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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every drawing objection, claim objection and 112(a) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/06/2026, hereinafter NFOA.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, in response to the argument that [0052] states language similar to the claim and therefore provides definiteness to the term “about”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant cited [0052] as proof that one of ordinary skill in the art. However, in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(b), [0052] fails to alleviate the rejection as [0052] does not provide some standard for measuring the term about. The applicant has also not provided examples whereby the meaning of the term of about can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. Therefore, the rejection has not been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OH; Jeonghoon et al. US 20220297258 A1, hereinafter Oh 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Shendon; Norm et al. US 6136715 A, hereinafter Shendon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 is 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." In accordance with MPEP 2173.05(b), [0052] fails provide some standard for measuring that about. The applicant has also not provided examples whereby the meaning of the term of about can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate.
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 1-3, 5-10, 13-14, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shendon; Norm et al. US 6136715 A, hereinafter Shendon.
Regarding claim 1, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing pad (202) configured to polish a substrate (10);
a first polishing head (602) on the first polishing pad and configured to support the substrate (Col 4 Ln 20-22); and
a second polishing pad (302) spaced apart from the first polishing pad in a horizontal direction (depicted as horizontally displaced in Fig. 1), the second polishing pad having a one-to-one relationship with a second polishing head (602’) provided thereon (Col 4 Ln 20-22),
wherein a radius of the second polishing pad is less than a radius of the first polishing pad (Col 5 Ln 27-28, 52-55).
Regarding claim 2, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a radius of the first polishing head (602) is less than the radius of the first polishing pad (202, depicted as such in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) the radius of the second polishing pad (302) ranges from about 0.6 times to about 1.4 times a radius of the first polishing head (602; as depicted in Fig. 8A, the substrate (10) is depicted as approximately the radius of the polishing head(s) (602), Col 5 Ln 52-55 states the “pad 304 is preferably sized to be approximately one and one quarter to two times the diameter of the substrate 10”, this results in (302) being 1.00-1.25 the radius of (602), within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) further comprising: the second polishing head (602) located on the second polishing pad (302); and a polishing head transferring member (600) connected to the first polishing head and the second polishing head (Col 6 Ln 56 - Col 7 Ln 12).
Regarding claim 6, Shendon discloses (Fig. 5) the polishing head transferring member (600) comprises: a rotary motor (662) configured to rotate the first polishing head (602) and the second polishing head (602) in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction (Col 8 Ln 14-22).
Regarding claim 7, Shendon discloses (Fig. 6) the first polishing head (602) comprises: a vacuum tube (785) configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate (10, Col 10 Ln 25-43)
Regarding claim 8, Shendon discloses (Fig. 6) further comprising: a retainer ring (760) in contact with a bottom surface of the first polishing head (602), the retainer ring configured to support the substrate (Col 10 Ln 45-49).
Regarding claim 9, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) further comprising: a conditioner (802) configured to polish the first polishing pad (Col 18 Ln 45-55); and a slurry supplier (130) configured to supply slurry onto the first polishing pad (Col 5 Ln 29-38).
Regarding claim 10, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) further comprising: a carrier (400) configured to transfer the substrate into the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Col 11 Ln 5-45), wherein the carrier comprises:
a carrier holder (152) configured to support the substrate; and
a carrier rotating member (445) configured to rotate the carrier holder (Col 14 Ln 45-65).
Regarding claim 13, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing pad (202) configured to polish a substrate (10);
a first polishing head (602) provided on the first polishing pad (Col 4 Ln 20-22);
a second polishing pad (302) spaced apart from the first polishing pad;
a second polishing head (602’) provided on the second polishing pad (Col 4 Ln 20-22), the second polishing pad having a one-to-one relationship with the second polishing head (602’) provided thereon (Col 4 Ln 20-22);
a polishing head transferring member (600) connected to the first polishing head and the second polishing head (Col 6 Ln 56 - Col 7 Ln 12); and
a carrier (400) configured to transfer the substrate onto the first polishing head or the second polishing head (Col 11 Ln 5-45).
Regarding claim 14, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) the polishing head transferring member (600) comprises: a rotary motor (662) configured to rotate the first polishing head (602) and the second polishing head (602) in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction (Col 8 Ln 14-22).
Regarding claim 16, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a radius of the second polishing pad (302) is less than a radius of the first polishing pad ((202), Col 5 Ln 27-28, 52-55).
Regarding claim 18, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a method of polishing a substrate in a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus including a first polishing pad (202) and a second polishing pad (302), the method comprising:
performing a first polishing process on a substrate (10) on the second polishing (Col 5 Ln 40 - Col 6 Ln 54);
moving the substrate to the first polishing pad (Col 6 Ln 55 - Col 7 Ln 12); and
performing a second polishing process on the substrate on the first polishing pad (Col 5 Ln 8-39).
Regarding claim 19, Shendon discloses (Fig. 1-6) a radius of the first polishing pad (202) is greater than a radius of the second polishing pad ((302), Col 5 Ln 27-28, 52-55).
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 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shendon.
Regarding claim 4, Shendon 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 is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head, 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 is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head, 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 Shendon would perform equally well with the radius of the second polishing pad is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head, 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 Shendon by utilizing the radius of the second polishing pad is equal to or less than about 0.5 times a radius of the first polishing head, 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, Shendon discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 18. Shendon further discloses (Fig. 2) the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus further includes a first polishing head (602) located on the first polishing pad (202).
Shendon 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 Shendon 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 Shendon 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.
Claims 11-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shendon 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, Shendon discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 10 except fails to explicitly state that the carrier holder comprises: a vacuum tube configured to apply a vacuum pressure to the substrate. Instead, Shendon 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 Shendon, by providing a carrier holder vacuum tube, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder.
Regarding claim 12, Shendon discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 10 except fails to explicitly state that the carrier holder includes two or more carrier holders. It is not clear how many holders Shendon 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 Shendon, 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, Shendon 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, Shendon 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 Shendon, by providing a carrier holder vacuum tube, as taught by Jeong, for the purpose of securing the substrate to the holder.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shendon in view of ZUNIGA; Steven M. et al. US 20200156206 A1, hereinafter Zuniga. 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 15, Shendon 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. Instead, Shendon discloses a rotary transferring member (600).
Zuniga discloses (Fig. 1) a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing pad (130/124a) configured to polish a substrate (10)
a first polishing head (119/124a) provided on the first polishing pad;
a second polishing pad (130/124b) spaced apart from the first polishing pad;
a second polishing head (119/124b) provided on the second polishing pad, the second polishing pad having a one-to-one relationship with the second polishing head provided thereon (as depicted each head is associated with a single pad);
a polishing head transferring member (128) connected to the first polishing head and the second polishing head [0026]; and
a carrier (110) configured to transfer the substrate onto the first polishing head or the second polishing head [0028];
wherein the polishing head transferring member comprises a conveyor line (128, [0024, 0026, 0029]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (conveyor line transferring member) for another (rotary transferring member), and the results of the substitution (transferring substrates from pad to pad) would have been predictable. Because both Shendon and Zuniga teach transferring members, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute conveyor line transferring member for the rotary transferring member to achieve the predictable result of transferring substrates from pad to pad.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 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 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights