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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 7 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-6 have been restricted due to a restriction requirement. Claims 7-12 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections are not persuasive.
With respect to: “The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Liao of discontinuing flow- rate control during polishing, nor does Liao describe such operation. To the contrary, Liao expressly relies on controlling gas flow rates during polishing in response to real-time distance measurements.”, the examiner disagrees.
The purpose of Liao’s polishing-head system is to inflate/deflate the air bags to reach a “setting value” to ensure flatness of the substrate, as clearly disclosed in paragraph 0034. Further, invention further discloses a “recipe setting” in paragraph 0018. “Recipe” as defined by Merriam-Webster is: ”a set of instructions for making something”; “a formula or procedure for doing or attaining something”. Liao’s polishing-head system does not arbitrarily inflate/deflate the air bags. Its goal is to ensure flatness of the substrate. Therefore, if the bag reaches the “setting value”/ “recipe setting”, there’s no need to inflate/deflate the air bags, hence stopping the flow of air to the bags.
With respect to “The Examiner's reliance on a general flow-rate formula does not cure that deficiency. Claim 10 does not merely recite the abstract mathematical relationship that flow rate may be expressed as volume divided by time. Claim 10 requires the system controller to calculate each flow rate by dividing a corresponding target flow-rate cumulative value by preset operating time.”, the examiner disagrees.
Liao’s controller incorporates the use of “flow rate” in its calculations as disclosed in paragraphs 0009 and 0029. While Liao does not explicitly disclose how its flow rate is calculated, it is nevertheless a flow rate. There are finite ways a flow rate can be calculated, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to do so. Lastly, how the flow rate is calculated has no effect on the operation of the claimed invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-12 in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 7-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao (US 20120264354 A1).
Referring to claim 7: Liao teaches a polishing-head system (100/200 Fig. 1) for polishing a workpiece (w Fig. 1), comprising: a polishing head (200 Fig. 1) having an elastic membrane (204 Fig. 1; “The membrane 204 is, for example, an elastic membrane.” [0025]) forming a first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) and a second pressure chamber (206d Figs. 1 and 2);
a first gas delivery line (108 of 206a Fig. 1; “a plurality of gas pipes 108 communicating to the gas supply 104 and the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d respectively.” [0028]) and a second gas delivery line (108 of 206d Fig. 1) that communicate with the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber, respectively;
a first flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206a. The distance controller 106 controls the pressure of each chamber; “a distance controller 106 to control the pressure in the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d” [0027]; “The distance monitoring device includes a plurality of distance detectors disposed on the frame corresponding to the air bags respectively to set a location of each of the distance detectors on the frame as a reference point. Each of the distance detectors is configured to measure a distance between each of the reference points and the membrane.” [0008]; Merriam-Webster: valve: a: “any of numerous mechanical devices by which the flow of liquid, gas, or loose material in bulk may be started, stopped, or regulated by a movable part that opens, shuts, or partially obstructs one or more ports or passageways”) and a second flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206d) coupled to the first gas delivery line (108 of 206a Fig. 1) and the second gas delivery line (108 of 206d Fig. 1), respectively; and
a system controller (106 Fig. 1) configured to instruct the first flow-rate control valve and the second flow-rate control valve (“The distance controller 106 is coupled to the distance detectors 102 and the gas supply 104 to determine a gas flow rate communicating from the gas supply 104 to the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d” [0029]) to supply a gas into the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) and the second pressure chamber (206d Figs. 1 and 2) at a first flow rate (first flow rate of 206a) and a second flow rate (second flow rate of 206d) “the polishing rates in the regions A, B, C, D can be adjusted individually” [0036]) when the workpiece (w Fig. 1) that was polished is released (before (via suction [0031]) and after polishing [0039]) from the polishing head, or when the workpiece (w Fig. 1) to be polished is held ([0032-0033]) on the polishing head, and configured to stop controlling (The purpose of Liao’s polishing-head system is to inflate/deflate the air bags to reach a “setting value” to ensure flatness of the substrate, as clearly disclosed in paragraph 0034. Further, invention further discloses a “recipe setting” in paragraph 0018. “Recipe” as defined by Merriam-Webster is: ”a set of instructions for making something”; “a formula or procedure for doing or attaining something”. Liao’s polishing-head system does not arbitrarily inflate/deflate the air bags. Its goal is to ensure flatness of the substrate. Therefore, if the bag reaches the “setting value”/ “recipe setting”, there’s no need to inflate/deflate the air bags, hence stopping the flow of air to the bags.) flow rates of the gas into the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) and the second pressure chamber (second flow rate of 206d) during polishing of the workpiece.
Referring to claim 8: Liao discloses the polishing-head system according to claim 7, wherein a volume of the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) is larger than a volume (If region A is being over-polished and region D is under-polished, the volume of 206a would be larger than 206d would be larger, and in turn the first flow rate would also be higher. See [0034] ) of the second pressure chamber (206d Figs. 1 and 2), and the first flow rate (first flow rate of 206a) is higher than the second flow rate (second flow rate of 206d).
Referring to claim 9: Liao discloses the polishing-head system according to claim 7, wherein the system controller (106 Fig. 1) is configured to: calculate (“the distance controller 106 then determines the gas flow rate” [0036]; “measured… decreases the gas flow rate” [0034]) a cumulative value of the first flow rate (first flow rate of 206a); instruct the first flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206a) to supply the gas into the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) at the first flow rate until the cumulative value of the first flow rate reaches a first target flow-rate cumulative value (“setting value” [0034]; based on the value, the gas flow rate is increased/ decreased accordingly [0034]);
calculate (“the distance controller 106 then determines the gas flow rate” [0036]; “measured… decreases the gas flow rate” [0034]) a cumulative value (“setting value” [0034]) of the second flow rate (second flow rate of 206d); and instruct the second flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206d) to supply the gas into the second pressure chamber (206d Figs. 1 and 2) at the second flow rate until the cumulative value of the second flow rate reaches a second target flow-rate cumulative value (“setting value” [0034]; based on the value, the gas flow rate is increased/ decreased accordingly [0034]).
Referring to claim 11: Liao discloses the polishing-head system according to claim 7, wherein the system controller (106 Fig. 1) is configured to instruct (“The distance controller 106 is coupled to the distance detectors 102 and the gas supply 104 to determine a gas flow rate communicating from the gas supply 104 to the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d” [0029]) at least one of the first flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206a) and the second flow-rate control valve (106 mechanism of 206d) to change at least one of the first flow rate and the second flow rate while (“real time” [0035]; paragraph 0034 explains how the “polishing rates” of specific regions are adjusted) the gas is supplied into the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) and the second pressure chamber (206d Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to claim 12: Liao discloses the polishing-head system according to claim 7, wherein the first flow-rate control valve (“The distance controller 106 is coupled to the distance detectors 102 and the gas supply 104 to determine a gas flow rate communicating from the gas supply 104 to the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d” [0029]) is configured to measure a flow rate (“gas flow rate”) of the gas supplied to the first pressure chamber (206a Figs. 1 and 2) while the workpiece (w Fig. 1) is polished with the polishing head (200 Fig. 1);
and the system controller (106 Fig. 1) is configured to calculate a polishing flow-rate cumulative value (“Consequently, the polishing rates in the regions A, B, C, D can be adjusted individually” [0036]) which is a cumulative value of the measured flow rate (“gas flow rate” [0036]) and determine (“data feedback” [0036]) a malfunction of the elastic membrane or a polishing abnormality of the workpiece based on a change in the polishing flow-rate cumulative value (“capable of detecting the surface flatness of the substrate in real time during the polishing” [0038]).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 20120264354 A1).
Referring to claim 10: Liao discloses the polishing-head system according to claim 7, wherein the system controller (106 Fig. 1) is configured to: calculate the first flow rate and calculate the second flow rate (“The distance controller 106 is coupled to the distance detectors 102 and the gas supply 104 to determine a gas flow rate communicating from the gas supply 104 to the air bags 206a, 206b, 206c, 206d” [0029]).
But is silent on:
calculating the first flow rate specifically by dividing a first target flow-rate cumulative value for the first pressure chamber by preset operating time;
and calculate the second flow rate by specifically dividing a second target flow-rate cumulative value for the second pressure chamber by preset operating time.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the flow rate formula can be reached by calculations resulting in (m^3)/s, (cubic meters divided by time); further, the prior art teaches calculating both flow rates.
Therefore, modifying the polishing-head system of Liao to calculate the first and second flow rate by specifically dividing a first and second target flow-rate cumulative value for the first and second pressure chamber by preset operating time, respectively, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the polishing-head system of Liao with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the application’s disclosure has not proven criticality why the flow rate must be calculated in that manner, specifically, and specifically, why the operation would’ve failed otherwise, it would have been obvious to have modified the polishing-head system of Liao by having the first and second flow rate calculated by specifically dividing a first and second target flow-rate cumulative value for the first and second pressure chamber by preset operating time, respectively, for the purpose of making the flow rate calculations with the available parameters.
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights