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 .
Applicant’s Submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of response was received on 08/06/2026. Presently claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 8-10 and 12-23 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16, filed 08/06/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments pertain to the newly amended claim limitations of claim 1 and that the combination of Kabota and Kimba does not disclose the newly amended limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kabota discloses a situation and an example wherein the switching timing is determined based on the at least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate (in the example and scenario shown in Fig. 7, the sensor head 13A (which comprises a light applying unit 11a and a light receiving unit 12a, [0062]) and sensor head 13B (which also comprises light applying unit 11b and a light receiving unit 12b, [0062]) simultaneously face the substrate W and therein light is applied by each sensor head (13A, 13B) and the light is received by each sensor head simultaneously ([0087], lines 1-4). For the sensors heads to apply light, optical switch (40A, [0089], lines 3-4) is coupled to a light source and to each light applying unit of each sensor head and a second optical switch (40B, [0089], lines 4-8) is coupled to each receiving unit of each sensor head and a spectroscope. Since the light is applied and received simultaneously when the two sensors heads simultaneously face the substrate W, (as shown in scenario in Fig. 7, [0087]), the timing of the optical sensors is based and determined by the least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate for such scenario to occur in this situation because the switches are on and respectively coupled to each unit of each sensor head at the instance in which each sensor head faces the substrate. Therein, it is possible to use one spectroscope to receive the light from each sensor head and determine the film thickness of the substrate W, [0088]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the term “substantially” is not persuasive (see p. 11-12). The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor is it a term of art, and therefore the claim does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. It is unclear of the extent or degree of departure from the positions recited in the claims that can be considered as “substantially” opposite since a definition of “substantially” pertaining to the position of each sensor head of the pair of sensor heads being opposite from one another provided by the specification. In p. 11 of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant states that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “substantially opposite sides” refers to positions that are approximately diametrically opposed… while allowing for practical deviations…” However, it is further unclear of the terms used in Applicant’s statement because the terms “approximately” and “practical deviations” are also relative terms that have not been not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Since the disclosure fails to define the use of the term “substantially” with respect to the position of each sensor head of the pair of sensor heads being opposite from one another, the metes and bounds of the claim are ambiguous and unclear, therein rendering the claim indefinite. For such reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and this action has therefore been made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, change: “facing [[a]] the region…”
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 3-4 and 6 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.
The term "substantially" in claims 3, 4, and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor is it a term of art, and therefore the claim does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. It is unclear of the extent or degree of departure from the positions recited in the claims that can be considered as “substantially” opposite since a definition of “substantially” pertaining to the position of each sensor head of the pair of sensor heads being opposite from one another is not provided by the specification. Therein, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata et al. (US 2018/0229346 A1) in view of Kimba et al. (US 2019/0219381 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobata et al. discloses a polishing apparatus that polishes a substrate ([0002]), the polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing table (20) for holding a polishing pad (22, [0057]);
a polishing head (24) configured to press a surface of the substrate against the polishing pad (22, as shown in Fig. 6, [0059]);
a plurality of sensor heads (i.e., 13A, 13B, 13C, [0102], as shown in Figs. 7, 12, 19) configured to detect a signal concerning a film thickness of the substrate ([0062]) while moving across the substrate ([0065]);
a spectrometer (14, [0089]) configured to receive and process signals output by at least two sensor heads among the plurality of sensor heads ([0093], lines 20-23);
a switcher (40B, Fig. 15) configured to selectively connect the at least two sensor heads to the spectrometer ([0089], selectively connect heads 13A/13B, [0090], [0093]); and
a controller (15, [0076]).
Kobata et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (15) controls the switcher to switch (40B).
However, Kobata et al. does disclose a timing when the at least two sensor (13A, 13B, or 13C) heads simultaneously face the substrate (i.e., Fig. 7 and Fig. 12 each show that the first (13A) and second (13B) heads simultaneously receive light from the substrate W and therein face the substrate, [0087]; Fig. 19 shows a configuration wherein heads 13A, 13B, and 13C all simultaneously face the substrate), a connection to the spectrometer (14) from one sensor head (13A) to another sensor head (13B, [0089]; [0090], lines 10-12; [0093], lines 20-23), wherein the switching timing is determined based on the at least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate
(in the example and scenario shown in Fig. 7, the sensor head 13A (which comprises a light applying unit 11a and a light receiving unit 12a, [0062]) and sensor head 13B (which also comprises light applying unit 11b and a light receiving unit 12b, [0062]) simultaneously face the substrate W and therein light is applied by each sensor head (13A, 13B) and the light is received by each sensor head simultaneously ([0087], lines 1-4). For the sensors heads to apply light, optical switch (40A, [0089], lines 3-4) is coupled to a light source and to each light applying unit of each sensor head and a second optical switch (40B, [0089], lines 4-8) is coupled to each receiving unit of each sensor head and a spectroscope. Since the light is applied and received simultaneously when the two sensors heads simultaneously face the substrate W, (as shown in scenario in Fig. 7, [0087]), the timing of the optical sensors is based and determined by the least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate for such scenario to occur in this situation because the switches are on and respectively coupled to each unit of each sensor head at the instance in which each sensor head faces the substrate. Therein, it is possible to use one spectroscope to receive the light from each sensor head and determine the film thickness of the substrate W, [0088]).
Kimba et al. teaches of a polishing apparatus, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Kimba et al. teaches of an analogous polishing apparatus that comprises a processor 27 (i.e., controller) that uses data obtained from the spectrometer 26 to determine the thickness of the substrate ([0047]-[0048]), which is analogous to the processor 15 disclosed in Kabota et at. ([0076]). Specifically, Kimba et al. teaches that the processor 27 operates a switch 115 to couple the light receiving fiber (i.e. analogous to optical sensor head of Kabota) to the spectrometer 26 ([0095]). Therein, the processor 27 controls the switch to provide a connection to the spectrometer from an optical sensor head ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabota et al. in view of Kimba et al. by using the processor 15 disclosed in Kabota et al. to control the switch (40B) disclosed in Kabota et al. in order to provide the connection from the spectrometer to the sensor head as taught in Kimba et al. ([0095]). Therein, it is well known in the polishing art that a processor can be used to control the switching connection between a spectrometer and optical sensor heads.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kobata et al. and Kimba et al. further discloses wherein the polishing table (Kobata, 20) is configured to rotate around an axis of the polishing table ([0057]), and the plurality of sensor heads are disposed in a region of the polishing table facing a region including a center of the substrate (i.e., as exemplarily shown in Fig. 7, sensor head 13A faces a center of the substrate W and second sensor head 13B faces a peripheral portion of the substrate W, [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kobata et al. and Kimba et al. further discloses wherein each two of a predetermined even number of the sensor heads (sensors heads 13A and 13B, as exemplarily shown in Fig. 14) among the plurality of sensor heads form a pair (i.e., the pair 13A/13B), the two sensor heads forming the pair are present in positions on substantially opposite sides to each other with respect to the axis (i.e., 13A is located on an opposite side of the axis O with respect to 13B, as shown in Fig. 14), and the even number of the sensor heads (i.e., 2 sensor heads 13A/13B) are disposed such that lines connecting the two sensor heads forming each of the pairs are at a same angle interval around the axis (i.e., the sensors heads are at an equal interval 180 degrees apart around the axis, as shown in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kobata et al. and Kimba et al. further discloses wherein the polishing apparatus includes, as the plurality of sensor heads, a first sensor head configured to detect the signal concerning the film thickness of the substrate in a region including a center of the substrate (i.e., as exemplarily shown in Fig. 7, sensor head 13A faces a center of the substrate W, [0069]) and a second sensor head configured to detect the signal concerning the film thickness of the substrate while moving along a peripheral edge portion of the substrate (i.e., second sensor head 13B faces a peripheral portion of the substrate W and moves along the peripheral edge portion, [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kobata et al. and Kimba et al. further discloses wherein there are at least two first sensor heads (13A and 13B) as a plurality of the first sensor heads, and there are at least two sensor heads as a plurality of the second sensor heads (i.e., there can be four sensor heads, [0102]), the two first sensor heads are present in positions on substantially opposite sides to each other with respect to the axis (as shown in Fig. 14, sensor heads 13A and 13B are in opposite sides with respect to axis O), the axis is present on a line segment connecting the two second sensor heads (as shown in Fig. 14, the axis O is on the line segment connecting the two sensor heads 13A and 13B), and an angle formed by a line connecting the two first sensor heads and the line segment connecting the second sensor heads is 0 degrees to 180 degrees (i.e., 180 degrees shown in Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kobata et al. and Kimba et al. further discloses wherein, in a predetermined number of the sensor heads among the plurality of sensor heads (i.e., sensor heads 13A and 13B) and a predetermined number of other sensor heads among the plurality of sensor heads (i.e., sensor head 13C, further, there can be four or more sensor heads, [0102]), each one of the predetermined number of other sensor heads is disposed on lines respectively connecting the predetermined number of sensor heads and the axis of the polishing table (i.e., as exemplarily shown in Fig. 17 wherein lines connect each sensor head 13B or 13A to the axis O of the table 20; there would also be an imaginary line for the other sensor heads).
Regarding claim 11, Kobata et al. discloses a polishing apparatus that polishes a substrate ([0002]), the polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing table (20) for holding a polishing pad (22, [0057]);
a polishing head (24) configured to press a surface of the substrate against the polishing pad (22, as shown in Fig. 6, [0059]);
a plurality of sensor heads (i.e., 13A, 13B, 13C, [0102], as shown in Figs. 7, 12, 19) configured to detect a signal concerning a film thickness of the substrate ([0062]) while moving across the substrate ([0065]);
one signal processor (14, [0089]) configured to receive and process signals output by at least two sensor heads among the plurality of sensor heads ([0093], lines 20-23);
a switcher (40B, Fig. 15) configured to selectively connect at least two sensor heads of the plurality of sensors to the signal processor ([0089], selectively connect heads 13A/13B, [0090], [0093]); and
a controller (15, [0076]).
Kobata et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (15) controls the switcher to switch (40B).
However, Kobata et al. does disclose a timing when the at least two sensor (13A, 13B, or 13C) heads simultaneously face the substrate (i.e., Fig. 7 and Fig. 12 each show that the first (13A) and second (13B) heads simultaneously receive light from the substrate W and therein face the substrate, [0087]; Fig. 19 shows a configuration wherein heads 13A, 13B, and 13C all simultaneously face the substrate), a connection to the signal processor (14) from one sensor head (13A) to another sensor head (13B, [0089]; [0090], lines 10-12; [0093], lines 20-23), wherein the switching timing is determined based on the at least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate
(in the example and scenario shown in Fig. 7, the sensor head 13A (which comprises a light applying unit 11a and a light receiving unit 12a, [0062]) and sensor head 13B (which also comprises light applying unit 11b and a light receiving unit 12b, [0062]) simultaneously face the substrate W and therein light is applied by each sensor head (13A, 13B) and the light is received by each sensor head simultaneously ([0087], lines 1-4). For the sensors heads to apply light, optical switch (40A, [0089], lines 3-4) is coupled to a light source and to each light applying unit of each sensor head and a second optical switch (40B, [0089], lines 4-8) is coupled to each receiving unit of each sensor head and a spectroscope (i.e., signal processor). Since the light is applied and received simultaneously when the two sensors heads simultaneously face the substrate W, (as shown in scenario in Fig. 7, [0087]), the timing of the optical sensors is based and determined by the least two sensor heads simultaneously facing the substrate for such scenario to occur in this situation because the switches are on and respectively coupled to each unit of each sensor head at the instance in which each sensor head faces the substrate. Therein, it is possible to use one spectroscope (i.e., signal processor) to receive the light from each sensor head and determine the film thickness of the substrate W, [0088]).
Kimba et al. teaches of a polishing apparatus, which is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Specifically, Kimba et al. teaches of an analogous polishing apparatus that comprises a processor 27 (i.e., controller) that uses data obtained from the spectrometer 26 (i.e., signal processor) to determine the thickness of the substrate ([0047]-[0048]), which is analogous to the processor 15 disclosed in Kabota et at. ([0076]). Specifically, Kimba et al. teaches that the processor 27 operates a switch 115 to couple the light receiving fiber (i.e. analogous to optical sensor head of Kabota) to the spectrometer 26 ([0095]). Therein, the processor 27 controls the switch to provide a connection to the spectrometer (i.e., signal processor) from an optical sensor head ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kabota et al. in view of Kimba et al. by using the processor 15 disclosed in Kabota et al. to control the switch (40B) disclosed in Kabota et al. in order to provide the connection from the spectrometer (i.e., signal processor) to the sensor head as taught in Kimba et al. ([0095]). Therein, it is well known in the polishing art that a processor can be used to control the switching connection between a spectrometer (i.e., signal processor) and optical sensor heads.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, Kabota et al. discloses of four or more optical sensors ([0102]), but does not disclose or suggest of an angle formed by a line connecting the two sensor heads and a line connecting the other two sensor heads is larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 180 degrees.
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 ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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, COURTNEY HEINLE can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 08/17/2026
Prosecution Insights