DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 24 July 2026.
Claims 5-7 and 9-11 are withdrawn.
Claim 12 is newly presented.
Claims 1-12 are pending
Claims 1-4, 8, and 12 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 .
Response to Remarks
The arguments in response to the claim(s) objection(s) have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are found persuasive. The Examiner withdraws the claim(s) objection(s).
The arguments in response to the claims rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and in combination with the amendments are not found persuasive for the following reasons.
The remarks pertaining to “does not establish a reasoned basis…” are not found persuasive since the motivation to combine Yamaguchi with Bennett and Kubo came from the Bennett and Kubo references themselves.
The remarks pertaining to “would contact” are not found persuasive since one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the spinning motion of the polishing pad having grooves, angled to polish a beveled portion of a workpiece, would result in the edges of the grooves to touch the beveled portion of the workpiece, and the claim language does not require both of the edges of the grooves to contact the beveled portion at the same time. The remark stating there is a missing limitation is not found persuasive since the combination of the structures of the prior art results in the groove edge wall contact as claimed. The Applicant has provided no evidence as to how the grooves of Bennett added to Yamaguchi, combined with the bevel polishing teaching of Kubo, would somehow result in the edges of the grooves not touching the beveled surface.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The remarks pertaining to Yamaguchi not having a beveled portion are not found persuasive since Kubo was relied upon for the beveled portion. The remarks pertaining to Bennett are not found persuasive since the motivation to combine the grooves of Bennett was disclosed within the Bennett reference. The remarks pertaining to the grooves of Bennett not processing the bevel are not found persuasive since the Bennett reference was not relied upon for the polishing of the bevel teaching. The remarks pertaining to Kubo not teaching the groove wall edge contact relationship is not found persuasive, since it is the Bennett reference that was relied upon for the groove teachings.
The remarks pertaining to the hypothetical combination of Bennet and Yamaguchi are not found persuasive since they are not commensurate with the position in the rejection of record.
The remarks pertaining to the grooves not being configured to improve buffing are not found persuasive since the improvement of slurry distribution would results in improved buffing.
The remarks pertaining to the “several technical facts that are not established,” are not found persuasive since the remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, and the motivation to combine the grooves of Bennett with the polishing pad of Yamaguchi was disclosed in the Bennett reference itself.
The remarks pertaining to official notice are not found persuasive since official notice was not relied upon in the rejection of record.
The remarks pertaining to specific machine geometry and processing conditions are not found persuasive since they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language.
The remarks pertaining to hindsight are not found persuasive since the motivation to combine the references came from the references themselves.
The remarks pertaining to “process range” are not found persuasive since the disclosed width within the processing range is greater than 1.0 mm and less than 3.0 mm and Bennet discloses an overlapping width range of 0.04 inches (1.016 mm).
The original rejection is included in this Office Action.
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 § 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, 8, and 12 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).
Regarding Claim 12, 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 a groove width (0.04 inches, or 1.016 mm see for example Col. 8, lines 0-5) of the at least one groove (104; FIG. 3) is set corresponding to a size of a process range of the workpiece in a radial direction (Examiner note: the disclosed width within the processing range of the Instant Application is greater than 1.0 mm and less than 3.0 mm and Bennet discloses an overlapping width range of 0.04 inches, 1.016 mm. Further, Col. 8, lines 12-23 disclose the width of the grooves and the spacing between the grooves is a results effective variable that effects the flexibility of the polishing pad, the ability to remove waste removal from the grooves, and the ability of the grooves to evenly transport slurry to the entire surface of the substrate.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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