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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are examined. Claims 8-9 are withdrawn.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, change: “corrects [[the]] a current cutting rate based…”
Claim 1, line 7, change: “[[the]] a prior calculated cutting rate
Claim 4, line 2, change: “the prior calculated cutting rate
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations
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:
Claim 1 – “height detection unit” read as a unit [means] for detecting the height.
Claim 1 – “cutting rate calculation unit” read as a unit [means] for calculating the cut rate.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
Claim 1 – “unit”
Claim 1– “unit”
coupled with functional language:
“for height detection”
“for calculating the cutting rate”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Corresponding structure is found in [0030], [0050].
Corresponding structure is found in [0054], [0069]-[0076].
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 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 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the current cutting rate" in line 6. The claim further recites of “the calculated current cutting rate” in line 7. It is unclear if the cutting rate in line 6 is the same or a different cutting rate with respect to the cutting rate in line 7 since the rate in line 7 contains the term “calculated” of which is absent from the term in line 6. The ambiguity and lack of clarity of the limitation renders the claim indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 2, line 4, recites “the predicted cutting rate”, which lacks antecedent basis because it is unclear if the predicted cutting rate is the same as or different with respect to the calculated cutting rate.
Claim 3, line 2, recites “a previous cutting rate”. It is unclear whether the “previous cutting rate” is the same as or different with respect to “the cutting rate calculated in the past” as recited in claim 1 and claim 2.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
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 1-7 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 height detection unit (48, [0063]) configured to measure a surface height of a polishing member (11); and
a cutting rate calculation unit (43) configured to calculate a cutting rate of the polishing member based on the surface height ([0103], [0061], [0069], [0072]), wherein
the cutting rate calculation unit corrects the current cutting rate based on the cutting rate calculated in the past when the calculated current cutting rate falls outside a search range (i.e., the calculation unit 43 corrects the cutting rate in a situation wherein the cutting rate becomes negative and therein falls outside a search range (i.e., a negative value is an abnormal value outside of the range, [0102], wherein a preceding value of the cutting rate is used and therein the cutting rate is corrected, [0103], the search range comprises of the cut rate calculation interval, [0104]).
Regarding claim 2, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the cutting rate calculation unit (43) predicts a cutting rate by a regression model created (i.e., cut rate model, [0066]-[0067]; as shown in Fig. 17, a linear regression (i.e., a best-fit curve is used, wherein the curve represents the cut rate based on the triangular data points)) based on the cutting rate calculated in the past (i.e., the leftmost triangular point of the curve in Fig. 17), and corrects the current cutting rate by using the predicted cutting rate (i.e., in the instance of a negative cutting rate value ([0102]), the cutting rate is corrected by using the preceding cutting rate (i.e., the preceding cutting rate is interpreted as the predicted cutting rate because it is assumed that the actual cut rate of the polishing member does not drastically change and therein this rate is used as a “prediction” for the corrected cutting rate, as disclosed in lines 1-3 of [0103])).
Regarding claim 3, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the cutting rate calculation unit (43) replaces the current cutting rate (i.e., in the scenario when the cutting rate becomes negative, [0102]) with a previous cutting rate when the current cutting rate corrected by the regression model falls outside the search range (in the instance of a negative value, the value is abnormal and therein outside the search range (i.e., the cut rate calculation interval, [0104]), and therein, with respect to the linear regression model in Fig. 17, and assuming that the actual cut rate of the polishing member 11 does not drastically change ([0103]), the a previous (i.e., immediately preceding) cut rate is used ([0103])).
Regarding claim 4, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the regression model (i.e., linear regression model shown in Fig. 17) is created based on the cutting rate calculated in the past and the current cutting rate (i.e., in Fig. 17, the leftmost triangular data point is the cutting rate calculated in the past, while the current cutting rate is the second triangular data point (i.e., below the current height data point); [0103], [0066]).
Regarding claim 5, Yagi et al. discloses wherein the search range is a range (i.e., the cut rate calculation interval, [0104]) based on a cutting rate set in advance (i.e., the cutting rate is determined in advance by a combination of the polishing member and the dresser or from the initial pad height and the current pad height, [0104]).
Regarding claim 6, Yagi et al. discloses wherein a height profile of the polishing member is estimated on a basis of the cutting rate calculated by the cutting rate calculation unit (43, i.e., pad height of the polishing member can be estimated based on the cut rate, [0103], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 7, 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
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 03/03/2026