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 § 103
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 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) 1, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy (US 2016/0346897, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Reedy teaches 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]), two sidewalls (124) of each groove are in parallel (as shown in fig 6, sidewalls 124 on each side of groove 122 are parallel), and two included angles between the two sidewalls of each groove and a bottom of each groove are an acute angle (shown in fig 6 and described [0042]).
Reedy does not teach the acute angle is 30°. However, Reedy teaches the angle may be any angle below 90° ([0042]), which includes the claimed angle of 30°. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05). While the claimed angle in this case is a single angle rather than a range of angles, as Reedy discloses a range which includes the claimed angle, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to select an angle of 30° with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed angle. 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 included acute angles between the two sidewalls of each groove and a bottom of each groove of Reedy to be 30°, as this is within the disclosed range of below 90° taught by Reedy, and achieves the predictable result of providing a channel suitable for permitting slurry to flow beneath the ring as taught by Reedy.
Regarding claims 5-8, Reedy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Reedy further teaches 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(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, previously cited).
Regarding claims 3-4, Reedy, as modified, 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 width 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, previously cited).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed 30 degree angle. However, as detailed above, Reedy discloses that any angle less than 90 degrees is usable, thus rendering the claimed angle obvious for a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112b.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights