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 .
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “an included angle between a sidewall and a bottom of each groove” in the second to last line. It is unclear if “a sidewall” is referring to one of the previously claimed inner sidewall or outer sidewall of the ring body, or if this is an additional sidewall of the groove. For the purposes of this examination, “a sidewall” will be interpreted as “a sidewall of the groove”, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “two sidewalls of each groove”. It is unclear if either of these two sidewalls is the previously claimed “a sidewall” recited in claim 1 (see also 112b rejection of claim 1 above). In other words, it is unclear if the claims require each groove to have three sidewalls or not. For the purposes of this examination, the “two sidewalls” of claim 2 in combination with the “a sidewall” recited in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring at least two sidewalls of the groove, where the two sidewalls of claim 2 may or may not include the sidewall of claim 1.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reedy (US 2016/0346897).
Regarding claim 1, Reedy discloses a wafer polishing locating ring, comprising a ring body (100) and a plurality of grooves (122) formed in the ring body, wherein the ring body is a circular ring body (fig 3) and comprises an inner sidewall (130) and an outer sidewall (140), the grooves run through the outer sidewall and inner sidewall of the ring body (as shown in fig 3; [0040]), and an included angle between a sidewall (124) and a bottom of each groove is an acute angle (shown in fig 6 and described [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Reedy further discloses two sidewalls (124) of each groove are in parallel (as can be seen in figs 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 5-8, Reedy further discloses edges of the grooves close to the inner sidewall and the outer sidewall are in an arc shape (fig 6; see arcuate edge at inner sidewall and edge at outer sidewall), wherein an angle of the arc shape is 30°-75° (fig 5; arcs are at corners at an angle relative to the inner and outer sidewalls, which angles are 45° as described [0040]); wherein the grooves are inclined clockwise from the inner sidewall to the outer sidewall (fig 5); wherein a material of the wafer polishing locating ring comprises polyphenylene sulfide, polyether ether ketone, or semi- crystalline thermoplastic polymer ([0062]).
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prabhu (US 2009/0021024).
Regarding claims 3-4, Reedy teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Reedy further teaches a horizontal width of each groove is 3mm-3.2mm ([0041]; 3.125mm anticipates the claimed ranges). Reedy is silent as to an exact vertical height dimension of each groove. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II. A.). Furthermore, Prabhu teaches a wafer polishing locating ring comprising a plurality of grooves (125) wherein the vertical height of each groove is 3mm-3.2mm ([0032]; channel depth is 120 mils, which is equal to 3.048mm, which is within the claimed ranges). As both Reedy ([0039]) and Prabhu ([0021]) describe the grooves as being provided to allow slurry to flow under the ring during polishing, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the size of the groove is a results effective variable which effects slurry flow during polishing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the vertical height of each groove of Reedy to be 3-3.2mm as claimed, in order to achieve the predictable result of providing the desired amount of slurry flow during polishing.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuniga (US 6183354).
Regarding claim 9, Reedy teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Reedy further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing device, comprising a polishing pad (60; fig 1), a polishing head (50), and the wafer polishing locating ring (100) according to claim 1 (detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the wafer polishing locating ring is provided on the polishing head (as shown in fig 1). Reedy is silent as to the structure of remaining structure of the polishing device, but points to Zuniga as describing elements of a suitable polishing device for the described ring ([0037]). Zuniga teaches a chemical mechanical polishing device including a polishing disc (30), wherein a polishing pad (32) is adhered to the polishing disc (col 5, lines 52-54). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere the polishing pad of Reedy to a polishing disc, as this is a known structure for driving the polishing pad to rotate to effect polishing as taught by Zuniga (col 5, lines 45-54).
Regarding claim 10, Reedy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Reedy further teaches a diaphragm (54), and the diaphragm is provided on the polishing head (fig 1; [0034]). Reedy is silent as to a material of the diaphragm, except stating that the diaphragm is flexible ([0034]). However, it has been held that it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Additionally, Zuniga further teaches a polishing head including a rubber diaphragm (118; col 12, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the diaphragm of Reedy out of rubber, as rubber is a known suitable material for flexible diaphragms in polishing devices, providing flexibility and strength as taught by Zuniga (col 12, lines 10-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar retaining rings and polishing devices are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights