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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 July, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation in claim 4 of “wherein the support plate is polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and as a thickness between 2.5mm and 7.0mm” is grammatically improper. Consider ––wherein the support plate is polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and has a thickness between 2.5mm and 7.0mm––.
The limitation in line 7 of claim 15 of “a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that have a flexural rigidity than the support plate” is grammatically improper. Consider ––a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that have a lower flexural rigidity than the support plate––.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “in-situ monitoring system” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duescher (US 9011207) in view of Maloney et al. (US 6368189, "Maloney").
1. Duescher teaches a carrier head (see Deuscher fig. 9a), comprising:
a housing (158a);
a support assembly (combination of 178a and 164, see Deuscher fig. 9a) connected to the housing so as to be vertically movable relative to the housing (disks 155a flex vertically, allowing lower elements to move vertically relative to housing 158a, see Deuscher fig. 9a and 16:66-17:16), the support assembly including a support plate (178a); and
at least one upper barrier (barriers 168a, see Deuscher fig. 9a) that divides a volume between the support plate and the housing into a plurality of individually pressurizable upper chambers (chambers 154a, 156a, and central chamber, see Deuscher fig. 9a and 16:54-17:16) to apply pressure on a top surface of the support plate in a plurality of first zones (Deuscher 17:17-23), wherein the support plate is sufficiently flexible to bend under a pressure differential between the plurality of upper chambers (plate 178a is flexible enough to bend under pressures so as to supply independent pressures or vacuums, see Deuscher 17:17-23).
Deuscher further teaches that the support assembly may include passages for vacuum passageways to secure a wafer (Deuscher 16:66-17:16), but does not teach that it includes a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that have a lower flexural rigidity than the support plate and that are secured to and extend below the support plate to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate, or that the support plate defines boundaries of both the plurality of individually pressurizable upper chambers and the plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers.
Deuscher further teaches that the support assembly may include passages for vacuum passageways to secure a wafer (Deuscher 16:66-17:16), but does not teach that the support assembly comprises a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that have a lower flexural rigidity than the support plate and that are secured to and extend below the support plate to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate; or that the support plate defines boundaries of both the plurality of individually pressurizable upper chambers and the plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers.
However, Maloney a support assembly for use in a carrier head (see Maloney fig. 13 and 26:11-27:50), wherein the support assembly includes a support plate and a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces (assembly may include a stop plate and a plurality of annular seals defining fluid chambers independently pressurizable to pressures Pf-Pi, see Maloney fig. 13 and 26:32-46; the term "seal" would be understood by one of ordinary skill to refer to something fluid impermeable, as a permeable seal would not adequately seal or be pressurizable as described) that have a lower flexural rigidity than the support plate (stop plate is configured to have sufficient stiffness to prevent a wafer from flexing, seals are configured to be sufficiently resilient to form adequate seals, see Maloney fig. 13 and 26:47-27:23) and that are secured to and extend below the support plate (seals may be secured via bonding or mechanical attachment, Maloney 27:16-23) to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate (individual pressure zones, Maloney 26:32-46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the carrier head of Deuscher to use a support assembly such as that taught by Maloney such that the support assembly comprises a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that have a lower flexural rigidity than the support plate and that are secured to and extend below the support plate to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate; the support plate defining boundaries of both the plurality of individually pressurizable upper chambers and the plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers, as doing so allows for greater control over polishing pressures applied to a backside of a wafer (see Maloney 25:42-53 and 26:13-19, noting that the 8th embodiment is a variation of the 7th embodiment, which has the described benefits).
2. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, but does not teach that the support plate has a flexural stiffness of 0.4 to 10 Pa*m^3.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the carrier head of Deuscher as modified, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flexural stiffness of the support plate, which achieves the recognized result of being able to flex enough to apply a pressure (Deuscher 17:17-23) while preventing the wafer from flexing excessively (Maloney 26:64-27:5), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
3. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the support plate is metal or plastic (central flexible bottom portion may be constructed from elastomers, polyurethane, silicone rubber, or metals, Deuscher 16:54-65) and the plurality of flexible pieces are an elastomer (flexible pieces may be a rubber or a resilient polymer, Maloney 27:6-23).
5. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, wherein the elastomer comprises a rubber or silicone (flexible pieces may be a rubber or a resilient polymer, Maloney 27:6-23).
7. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flexible pieces are provided by a single molded part (seals may be formed integral with a plate, Maloney 27:6-15 and fig. 13).
8. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the plurality of lower chambers are narrower than the plurality of upper chambers (three broad upper chambers taught by Deuscher combined with a plurality of narrower lower chambers taught by Maloney, see Deuscher fig. 9a and Maloney fig. 13).
9. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein there is a greater number of lower chambers zones than upper chambers (three broad upper chambers taught by Deuscher combined with a plurality of narrower lower chambers taught by Maloney, see Deuscher fig. 9a and Maloney fig. 13).
10. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 9, wherein the volume between the support plate and the housing is divided into 2 to 10 upper chambers (three broad upper chambers, see Deuscher fig. 9a).
11. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 9, wherein one or more flexible pieces provide 4 to 100 individually pressurizable lower chambers (four chambers corresponding to pressures PF-PI, see Maloney fig. 13).
12. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein a region below each upper chamber is divided into a plurality of lower chambers (three upper chambers taught by Deuscher are positioned over four lower chambers taught by Maloney, in combination, each upper chamber would be over at least two portions of the lower chambers, see Deuscher fig. 9a and Maloney fig. 13).
13. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the support plate has a flexural stiffness 1 to 25 times the flexural stiffness of a planar substrate formed of silicon and shaped to fit on the carrier head. Specifically, as disclosed by applicant, the flexural stiffness/rigidity of a substrate is a function of its thickness. As the planar substrate is not positively recited in the claims as having specific dimensions, the carrier head would be capable of use with a substrate of a diameter shaped to fit on the carrier head, and having a thickness selected such that it had a flexural stiffness/rigidity necessary to place the relative flexural stiffness/rigidity of the support plate within the claimed range).
14. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flexible pieces project from a bottom of the support plate (flexible pieces extend in a direction jutting out relative to a bottom of the support plate, see Deuscher fig. 9a and Maloney fig. 13), and wherein the plurality of flexible pieces are positioned and configured such that when substrate is loaded into the carrier head the plurality of flexible pieces contact the substrate and divide a volume between the support plate and the substrate into the plurality of lower chambers (flexible pieces occupy a space between the support plate and the substrate, so the chambers defined between flexible pieces and substrate are located in a volume between the support plate and the substrate, see Maloney fig. 13).
19. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the flexural rigidity than the support plate is in a range of 0.1 to 1 times the flexural rigidity of the substrate. Specifically, because the substrate is not positively recited in the claims as having specific dimensions or material, the carrier head is inherently capable of use with a substrate having the dimensions and modulus of elasticity necessary to place the relative flexural stiffness/rigidity of the support plate within the claimed range.
20. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the flexural rigidity than the support plate is in a range of 1 to 25 times the flexural rigidity of the substrate. Specifically, because the substrate is not positively recited in the claims as having specific dimensions or material, the carrier head is inherently capable of use with a substrate having the dimensions and modulus of elasticity necessary to place the relative flexural stiffness/rigidity of the support plate within the claimed range.
21. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the flexural rigidity than the support plate is at least 25 times the flexural rigidity of the substrate. Specifically, because the substrate is not positively recited in the claims as having specific dimensions or material, the carrier head is inherently capable of use with a substrate having the dimensions and modulus of elasticity necessary to place the relative flexural stiffness/rigidity of the support plate within the claimed range.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deuscher and Maloney as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of in view of Katsuoka et al. (US 6435949, "Katsuoka").
4. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, but does not teach that the support plate is polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and has a thickness between 2.5mm and 7.0mm, or the support plate is stainless steel and has a thickness between 0.6mm and 1.8mm.
However, Katsuoka teaches a carrier head (Katsuoka fig. 1) including a flexible support plate (3) located between a contact pad (6) and a pressure chamber (C, see Katsuoka fig. 1 and 2:50-3:2), wherein the flexible support plate may be made from stainless steel or PEEK, with a thickness in the range of 3-8mm (Katsuoka 4:9-24).
Although the range taught by Katusoka of 3-8mm is not identical to the claimed range of 2.5-7.5mm, it has been held that where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the carrier head of Deuscher as modified to use a PEEK support plate with dimensions in the range taught by Katsuoka such that the support plate was polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and has a thickness between 2.5mm and 7.0mm, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (specifically materials and dimensions suitable for use as a flexible support plate in a polishing head) according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deuscher and Maloney as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of in view of Kajiwara et al. (US 6623343, "Kajiwara").
6. Deuscher as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, but does not specify that the plurality of flexible pieces have a hardness of 30-60 Shore A.
However, Kajiwara teaches that a suitable hardness for a contact element (250) in a carrier head molded from a rubber or rubber-like material should be within the range of 30-50 durometer (Kajiwara 24:31-45), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to refer to the Shore A scale.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material having a hardness in the range of 30-60 Shore A as taught by Kajiwara for the plurality of flexible pieces for the carrier head of Deuscher as modified, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (specifically materials having properties suitable for use in that part of a polishing head) according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 15 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter that was previously indicated as allowable in the Office Action mailed 7 January, 2026, and is allowable for the reasons stated in that Action. Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 15 and are likewise allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 19-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights