Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V and Options A, B, and C in the reply filed on 17 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species and Option, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 February 2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 17 February 2026.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
Claim(s) 1is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimba (US 20200282512), hereafter referred to as Kimba 512.
Regarding Claim 1, Kimba 512 discloses the following:
A substrate polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing table (3; FIG. 2);
a motor (6) for rotating the polishing table (3; FIG. 2);
a substrate holding head (1) configured to hold a substrate (W);
a light source (44);
an optical head (7) disposed inside the polishing table (3; FIG. 2), the optical head (7) including:
a light projection port (distal end of 31; see [0030])) disposed to project light from the light source (44) toward the substrate (W) held by the substrate holding head (1); and a light reception port (distal end of 32; see [0030]) disposed to receive light reflected from the substrate (W) held by the substrate holding head (1);
an optical detector (48) for detecting the light received at the light reception port (distal end of 32; see [0030]);
a shutter (see [0046]) for controlling an exposure time during which the light is captured in the optical detector (48); and
a control device (9) for controlling operation of the shutter (see [0046]) so as to change the exposure time based on a polishing condition of the substrate (exposure time is changed based on the location of the optical head, and as seen by FIG. 4 the exposure time set is based on the distance the optical head is from the rotational center of the polishing table, also see [0052-53]).
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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba (US 20200282512), hereafter referred to as Kimba 512, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kimba et al (US 20110034106), hereafter referred to as Kimba 106.
Regarding Claim 5, Kimba 512 discloses the following:
The substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1,
further comprising a second motor (18) for rotating the substrate holding head (1),
Kimba 512 does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the exposure time is determined based on a rotation speed of the substrate holding head.
However Kimba 106 teaches the following:
wherein the exposure time is determined based on a rotation speed of the substrate holding head (See [0126], which discloses the exposure time is determined by the speed of the wafer, and the speed of the wafer is dependent upon the speed of the substrate holding head.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exposure time of substrate polishing apparatus, as disclosed by Kimba, wherein the exposure time is determined based on a rotation speed of the substrate holding head, as disclosed by Kimba 106, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing an exposure time that can cause the surface roughness of the substrate to appear in the image (see [0126], Kimba 106).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimba (US 20200282512), hereafter referred to as Kimba 512, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jiang (US 20080297774), hereafter referred to as Jiang.
Regarding Claim 5, Kimba 512 discloses the following:
The substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1,
Kimba 512 does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the light source is a continuous light-emitting light source.
However Jiang teaches the following:
wherein the light source (126) is a continuous light-emitting light source (see [0081], which discloses the light source may be separate or continuous illumination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flash light source as disclosed by Kimba, with the continuous light source as disclosed by Jiang, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a light source for a camera (see Jiang, [0081]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the flash light source of Kimba, with the continuous light source of Jiang yields the predictable result of providing illumination for a camera (i.e. substituting one known means to provide lighting for an optical device for another known means to provide lighting for an optical device). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar polishing arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 E. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights