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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 15 Ln 1-2 states the limitation: “the polishing head transferring member comprises a conveyor line”. The conveyor line is not depicted and is required for complete understanding of the limitation.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 as follows:
Claim 9 Ln 2 states the claim limitation “a conditioner”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “configured to polish” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The term is not used in the specification. Instead, what is used is the term “conditioning unit 2” [0040]. The applicant’s specification disclosure, hereinafter SPEC, does not provide a description of the term. See 112(a) section below.
Claim 9 Ln 3 states the claim limitation “slurry supplier”, a term used as a substitute for “means,” that is modified by the functional language “configured to supply slurry” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The term is not used in the specification. Instead, what is used is the term “slurry supply unit 4” [0040]. The applicant’s specification disclosure, hereinafter SPEC, does not provide a description of the term. See 112(a) section below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 Ln 3, please amend to --than [[a]] the radius--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 Ln 2 states the limitation "conditioner”. The SPEC in a plurality of locations (such as [0040]), merely recite the term “conditioner” without providing any definition of what the term means. This term is indefinite as literally anything that may perform the following: “The conditioning unit 2 may be configured to polish a portion of the polishing pad … may selectively contact the top surface of the polishing pad … may come in contact with the top surface of the polishing pad … may polish the polishing pad 11 and/or 31 to improve the state of the polishing pad … may be rotatable independently of the polishing part … may be movable in a horizontal direction on the polishing pad …may rise in the upward direction from a place where a bottom surface of the conditioning unit 2 is in contact with the polishing pad 11 and/or 31” [0049] reads on the limitation. It is therefore unclear what the inventor was intending by the term and precludes finding the best applicable art. At least Fig. 2 depicts “conditioner” as reference numbers (2) in what appears to be a cylinder. This depiction does not further disclose structure capable of the above functions. Furthermore, the figure does not convey any information about the ‘means’ other than its location relative to other components of the polishing apparatus. Because the specification fails to provide guidance as to what the corresponding structure for the “conditioner” is, it would cover all means of connecting. Therefore, the specification fails to provide evidence of possession of any or even one “conditioner”.
Claim 9 Ln 3 states the limitation " slurry supplier”. The SPEC in a plurality of locations (such as [0040]), merely recite the term “slurry supplier” without providing any definition of what the term means. This term is indefinite as literally anything that may perform the following: “The slurry supply unit 4 may be configured to supply slurry to the polishing pad 11 and/or 31. For example, the slurry supply unit 4 may supply the slurry to the top surface of the polishing pad 11 and/or 31 to smoothly perform the process of polishing the substrate W. The slurry supply unit 4 may be spaced apart from the polishing pad 11 and/or 31 in a vertical direction. The slurry supply unit 4 may be located between the conditioning unit 2 and the polishing head 5” [0050] reads on the limitation. It is therefore unclear what the inventor was intending by the term and precludes finding the best applicable art. At least Fig. 2 depicts “slurry supplier” as reference numbers (4) in what appears to be a cylinder. This depiction does not further disclose structure capable of the above functions. Furthermore, the figure does not convey any information about the ‘means’ other than its location relative to other components of the polishing apparatus. Because the specification fails to provide guidance as to what the corresponding structure for the “slurry supplier” is, it would cover all means of connecting. Therefore, the specification fails to provide evidence of possession of any or even one “slurry supplier”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 3 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 Ln 2 states the limitation "ranges from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius”. The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed, in light of the specification. However, in this case, reciting " about" is invalid for indefiniteness as there is close prior art and there is nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about." Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
Claim 9 Ln 2 states the limitation “conditioner”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above regarding the 112(a) rejection of this limitation, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 9 Ln 3 states the limitation “slurry supplier”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated above regarding the 112(a) rejection of this limitation, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
-(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OH; Jeonghoon et al. US 20220297258 A1, hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing pad (50a) configured to polish a substrate (40);
a first polishing head (100a) on the first polishing pad and configured to support the substrate [0023]; and
a second polishing pad (50b) spaced apart from the first polishing pad in a horizontal direction [0021],
wherein a radius of the second polishing pad is less than a radius of the first polishing pad (as depicted, the radius of (50b) is less than the radius of (50a), [0021]).
Regarding claim 2, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a radius of the first polishing head (100a) is less than the radius of the first polishing pad (100a, as depicted, (100a) has a lesser radius than (50a)).
Regarding claim 5, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising: a second polishing head (100b) located on the second polishing pad (50b); and a polishing head transferring member (90) connected to the first polishing head and the second polishing head [0023].
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) the polishing head transferring member (90) comprises: a rotary motor (1002) configured to rotate the first polishing head (100a) and the second polishing head (100b) in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction [0025].
Regarding claim 8, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising: a retainer ring (110) in contact with a bottom surface of the first polishing head, the retainer ring configured to support the substrate [0025].
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising: a conditioner (60) configured to polish the first polishing pad [0021]; and a slurry supplier configured to supply slurry (9) onto the first polishing pad [0029] (fundamentally, a device or object is used to supply the stated slurry to the pad).
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) further comprising: a carrier (10) configured to transfer the substrate into the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus [0019], wherein the carrier comprises:
a carrier holder (38) configured to support the substrate; and
a carrier rotating member configured to rotate the carrier holder (the depicted cylindrical object adjacent (38)).
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing pad (50a) configured to polish a substrate (40);
a first polishing head (100a) provided on the first polishing pad [0023];
a second polishing pad (50b) spaced apart from the first polishing pad;
a second polishing head (100b) provided on the second polishing pad;
a polishing head transferring member (90) connected to the first polishing head and the second polishing head [0025]; and
a carrier (10) configured to transfer the substrate onto the first polishing head or the second polishing head [0019].
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) the polishing head transferring member (90) comprises: a rotary motor 1002) to rotate about a central axis of the polishing head transferring member [0025].
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a radius of the second polishing pad (50b) is less than a radius of the first polishing pad ((50a), as depicted, the radius of (50b) is less than the radius of (50a), [0021]).
Regarding claim 18, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a method of polishing a substrate in a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus including a first polishing pad (50a) and a second polishing pad (50b), the method comprising:
performing a first polishing process on a substrate on the second polishing pad (240) [0057];
moving the substrate to the first polishing pad (250) [0057]; and
performing a second polishing process on the substrate on the first polishing pad (255) [0057].
Regarding claim 19, Oh discloses (Fig. 2) a radius of the first polishing pad (50a) is greater than a radius of the second polishing pad ((50b), as depicted, the radius of (50b) is less than the radius of (50a), [0021]).
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 of this title, 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 3-4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh.
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the radius of the second polishing pad (50b) ranges from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius of the first polishing head (100a).
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the radius of the second polishing pad ranging from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius of the first polishing head solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed radius ratio of Oh would perform equally well with the radius of the second polishing pad ranging from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius of the first polishing head as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify the undisclosed radius ratio of Oh by utilizing the radius of the second polishing pad ranges from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius of the first polishing head as claimed for the purpose of supporting and polishing substrates.
Regarding claim 4, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the radius of the second polishing pad (50b) is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head (100a), and wherein the radius of the first polishing head is less than a sum of the radius of the second polishing pad and a horizontal distance between a center of the first polishing head and a center of the second polishing pad.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the radius of the second polishing pad (50b) is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head (100a), and wherein the radius of the first polishing head is less than a sum of the radius of the second polishing pad and a horizontal distance between a center of the first polishing head and a center of the second polishing pad solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed radii and distance ratios of Oh would perform equally well with the radius of the second polishing pad (50b) is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head (100a), and wherein the radius of the first polishing head is less than a sum of the radius of the second polishing pad and a horizontal distance between a center of the first polishing head and a center of the second polishing pad as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify the undisclosed radii and distance ratios of Oh by utilizing the radius of the second polishing pad (50b) is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head (100a), and wherein the radius of the first polishing head is less than a sum of the radius of the second polishing pad and a horizontal distance between a center of the first polishing head and a center of the second polishing pad as claimed for the purpose of supporting and polishing substrates.
Regarding claim 20, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 18. Oh further discloses (Fig. 2) the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus further includes a first polishing head (100a) located on the first polishing pad [0023].
Oh fails to explicitly state that a radius of the first polishing head is less than a radius of the first polishing pad.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having a radius of the first polishing head is less than a radius of the first polishing pad solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and
it appears that the undisclosed radius ratio of Oh would perform equally well with the radius of the first polishing head is less than a radius of the first polishing pad as claimed by applicant,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further modify the undisclosed radius ratio of Oh by utilizing a radius of the first polishing head is less than a radius of the first polishing pad as claimed for the purpose of supporting and polishing substrates.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of KATO; Yuichi et al. US 20230191553 A1, hereinafter Kato. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (chemical mechanical polishing apparatus); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (holding a substrate on a polishing head). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 7, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the first polishing head (100a) comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate (40). Instead, [0023] generically states that the head “receives and holds a substrate”.
Kato discloses (Fig. 1-3) a first polishing head (7) on a first polishing pad (2) and configured to support a substrate (W); wherein
the first polishing head comprises: a vacuum tube (F1) configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate for the purpose of holding the substrate [0061].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (vacuum tube) for another (generic holding mechanism), and the results of the substitution (holding the substrate against the polishing head) would have been predictable. Because both Oh and Kato teach means of holding substrates against polishing heads, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the vacuum tube mechanism for the generic mechanism to achieve the predictable result of holding the substrate against the polishing head.
Claims 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Jeong; In Kwon US 20060105680 A1, hereinafter Jeong. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (chemical mechanical polishing apparatus); or the references is/are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (transferring a substrate). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the carrier holder comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate. Instead, Oh merely generically states that the carrier holder holds the substrate.
Jeong discloses (Fig. 10) a carrier (108) configured to transfer the substrate into the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus [0053],
wherein the carrier comprises:
a carrier holder (1002, 1004) configured to support the substrate [0061]; and
a carrier rotating member (122) configured to rotate the carrier holder [0054]; wherein
the carrier holder comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Oh, by providing a carrier holder vacuum tube, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder.
Regarding claim 12, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the carrier holder includes two or more carrier holders. It is not clear how many holders Oh depicts. It has at least one, but possibly two holders that are not described in the specification.
Jeong discloses (Fig. 10) a carrier (108) configured to transfer the substrate into the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus [0053],
wherein the carrier comprises:
a carrier holder (1002, 1004) configured to support the substrate [0061]; and
a carrier rotating member (122) configured to rotate the carrier holder [0054]; wherein
the carrier holder includes two or more carrier holders (1002, 1004) for the purpose of simultaneously loading and unloading the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus [0061-0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Oh, by providing the carrier holder as two or more carrier holders, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of simultaneously loading and unloading the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 13 except fails to explicitly state that the carrier comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate. Instead, Oh merely generically states that the carrier holder holds the substrate.
Jeong discloses (Fig. 10) a carrier (108) configured to transfer the substrate into the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus [0053],
wherein the carrier comprises:
a carrier holder (1002, 1004) configured to support the substrate [0061]; and
a carrier rotating member (122) configured to rotate the carrier holder [0054]; wherein
the carrier comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Oh, by providing a carrier holder vacuum tube, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the drawing objection, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 15, Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 13 except fails to explicitly state that the polishing head transferring member comprises a conveyor line.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the polishing head transferring member comprises a conveyor line. Although Oh discloses a transferring member, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Oh to incorporate the details of the conveyor line, along with the other claimed components of the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
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.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20070099550 A1, US 20140024299 A1 discloses a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus.
US 20070167117 A1 discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus further comprising detailed slurry and conditioning apparatuses.
US 20170207108 A1 discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with a conveyor line.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745