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 .
Election/Restriction
The amendment filed on 06/08/2026 (including amendments for claims 1 and 3) clarifies the claimed subject matter of claims 6 and 7 (see 03/06/2026 Office Action, pp. 3-4 (§ 112(b) rejection)). As currently written, claims 6 and 7 are not directed to the elected species depicted in Figs. 4A-B (in fact, there does not appear to be any figures depicting the embodiment of claims 6-7). Accordingly, claims 6-7 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b); MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “comprising a controller configured to: ... cause the first and second gears to rotate in opposite directions.” This amended limitation is new matter because the specification does not describe this configuration. As an example, as shown in the Fig. 4B, the first and second gears (elements 33a) must rotate in the same direction together because they mesh with the same ring gear 33b; it is not possible that they rotate in opposite directions.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Lim in view of Celaru
Claims 1-3 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”) in view of US 20160118291 A1 (“Celaru”).
Lim pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3). Celaru pertains to a wafer holding device for a semiconductor fabrication process (Abstr.; Figs. 1-14). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3, apparatus as shown), comprising:
an inner platen to support an inner polishing pad (Figs. 2-3, inner platen 26 with inner polishing pad 17);
an annular outer platen to support an outer polishing pad, wherein the outer polishing pad coaxially surrounds the inner platen, and an outer edge of the inner platen and an inner edge of the outer platen are separated by a gap (Figs. 2-3, annular outer platen 25 with outer polishing pad 16 coaxially surrounds inner platen 26, where their edges are separated by a gap 31);
a carrier head to hold a substrate (Figs. 2-3, carrier head 46 holds substrate 10);
a first motor to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate (Figs. 2-3, first motor 33 rotates inner platen 26 about vertical axis 30 at a first rotation rate; ¶ 0021);
a second motor to rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate (Figs. 2-3, second motor 32 rotates outer platen 25 about vertical axis 30 at a second rotation rate; ¶ 0021).
Lim does not explicitly disclose a first gear mounted to one of the inner platen or outer platen and positioned to engage a toothed surface of the other of the inner platen or outer platen. However, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious this claim.
Celaru discloses:
a first gear mounted to one of the inner platen or outer platen and positioned to engage a toothed surface of the other of the inner platen or outer platen (Figs. 10, 10A-C; ¶¶ 0056-0059, first gear 246 is mounted to a first platen 215 (via elements 245, 260, and 231 (see Fig. 6; ¶ 0050)) and positioned to engage a toothed surface (part of element 240) of a second platen 212).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Celaru with Lim by modifying the rotation transmission of Lim (platform 61 and extension 62) for the outer platen 25 to that of two mating gears instead of a solid platform. Lim discloses the use of platform 61, on which outer platen 25 via extension 62 is secured, where the entire platform assembly (elements 61, 62, 25) is held only by the central coupling at element 63 to the axle of motor 32. Instead, the modification changes platform 61 to a gear (like gear 246 of Celaru Fig. 10C) that mates with a toothed surface (e.g., an inner toothed surface like a ring gear) modified into extension 62 of the outer platen 25, where extension 62 is rotatably mounted (e.g., with bearings like Celaru element 230 or 231) to a common base shared with motor 32. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this modified arrangement separates the supporting function from the rotating function associated with Lim’s platform 61. That is, the modified extension 62 of the outer platen 25 is solidly supported by a base that is shared with motor 32, so that the alignment of the outer platen 25 with inner platen 26 would be more robust (and would result in greater precision for the polishing process due to the greater stability and guaranteed alignment) than in the case where the alignment of extension 62 is provided via elements 61/63 attached to the axle of motor 32 (e.g., the structure is more prone to misalignment due to damage or wear at the attachment point). Further, the modification replaces platform 61 with a gear body in order to rotate the modified, toothed extension 62 of the outer platen 25, where the gear body is only responsible for rotation transmission and not alignment (e.g., gear body 61 would not have to maintain perfect perpendicularity with the axle of motor 32). Examiner notes that although Celaru discloses a planetary gearing system (Celaru element 240), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the relied upon elements of Celaru together with a ring gear for modified extension 62 due to the similarities in the gearing systems (see, e.g., US 20210134652 A1 (“Muramoto”) Figs. 1-4, central gear 41 meshes with ring gear 43 (via intermediate gear 42 (which is not necessarily required) to rotate ring member 20 (equivalent to an outer platen)).
Regarding claim 2, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Lim further discloses a drive shaft colinear with the vertical axis coupling the first motor to the inner platen (Figs. 2-3, drive shaft (above reference 33) of first motor 33 is coupled to inner platen 26).
Regarding claim 3, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. As modified in the Lim/Celaru combination, the limitation “wherein the first gear rotates about a second vertical axis” is satisfied (see Lim Fig. 3, element 61 (now a gear per Celaru) rotates about its own central, vertical axis.
Regarding claim 27, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. As modified in the Lim/Celaru combination, the limitation “wherein the first gear is mounted to the inner platen and extends beyond an outer surface of the inner platen to engage the toothed surface of the outer platen” is satisfied (see Lin Fig. 3, element 61 (now a gear per Celaru extends beyond the outer circumferential surface of inner platen 26 to engage the modified, toothed surface of element 62).
Lim in view of Celaru, Nystrom, and Yamaguchi
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”) in view of US 20160118291 A1 (“Celaru”), US 6152806 A (“Nystrom”), and US 20160059380 A1 (“Yamaguchi”).
Lim pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3). Celaru pertains to a wafer holding device for a semiconductor fabrication process (Abstr.; Figs. 1-14). Nystrom pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). Yamaguchi pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-62).These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 12, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Lim does not explicitly disclose one or more nozzles for spraying a cleaning liquid into the gap. However, the Lim/Celaru/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim.
Nystrom discloses one or more nozzles for spraying a...liquid into the gap (Figs. 9-10; 5:51-62, nozzle 82 or 84 sprays a liquid into gap 50).
Yamaguchi discloses one or more nozzles for spraying a cleaning fluid... (Figs. 1-3; 32:52-33:19, surface 402 of table 400 is sprayed and cleaned by cleaning fluid (e.g., pure water (deionized water)) supplied by cleaning liquid source 714 to one or more nozzles 402 via passage 410 in table 400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nystrom and Yamaguchi with the Lim/Celaru combination by adding a nozzle (as taught by Nystrom) to spray liquid into the gap 31 of Lim, where cleaning fluid is supplied to the nozzle as taught by Yamaguchi. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this configuration would allow used slurry (especially dried, caked on slurry) to be better removed from the gap, where the used slurry may block the proper drainage of slurry and lead to excess slurry on the top surface of the polishing pad if not properly removed (Yamaguchi 33:10-19, “Supply of the pure water and/or chemical solution from the fluid passage 1-410 during cleaning of the buff table 1-400 can prevent foreign substances from entering the inside of the buff table 1-400 during cleaning, and improve the cleaning efficiency.”). Examiner notes that Lim already teaches the concept of removing slurry from the gap 31 (Lim Fig. 3; ¶ 0024, “an annular space 31 forms a drainage path and leads the excess slurry run-off waste in drains 34 and into containment vessels [35]”).
Regarding claim 12, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Lim does not explicitly disclose a passage through the inner platen with one or more openings into the gap and out of the inner platen. However, the Lim/Celaru/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim.
Nystrom discloses a passage through the inner platen with one or more openings into the gap and out of the inner platen (Figs. 9-10; 5:51-62, passage 84 through the inner platen 120 and an opening 84 out of the inner platen 120 and into the gap 50).
Yamaguchi discloses a passage through the inner platen with one or more openings...out of the inner platen (Figs. 1-3; 32:52-33:19, surface 402 of table 400 is sprayed and cleaned by cleaning fluid (e.g., pure water (deionized water)) supplied by cleaning liquid source 714 to one or more nozzles 402 via passage 410 in table 400).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nystrom and Yamaguchi with the Lim/Celaru combination by adding a passage and openings (as taught by Nystrom) into the gap 31 of Lim as recited, for the purposes of supplying cleaning fluid (as taught by Yamaguchi) to the gap to clean the gap. The obviousness rationale for claim 13 is the same as for claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the Lim/Celaru/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 13 as applied above.
Yamaguchi further discloses a cleaning liquid source coupled to the passage to direct cleaning liquid through the one or more openings into the gap (Figs. 1-3; 32:52-33:19, surface 402 of table 400 is sprayed and cleaned by cleaning fluid (e.g., pure water (deionized water)) supplied by cleaning liquid source 714 to one or more nozzles 402 via passage 410 in table 400; as modified in claim 13 by the Lim/Celaru/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination, the gap 31 of Lim is supplied with cleaning liquid via the passage 84 and openings of Nystrom, where the cleaning fluid is supplied to the passage by the cleaning liquid source 714 of Yamaguchi).
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 24, 26, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”), US 20160118291 A1 (“Celaru”), US 6066230 A (“Arai”), and US 6015337 A (“Hiyama”).
Regarding claim 4, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 3 as applied above. As set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the limitation “wherein the first gear is mounted to the inner platen and is positioned to engage the toothed surface of the outer platen”. However, Lim and Celaru do not disclose the limitation “the second vertical axis moves with the inner platen” in the combination as recited. Examiner interprets claim 4 to mean that the second vertical axis, as well as the first gear, and rotate together with the inner platen (e.g., at the same rotational speed about the [first] vertical axis) as a consequence of the limitations in the combination as recited (see Spec. Figs. 4A-B). The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 4 in the recited combination as claimed, and it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Lim/Celaru combination to meet the recited combination of claim 4 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 5 is allowable for depending from claim 4.
Regarding claim 24, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. However, Lim and Celaru do not disclose the limitation “a second gear mounted to the one of the inner platen or outer platen and positioned to engage the toothed surface of the other of the inner platen or outer platen” (interpreted to mean that the “second gear” is mounted to the same platen (the chosen inner or outer platen) as the “first gear”, as recited in claim 1). The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 24 in the recited combination as claimed, and it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Lim/Celaru combination to meet the recited combination of claim 24 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 25 is allowable for depending from claim 24, subject to overcoming the 112(a) rejection.
Regarding claim 26, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. However, Lim and Celaru do not disclose the limitation “wherein the first gear is one of a plurality of gears, and the plurality of gears are equally spaced around an outer surface of the inner platen.” The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 26 in the recited combination as claimed, and it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Lim/Celaru combination to meet the recited combination of claim 26 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 28, the Lim/Celaru combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. However, Lim and Celaru do not disclose the limitation “wherein the first gear is mounted to the inner platen, and the toothed surface of the outer platen extends into a recess of the inner platen supporting the second motor.” The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 28 in the recited combination as claimed, and it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have further modified the Lim/Celaru combination to meet the recited combination of claim 28 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) and (d) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The nonstatutory double patent rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and the fact that Application No. 18/481,513 is now abandoned.
Claims 8-11 and 15-23 have been canceled. New claims 24-28 have been added. Claims 1-7, 12-14, and 24-28 are pending. Claims 6-7 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-14, 25, and 27 are rejected. Claims 4-5, 24, 26, and 28 are objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 arguments.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights