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 06/05/2026. Presently claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections have been withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant states that a reference recipe in Yagi is a predetermined target condition and does not represent a prior iteration of the system’s operation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yagi discloses of a staying time in each scanning area ([0065], lines 10-11), and uses a reference recipe to calculate a deviation from the staying time to a reference staying time ([0077]), based on the reference recipe set in each scanning area ([0077], lines 4-8). Therein, there are multiple reference staying times according to each scanning area, and when a new area is scanned, there will be a new iteration of the reference staying time for that particular scanning area (i.e., and therein a previous stay time). Paragraph [0077], lines 8-16, discloses of a reference speed based on a cut rate at which the reference staying time can be calculated. Since the reference speed can be updated according to the actual cut rate when the polishing pad is in use, the reference staying time can be updated accordingly based on the speed and the cut rate ([0077], last 5 lines). Therein, the reference staying time represents iterations based on a prior operation of a particular scanning area and with regard to the state of the polishing pad.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 112 and this action has therefore been made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 claims 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim newly recites of a “deviation of a current stay time of the dresser from a previous stay time of the dresser in each of the scan areas”. From the specification, there is no written description regarding of “a previous stay time of the dresser”. Instead, there are various instances in the specification wherein the deviation is “from a stay time of the dresser in each of the scan areas on the basis of a previous recipe.” (e.g., [0017]). Therein, there is a lack of written description suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art that the deviation comprises of a current stay time from a previous stay time of the dresser in each of the scan areas. Therein, the amended claim 1 has introduced new matter.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yagi et al. (US 2020/0198094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yagi et al. discloses a substrate polishing apparatus (10, [0040]) comprising:
a dresser (23) that moves in a plurality of scan areas ([0058]) set on a polishing member (11, [0058]);
one or more processors (35, [0063], which processes computations based on data acquisition from various sections); and
one or more memories (memory 47, [0063]) coupled to the one or more processors (processor 35 includes memory 47 and is therein coupled to the memory), the one or more memories storing instructions ([0088], [0131]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (35) to:
calculate a moving speed (i.e., the processor 35 contains a moving speed calculation section (45, [0063])) of the dresser (23) in each of the scan areas based on an evaluation index (J, [0081], [0081]) including a deviation from a current stay time of the dresser (23) from a previous stay time of the dresser in each of the scan areas (i.e., deviation from the staying time from the reference recipe, [0081]; Yagi discloses of a staying time in each scanning area ([0065], lines 10-11), and uses a reference recipe to calculate a deviation from the staying time to a reference staying time ([0077]), based on the reference recipe set in each scanning area ([0077], lines 4-8). Therein, there are multiple reference staying times according to each scanning area, and when a new area is scanned, there will be a new iteration of the reference staying time for that particular scanning area (i.e., and therein a previous stay time). Paragraph [0077], lines 8-16, discloses of a reference speed based on a cut rate at which the reference staying time can be calculated. Since the reference speed can be updated according to the actual cut rate when the polishing pad is in use, the reference staying time can be updated accordingly based on the speed and the cut rate ([0077], last 5 lines). Therein, the reference staying time represents iterations based on a prior operation of a particular scanning area and with regard to the state of the polishing pad).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the stay time corresponds to the moving speed of the dresser ([0077], lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the evaluation index (J) includes a weighting coefficient for the deviation (i.e., the evaluation index J is based on the deviation of the staying time in a reference recipe and includes a weighting coefficient η, [0096]).
Regarding claim 4, Yagi et al. discloses wherein as the weighting coefficient increases, an update amount of the moving speed of the dresser decreases (Fig. 14 shows that when coefficient η increases (for example from 12µm to 15 µm), the speed range of the scanning decreases, as observed by the lower plot of the curve shown in Fig. 14, [0098]-[0101]).
Regarding claim 5, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the evaluation index further includes at least one of a deviation from a target cut amount, a deviation of a current stay time from a reference stay time, or a speed difference between adjacent scan areas ([0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors (35) to measure a surface height (processor 35 includes a height detection section 48, [0063]) of the polishing member in each of the scan areas ([0068]); and
calculate a cut rate (processor 35 includes a cut rate calculation section (43), [0063]) of the polishing member in each of the scan areas on a basis of the surface height ([0103], [0061], [0069], [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, Yagi et al. discloses wherein a height profile of the polishing member is estimated on a basis of the cut rate (i.e., pad height of the polishing member can be estimated based on the cut rate, [0103], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 8, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the one or more processors (35) calculate the moving speed (i.e., the processor 35 includes a moving speed calculation section 45, [0063]) of the dresser (23) by performing an optimization calculation that minimizes the evaluation index (J, [0082], [0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the optimization calculation is quadratic programming ([0082], [0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Yagi et al. discloses a substrate processing apparatus (i.e., computer, [0052]) comprising the substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
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 06/29/2026
Prosecution Insights