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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line “the disk-shaped” should read “the disk-shaped plate.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vepa (US 2002/0004265, previously cited) in view of Ishikawa (US 6458014, previously cited) and Nishihara (JP 2002-187062, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Vepa teaches a polishing apparatus comprising: a holding table (912; fig 7a) for holding a workpiece (920) thereon; a polishing head (910) disposed above the holding table and having a disk-shaped polishing plate (see flat annular disk shape of plate 916 shown in figs 7A-7B) for polishing the workpiece held on the holding table ([0084]) such that the disk-shaped acrylic plate includes a plurality of polishing water supply ports (930) which extend through the disk-shaped plate (fig 7B); a moving mechanism for moving the polishing head toward the workpiece held on the holding table ([0087] describes moving the polishing head into contact with the workpiece); and a polishing water supplying unit ([0084]; “source”) for supplying polishing water between the acrylic plate and the workpiece held on the holding table, wherein the polishing water supplying unit supplies the polishing water to the plurality of polishing water supply ports which supply the polishing water between the disk-shaped plate and the workpiece held on the holding table ([0084-0085]; water is supplied through ports 930 to the workpiece 920 between the plate and workpiece on the table).
Vepa does not teach the polishing plate being an acrylic plate for polishing the workpiece. 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). Ishikawa teaches a polishing apparatus comprising a polishing plate made of acrylic for polishing a workpiece (col 25, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acrylic plate as the polishing plate in the apparatus of Vepa, as acrylic is a material which is known to be suitable for the intended use of polishing substrates as taught by Ishikawa, providing the additional benefit of transparency to the polishing plate as taught by Ishikawa (col 25, lines 55-67).
Vepa does not teach the polishing water supply ports span an entire diameter of the disk-shaped plate. Nishihara teaches a polishing apparatus including a polishing head (7) with a disk-shaped plate (31) including a plurality of polishing water supply ports (32) which span an entire diameter of the disk-shaped acrylic plate (consistent with applicant’s specification, the supply ports of Nishihara are arranged to extend from one end of the plate to another across its diameter as shown in fig 2 of Nishihara). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a disk-shaped plate having water supply ports which span an entire diameter of plate in the polishing apparatus of Vepa, as this allows the liquid to be supplied to the entire grinding contact area of the disk as taught by Nishihara ([0021-0022]; fig 2).
Regarding claims 2-3, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Vepa further teaches the workpiece has a surface to be polished by the disk-shaped acrylic plate (upper surface in fig 7A), the surface containing silicon ([0036]; the workpiece may be silicon or glass); and wherein the workpiece has a surface to be polished by the disk-shaped acrylic plate, the surface being made of glass ([0036]; the workpiece may be silicon or glass).
Regarding claim 8, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The intended workpiece does not limit the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2115) and Vepa further teaches the disk-shaped acrylic plate may have a diameter of 10 inches ([0083]), while the diameter of the workpiece may be greater than 300 mm ([0036]; 300 mm is equal to 11.8 inches), and thus teaches the plate may have a smaller diameter than the workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Vepa further teaches the disk-shaped acrylic plate has a diameter larger than a diameter of the workpiece (as shown in fig 7a).
Regarding claim 12, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. The intended workpiece does not limit the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2115) and Vepa further teaches the disk-shaped acrylic plate may have a diameter between 10 and 12 inches ([0083]) and the workpiece may have a diameter of between 200 and 300 mm ([0036]; 7.9 to 11.8 inches). As these ranges overlap, the apparatus of Vepa is capable of working on a workpiece with an equal diameter to the plate.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vepa (US 2002/0004265, previously cited) in view of Ishikawa (US 6458014, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Vepa teaches a polishing method comprising: a holding step of holding a workpiece (920) on a holding table (912; fig 7a; [0082]); after the holding step has been carried out, a polishing step of bringing a polishing plate (916) of a polishing head (910) disposed above the holding table into contact with the workpiece held on the holding table and polishing the workpiece with the acrylic plate ([0086-0087]); while supplying pure water as polishing water ([0084]) between the acrylic plate and the workpiece (as described [0084-0085]; deionized water is supplied through ports 930 as an alternative to slurry), wherein the workpiece has a surface (upper surface in fig 7A) to be polished by the plate, the surface containing silicon ([0036]).
Vepa does not teach the polishing plate being an acrylic plate for polishing the workpiece. 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). Ishikawa teaches a polishing method comprising using a polishing plate made of acrylic for polishing a workpiece (col 25, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an acrylic plate as the polishing plate in the method of Vepa, as acrylic is a material which is known to be suitable for the intended use of polishing substrates as taught by Ishikawa, providing the additional benefit of transparency to the polishing plate as taught by Ishikawa (col 25, lines 55-67).
Vepa does not explicitly state that the pure water decomposes an ester group of the acrylic plate into carboxylic acid and alcohol, and the carboxylic acid is combined with the silicon contained in the surface of the workpiece to be polished thereby planarizing the surface of the workpiece to be polished. However, this claimed function would naturally occurs as a result of employing water as the polishing fluid for a silicon workpiece (taught by Vepa as described above) while polishing with an acrylic plate (rendered obvious by Ishikawa as detailed above). As claimed and described in applicant’s specification (original spec [0071]), the decomposition of an ester group in an acrylic material into carboxylic acid and alcohol is a function which occurs as a result of supplying water to acrylic. As Vepa and Ishikawa render obvious the use of using water with acrylic, this decomposition necessarily occurs. As this is in the context of polishing a silicon surface of a wafer as taught by both Vepa and Ishikawa, the claimed combination of the resulting carboxylic acid with silicon for planarization of the wafer would naturally occur when the claimed steps are taken. See MPEP 2112, which explains that obviousness of an inherent limitation exists when the limitation is “the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”
Regarding claim 7, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Vepa further teaches the polishing head has a disk-shaped acrylic (acrylic material rendered obvious as described in the rejection of claim 4 above) plate as the acrylic plate (see flat annular disk shape of plate 916 shown in figs 7A-7B).
Regarding claim 9, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Vepa does not teach the disk-shaped acrylic plate is smaller in diameter than the workpiece. Nishihara further teaches the disk-shaped plate is smaller in diameter than the workpiece ([0029]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a disk-shaped plate with a diameter smaller than the workpiece in the method apparatus of Vepa, as this allows the method to control polishing conditions on different regions of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 11, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Vepa further teaches the disk-shaped acrylic plate has a diameter larger than a diameter of the workpiece (as shown in fig 7a).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vepa and Ishikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Boyd (US 2001/0012751).
Vepa does not explicitly teach the disk-shaped acrylic plate has a diameter equal to a diameter of the workpiece, but does teach the disk-shaped acrylic plate may have a diameter between 10 and 12 inches ([0083]) and the workpiece may have a diameter of between 200 and 300 mm ([0036]; 7.9 to 11.8 inches). As these ranges overlap, it is clear that the method of Vepa may be used to polish a workpiece with a diameter equal to the plate. Furthermore, Boyd teaches a method of polishing, wherein a disk-shaped plate (36) used for polishing has a diameter equal to a diameter of the workpiece ([0025]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a disk-shaped acrylic plate with a diameter equal to a diameter of the workpiece in the method of Vepa, as this achieves the predictable result of capably polishing the surface of the workpiece as taught by Boyd ([0025]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vepa and Ishikawa as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Nishihara (JP 2002-187062, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Vepa, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Vepa further teaches in the polishing step, the polishing water is supplied between the acrylic plate and the workpiece ([0084-0085]; water is supplied through ports 930 to the workpiece 920 between the plate and workpiece) through a plurality of polishing water supply ports (930) which extend through the acrylic plate (fig 7b). Vepa does not teach the polishing water supply ports span an entire diameter of the disk-shaped plate. Nishihara teaches a polishing method including a polishing head (7) with a disk-shaped plate (31) including a plurality of polishing water supply ports (32) which span an entire diameter of the disk-shaped acrylic plate (consistent with applicant’s specification, the supply ports of Nishihara are arranged to extend from one end of the plate to another across its diameter as shown in fig 2 of Nishihara). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a disk-shaped plate having water supply ports which span an entire diameter of plate in the polishing method of Vepa, as this allows the liquid to be supplied to the entire grinding contact area of the disk as taught by Nishihara ([0021-0022]; fig 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that Vepa does not teach a disk-shaped acrylic plate including a plurality of polishing water supply ports which span an entire diameter of the disk-shaped acrylic plate. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the acrylic material is rendered obvious by the teachings of Ishikawa, and ports spanning an entire diameter of a plate are rendered obvious by the newly cited Nishihara.
Regarding claim 4 and its dependents, applicant argues that Vepa and Ishikawa do not teach the claimed decomposition reaction between water and the acrylic plate. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the prior art as a whole renders obvious the use of an acrylic plate to polish a wafer while using pure water as a polishing fluid. The claimed reaction occurs due to the use of these materials. Obviousness of an inherent limitation exists when the limitation is “the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art” (MPEP 2112). As the prior art renders the water and acrylic plate obvious for polishing a silicon workpiece, the claimed reaction is obvious due to the fact that it naturally occurs as a result of the combination of these elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar polishing apparatuses and methods are cited.
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
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights