Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (FIG. 2) in the reply filed on 18 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 February 2026.
Claim 1 is allowable. Claims 4-8, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions of different species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 18 December 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 4-8 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 18 February 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 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: the following 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
A. "heating members" first introduced in claim 1:
the heating members perform the function of heating the CMP pad and may comprise an IR lamp, a heater, an IR laser, or an equivalent thereof (see [0023]).
B. "cleaning module" first introduced in claim 18:
the cleaning module is configured to clean the temperature control unit and may comprise a spraying nozzle 172 for spraying distilled water, or an equivalent thereof.
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maruyama (US 20220072679), hereafter referred to as Maruyama.
Regarding Claim 19, Maruyama discloses the following:
A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
a turntable (2);
a polishing head (1) above the turntable (2);
a slurry supply unit (4) configured to supply a slurry; and
a temperature control unit (5) including a body (11) having a plurality of suction ports (61b, 62b, FIG. 4; see [0072]) and one or more heating members (61; FIG. 4; [0071]) on a surface of the body (11) proximal to the turntable (2), wherein the temperature control unit (5) is between the slurry supply unit (4) and the polishing head (1).
Regarding Claim 20, Maruyama discloses the following:
The chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of claim 19, further comprising:
a flow pipe (53, 33; FIG. 1) connected to and in fluid communication with the plurality of suction ports (61b, 62b, FIG. 4; see [0072]),
and a pump (47) connected to and in fluid communication with the flow pipe (53, 33; FIG. 1), wherein the pump (47) is configured to provide a suction force.
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(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 20220072679), hereafter referred to as Maruyama, in view of Soundararajan et al (US 20200001427), hereafter referred to as Soundararajan.
Regarding Claim 16, Maruyama teaches the following:
A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
a turntable (2);
a CMP pad installed on an upper surface of the turntable (2);
a polishing head (1) disposed above the turntable (2) and contacting a wafer with the CMP pad, wherein the polishing head (1) is configured to press the wafer against the CMP pad;
a slurry supply unit (4) configured to supply a slurry to the CMP pad;
a temperature control unit (5) disposed between the slurry supply unit (4) and the polishing head (1),
wherein the temperature control unit (5) includes a body (11) configured to be positioned above the CMP pad; and
a plurality of heating members (61; FIG. 4; [0071]) disposed on a bottom surface of the body (11) configured to heat the CMP pad (it is noted the heating source may be a lamp, see [0227]),
Maruyama does not explicitly teach the following:
wherein a temperature of a first region, heated by at least a portion of the plurality of heating members is different from a temperature of a second region, heated by the remaining heating members.
However Soundararajan teaches the following:
wherein a temperature of a first region, heated by at least a portion of the plurality of heating members (120) is different from a temperature of a second region, heated by the remaining heating members (120)(see for example [0005 and 0041], the individual temperature control modules are configured to provide heating and cooling independently).
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 lamp heater as disclosed by Maruyama, with the independently controlled thermal control modules as disclosed by Soundararajan, with the reasonable expectation of successfully independently heating or cooling different radial regions of the polishing pad and thus providing radial control of the temperature of the polishing pad (see for example [0005, 09, 24-26]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the heating member of Maruyama with the heating member of Soundararajan yields the predictable result of providing heating (i.e. substituting one known means to provide heat for another known means to provide heat). 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).
Regarding Claim 17, Maruyama as modified by Soundararajan discloses the following:
The chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of claim 16, further comprising:
Maruyama continues to disclose the following:
a conditioning unit (20) located between the slurry supply unit (4) and the temperature control unit (5).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama (US 20220072679), hereafter referred to as Maruyama, in view of Soundararajan et al (US 20200001427), hereafter referred to as Soundararajan, as applied to claim 17 above, in further view of Miura et al (US 20240033876), hereafter referred to as Miura.
Regarding Claim 18, Maruyama as modified by Soundararajan teaches the following:
The chemical mechanical polishing apparatus of claim 17,
Maruyama as modified by Soundararajan does not teach the following:
further comprising: a cleaning module configures to clean the temperature control unit when the temperature control unit is rotated and disposed outside the CMP pad.
However Miura teaches the following:
a cleaning module (45) configures to clean the temperature control unit (11) when the temperature control unit is rotated (via pivoting actuator 92) and disposed outside the CMP pad (see for example [0095]; FIG. 7A, 11).
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 polishing apparatus as disclosed by Maruyama as modified by Soundararajan, wherein the apparatus further comprises a cleaning module configures to clean the temperature control unit when the temperature control unit is rotated and disposed outside the CMP pad, as taught by Miura, with the reasonable expectation of removing dirt and providing a cleaned temperature control unit (see for example [0013, 94-98] of Miura).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 1:
a temperature control unit disposed between the slurry supply unit and the polishing head,
wherein the temperature control unit includes a body configured to be positioned above the CMP pad; and
one or more heating members disposed on a bottom surface of the body configured to heat the CMP pad,
wherein the body includes a suction port interspersed with the one or more heating members to suction steam; (emphasis added)
Regarding Claims 2-15:
Claims 2-15 are dependent upon an allowable claim;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Maruyama (US 20220072679), Soundararajan et al (US 20200001427), or Miura et al (US 20240033876).
The Examiner notes Maruyama is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitation(s) as explained above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 chemical mechanical polishing apparatuses 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