail E) of the channel and a second linear section (see figure 6 annotated below Detail F) of a trailing edge (see figure 6 annotated below Detail G) of the channel that is angled relative to the first linear section such that the portion of the channel therebetween narrows from inside to outside (see paragraph 0104 where the prior art discloses element 78 (inner circumferential openings) is “greater” than element 76 (outer circumferential openings), see also figure 6 annotated below showing the second linear section (Detail F) of the trailing edge (Detail G) being angled relative to the first linear section (Detail D) such that the portion of the channel (element 74) therebetween narrows from inside to outside).
PNG
media_image4.png
872
908
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
912
728
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Kohama appears to be silent wherein the plurality of channels are flared at the inner diameter surface of the retaining ring to widen from outside in more rapidly than the portion of the channel.
However, it is known in the art, as evidence by Reedy, that retaining rings (Figure 5 element 100 and see also paragraph 0038) comprises an annular body (outer surface of element 100) having an inner diameter surface (element 130), a plurality of channels (element 122), and wherein the plurality of channels can be flared at the inner diameter surface of the retaining ring (see paragraph 0041).
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that establishes that providing a flare at the inner diameter surface of the retaining ring would result in a difference in function of the Prabhu modified’s retaining ring. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle of Prabhu modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed flared portion at the inner diameter surface Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating that the channels “can be” flared at the inner diameter surface (see page 12, ll. 12-13) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the flared such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wherein the plurality of channels are flared at the inner diameter surface of the retaining ring to widen from outside in more rapidly than the portion of the channel as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 9, wherein the plurality of channels are not flared at the outer diameter surface of the retaining ring (see figure 6 annotated above (page 15) showing the portions of the channel (wall surfaces heading towards element 76) not flared at the outer diameter surface (element 70)) .
Regarding claim 12, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 9, wherein the plurality of channels occupy at least half of the surface area of the bottom surface (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 13, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 12, wherein the plurality of channels occupy 50-75% of the surface area of the bottom surface (see rejection of claim 12 above wherein the plurality of channels occupy at least half (i.e. 50%) of the surface area of the bottom surface, thus being within the claimed range percentage of 50-75%.).
Regarding claim 14, Kohama modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further discloses alternate embodiments (Figures 3-5), but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring.
Kohama teaches an alternate embodiment retaining ring (Figure 5 element 56 and see also paragraph 0104) comprising a plurality of channels (element 74) and wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring (see paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kohama with alternate embodiment of Kohama in order to provide wherein the plurality of channels are spaced at substantially equal intervals around a circumference of the retaining ring. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a channels distributed at a desired manner including at substantially equal intervals would necessarily provide the predictable result of continuing to allow slurry to flow under the retaining ring during polishing. Lastly, applicant has placed no critically on the plurality of channels being spaced at substantially equal intervals provides any unexpected result, simply stating that the channels “can be” distributed at substantially equal angular intervals around the center (see page 11, ll. 28-29).
Regarding claim 15, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 9, wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment that extends from a center of the retaining ring to the respective channel (see figure 6 annotated below showing portions of the plurality of channels (sidewall relative to the dotted line passing through the channel) being canted relative to the radial segment (Detail A) that extends from the center (Detail B) of the retaining ring).
PNG
media_image6.png
902
1105
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 9, wherein each channel of the plurality of channels include a second portion adjacent the inner diameter surface having a third linear section (see figure 6 annotated below Detail H) of a leading edge (see figure 6 annotated below Detail E) of the channel and a fourth linear section (see figure 6 annotated below Detail I) of a trailing edge (see figure 6 annotated below Detail G) of the channel that is angled relative to the first linear section such that the portion of the channel therebetween narrows from inside to outside (see paragraph 0104 where the prior art discloses element 78 (inner circumferential openings) is “greater” than element 76 (outer circumferential openings), see also figure 6 annotated below showing the fourth linear section (Detail I) of the trailing edge (Detail G) being angled relative to the first linear section (Detail D) such that the portion of the channel (element 74) therebetween narrows from inside to outside).
PNG
media_image7.png
912
786
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Kohama modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 9 and 21, but appears to be silent wherein a first angle between the first linear section and the third linear section is greater than a second angle between the second linear section and the fourth linear section.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first angle being greater than the second angle would result in a difference in function of the Kohama modified retaining ring. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle being greater than the second angle of Kohama modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, and therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first angle to be greater than the second angle as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 23, Kohama modified discloses: the retaining ring of claim 21, wherein the leading edge consists of the first linear section and the third linear section (see figure 6 annotated above on page 20) and the trailing edge consists of the second linear section and the fourth linear section (see figure 6 annotated above on page 20).
Regarding claim 24, Kohama modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 9 and 15, but appears to be silent wherein each respective channel of the plurality of channels is canted relative to a radial segment an angle of 20-45°.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first angle would result in a difference in function of the Kohama modified retaining ring. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle of Kohama modified, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angle. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating that “can be” canted at an oblique angle, e.g. 20-45°, relative to the radial segment (see page 12, ll. 14-17) and therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle to be of 20-45° as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohama (US Pub. No. 2006/0105678), as evidence by Reedy (US Pub. No. 2016/0346897) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Prabhu (US Pub. No. 2009/0021024).
Regarding claim 11, Kohama modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 9 and further disclose the a first linear section (see figure 6 annotated above Detail D on page 14) and a second linear section (see figure 6 annotated above Detail F on page 14) being angled. However, Kohama modified appears to be silent wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25°.
Prabhu teaches it was known in the art to have a retaining ring (Figure 6 and see also paragraph 0031) comprising a plurality of channels (element 125) having a first linear portion (see figure 6 annotated below Detail A) and second linear portion (see figure 6 annotated below Detail B). Prabhu further teaches wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25° (see paragraph 0031 where the prior art discloses the grooves (element 125 which comprise the first and second linear portions (Detail A/B)) are “angled of between 15° and 60°”, thus for illustrative purposes the examiner takes the value of 15° and would therefore be within the claimed angle range of 5-25°).
PNG
media_image2.png
713
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kohama with the teachings of Prabhu in order to provide wherein the first linear portion and the second linear portion form an angle of 5-25°. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having angled linear portions of the plurality of channels would necessarily provide the predictable result of continuing to allow slurry to flow under the retaining ring during polishing. Lastly, applicant has placed no critically on the claimed angle range or provides any unexpected result, simply stating that the liner portions “can” form an angle of 5-25° and additional offers that the linear portions can be “parallel” (see page 13, ll. 2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736