Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (FIG. 2B-4) in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner notes claims 5-7 and 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration through the explicit selection of Species I by the Applicant. For further explanation see below:
Claim 5 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment where the pad comprises an inclined surface. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a non-inclined surface.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment with a plurality of grooves. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a single groove.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment with a plurality of grooves. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a single groove.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment with an off-center groove. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a centered groove.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment with a pad comprising a tapered surface. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a non-tapered surface.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration because it is drawn an embodiment with a pad comprising a second pad surface. This structure is exclusively contradictory to the embodiment shown in Figure 2B-4 since the pad comprises a single pad surface.
For the reasons as explained above, the requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 18 February 2026.
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are withdrawn by the Applicant via the selection of Species I and the Examiner has provided an explanation above.
Claims 1-11 are pending
Claims 1-4 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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3:
The claim language, "wherein the processing pad has a rotation axis line positioned in the outer circumferential side with respect to the outer circumferential edge of the workpiece during the process of the workpiece," (emphasis added) is objected to for grammatical purposes. For purposes of examination, the claim language is interpreted to instead be, "wherein the processing pad has a rotation axis line positioned [[in]] on the outer circumferential side with respect to the outer circumferential edge of the workpiece during the process of the workpiece."
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al (US 20160099156), hereafter referred to as Yamaguchi, Bennett et al (US 6273806), hereafter referred to as Bennett, and Kubo (US 20070128990), hereafter referred to as Kubo.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses the following:
A processing apparatus (FIG. 28) comprising:
a workpiece (W) table (3-400) configured to hold a workpiece (W); and
a processing pad (3-502),
a processing head (3-500) configured to hold a processing pad (3-502),
the processing apparatus (FIG. 28) is configured to rotate the workpiece (W) table (3-400) and the processing head (3-500),
Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the processing pad includes a pad surface provided with at least one groove having an inner circumferential groove wall and an outer circumferential groove wall disposed in an outer circumferential side with respect to the inner circumferential groove wall,
However the Bennett teaches the following:
wherein the processing pad (100) includes a pad surface (102) provided with at least one groove (104; FIG. 3) having an inner circumferential groove wall (110 on left, FIG. 4) and an outer circumferential groove wall (110 on right, FIG. 4) disposed in an outer circumferential side with respect to the inner circumferential groove wall (110 on left, FIG. 4).
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 processing pad, as disclosed by Yamaguchi, wherein the processing pad comprises at least one groove having an inner circumferential groove wall and an outer circumferential groove wall disposed in an outer circumferential side with respect to the inner circumferential groove wall, as disclosed by Bennett, with the reasonable expectation of successfully improving slurry distribution and reducing the possibility of clogging (see Bennett, Col. 17, lines 20-40).
Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett does not teach the following:
the processing apparatus is configured to bring an edge of the inner circumferential groove wall and an edge of the outer circumferential groove wall in contact with a bevel portion provided at an outer circumferential edge of the workpiece during a process of the workpiece.
However Kubo teaches the following:
the processing apparatus (300; FIG. 5) is configured to bring a polishing pad in contact with a bevel portion (see for example [0040]) provided at an outer circumferential edge of the workpiece (W) (200) during a process of the workpiece (W) (see [0035-40]).
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 processing apparatus, as disclosed by Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett, wherein the processing apparatus is configured to bring a polishing pad in contact with a bevel portion provided at an outer circumferential edge of the workpiece during a process of the workpiece, as taught by Kubo, with the reasonable expectation of successfully removing oxide films and metal films formed on the circumferential edge of the wafer during processing (see Kubo; [0037]).
Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett and Kubo results in the following limitation:
the processing apparatus (FIG. 28, as modified by Kubo) is configured to bring an edge of the inner circumferential groove wall (110 on left, FIG. 4 of Bennett) and an edge of the outer circumferential groove wall (110 on right, FIG. 4 of Bennett) in contact with a bevel portion (see [0040], FIG. 5 of Kubo) provided at an outer circumferential edge of the workpiece (W) during a process of the workpiece (W). (It is noted, as the buffer arm of Yamaguchi, set at an angle to a beveled portion of the workpiece as taught by Kubo, moves from side to side at least a portion of the groove circumferential edges taught by Bennett would contact the beveled portion of the workpiece, since the edge is shared by the non-grooved surface and the circumferential groove walls.)
Regarding Claim 2, Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett and Kubo teaches the following:
The processing apparatus (FIG. 28) according to claim 1,
Yamaguchi continues to teach the following:
further comprising a swing mechanism (3-600) configured to swing the processing head (3-500) during the process of the workpiece (W).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett and Kubo teaches the following:
The processing apparatus (FIG. 28) according to claim 1,
Kubo continues to teach the following:
wherein the processing pad (350; FIG. 5; [0040]) has a rotation axis line positioned in the outer circumferential side with respect to the outer circumferential edge of the workpiece (200) during the process of the workpiece (200).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett and Kubo teaches the following:
The processing apparatus (FIG. 28) according to claim 1,
wherein the edge of the inner circumferential groove wall (110 on left, FIG. 4 of Bennett) and the edge of the outer circumferential groove wall (110 on right, FIG. 4 of Bennett) contact the bevel portion (FIG. 5 of Kubo) in a state where the pad surface (350 of Kubo, as modified by the grooves of Bennett) is inclined during the process of the workpiece (200).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamaguchi as modified by Bennett and Kubo teaches the following:
The processing apparatus (FIG. 28) according to claim 1,
Bennett continues to teach the following:
wherein the at least one groove (104; FIG. 3) has a circular shape or a spiral shape in plan view (as seen in FIG. 3).
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 bearing polishing arrangements see Pages 1-3.
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