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
Applicant’s election of Species 1 (Figs. 4A-B) is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 07/30/2025 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. There does not appear to be any reference submitted pertaining to “TW 201902621 A”. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the belt (and its engagement with the outer platen) of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) should be canceled from the claim(s). Also, the arrangement recited in claims 6-7 must be shown or the feature(s) should be canceled from the claim(s).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the first gear is attached to the outer platen and is positioned to engage a toothed surface of the inner platen”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, claim 3 states that “the first gear is driven by the second motor”. However, claim 1 recites “a second motor to rotate the outer platen”. It is unclear how the “first gear” driven by the “second motor” could be both attached to the outer platen to engage the toothed surface of the inner platen and also rotate the outer platen. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 7 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 6.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the passage” (line 11). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “the conduit”. Claims 20-23 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 22 recites only the limitation “further comprising a cleaning liquid source coupled to the conduit to direct the cleaning liquid through the one or more openings into the gap”, which is the same limitation present in claim 19. Because claim 22 depends from claim 19, claim 22 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. MPEP §§ 706.07(e), 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/481,513 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/481,576
Copending Application 18/481,513
1. A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
an inner platen to support an inner polishing pad;
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;
a carrier head to hold a substrate;
a first motor to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate; and a second motor to rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate.
1. A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
an inner platen to support an inner polishing pad;
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;
a carrier head to hold a substrate;
one or more motors to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate and to rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Lim
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”).
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);
and 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).
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and 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).
Arai
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6066230 A (“Arai”).
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs 1-12, apparatus as shown), comprising:
an inner platen to support an inner polishing pad (Figs. 1-12, inner platen 21 with inner polishing pad 11a);
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. 1-12, annular outer platen 22 with outer polishing pad 12a coaxially surrounds inner platen 21, where their adjacent edges as recited are separated by a gap);
a carrier head to hold a substrate (Fig. 1, carrier head 5 holds substrate 200);
a first motor to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate (Figs. 1-12, first motor 41 rotates inner platen 21 about vertical axis of central shaft 2 at a first rotation rate; 8:32-60);
and a second motor to rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate (Figs. 1-12, second motor 42 rotates outer platen 22 about vertical axis of central shaft 2 at a second rotation rate; 8:32-60).
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.
Arai in view of Hiyama
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6066230 A (“Arai”) in view of US 6015337 A (“Hiyama”).
Arai pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-12). Hiyama pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, Arai discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a first gear attached 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, wherein the first gear is driven by the second motor and rotates about a second vertical axis (Fig. 1, gear 42a attached to inner platen 21 via second motor 42 mount and engages toothed surface 22a of outer platen 22, gear 42a is driven by second motor 42 and rotates about the vertical axis of the shaft of motor 42).
To the extent Arai does not disclose a first gear attached to one of the inner platen, the Arai/Hiyama combination makes obvious this claim.
Hiyama discloses a first gear attached 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, wherein the first gear is driven by the second motor and rotates about a second vertical axis (Figs. 1, 2a-d, first gear of second motor (near reference 1) engages a toothed surface of an outer platen, where the first gear is attached to an inner platen at least via the motors mounted to base B).
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 Park with Arai by mounting motors 41 and 42 of Arai on a common base. This would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art because having a common mount for the motors would result in greater rotational precision for the polishing process due to the stability of having both motors mounted on a single, solid base (as compared to separate bases that may move relative to each other).
Arai in view of Park
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6066230 A (“Arai”) in view of KR 20100074489 A (“Park”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith).
Arai pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-12). Park pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Arai discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Arai does not explicitly disclose a belt that engages an outer surface of the outer platen, wherein the belt is driven by the second motor. However, the Arai/Park combination makes obvious this claim.
Park discloses a belt that engages an outer surface of the outer platen, wherein the belt is driven by the second motor (Fig. 2, belt 133B engages outer surface (at reference 132B) of outer platen 120, where belt 133B is driven by the second motor 135B).
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 Park with Arai by substituting the gear transmission (Arai Fig. 1, elements 42a and 22a) with a belt system as recited (e.g., a belt is driven by second motor 42 and is wrapped around surface 22a of Arai Fig. 1). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a case of simple substitution and the results due to the use of a belt transmission system instead of a gear transmission system to achieve the rotation of the outer platen would have been predictable and could be easily adapted as needed (e.g., choosing a pulley size on the second motor 42 side to adjust for desired rotational speed range).
Lim in view of Nystrom and Yamaguchi
Claims 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”) in view of US 6152806 A (“Nystrom”) and US 20160059380 A1 (“Yamaguchi”).
Lim pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3). 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, Lim discloses 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/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 Lim 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 13, Lim discloses 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/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 Lim 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/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/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.
Regarding claim 15, 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);
one or more motors to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate and rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate (Figs. 2-3, first motor 33 rotates inner platen 26 about vertical axis 30 at a first rotation rate, second motor 32 rotates outer platen 25 about vertical axis 30 at a second rotation rate; ¶ 0021);
Lim does not explicitly disclose one or more nozzles positioned to spray a cleaning liquid into the gap. However, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim.
Nystrom discloses one or more nozzles positioned to spray 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 positioned to spray a cleaning liquid... (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 Lim by adding a nozzle 82 or 84 (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.
The obviousness rationale for claim 15 is the same as for claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 15 as applied above.
Nystrom discloses a conduit through the inner platen or the outer platen with one or more openings in a sidewall of the inner platen or the outer platen into the gap (Figs. 9-10; 5:51-62, passage 84 through the inner platen 120 and an opening 84 in the sidewall of inner platen 120 and into the gap 50).
Yamaguchi discloses a conduit through the inner platen or the outer platen with one or more openings in...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 Lim 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 16 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 15 as applied above.
Nystrom discloses wherein the nozzles are horizontally fixed (Figs. 9-10; 5:51-62, nozzles 82 and 84 are fixed in the horizontal position, and nozzles 84 are capable of spraying fluid in the horizontal direction).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 15 as applied above.
Yamaguchi discloses a deionized water source to provide cleaning fluid to the one or more nozzles (Figs. 1-3; 30:4-15, 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).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, 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);
one or more motors to rotate the inner platen about a vertical axis at a first rotation rate and rotate the outer platen about the vertical axis at a second rotation rate (Figs. 2-3, first motor 33 rotates inner platen 26 about vertical axis 30 at a first rotation rate, second motor 32 rotates outer platen 25 about vertical axis 30 at a second rotation rate; ¶ 0021);
Lim does not explicitly disclose:
a conduit through the inner platen or outer platen with one or more openings in a sidewall of the inner platen or outer platen into the gap;
and a cleaning liquid source coupled to the passage to direct cleaning liquid through the one or more openings into the gap.
However, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim.
Nystrom discloses a conduit through the inner platen or the outer platen with one or more openings in a sidewall of the inner platen or the outer platen into the gap (Figs. 9-10; 5:51-62, passage 84 through the inner platen 120 or outer platen 130 and an opening 84 in the sidewall of inner platen 120 or outer platen 130 and into the gap 50).
Yamaguchi discloses:
a conduit through the inner platen or the outer platen with one or more openings in...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);
and 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.
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 Lim 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, where the cleaning fluid is supplied to the passage by the cleaning liquid source 714 of Yamaguchi. Examiner notes that Nystrom teaches that the passage (“conduit”) may be present in the inner or outer platen (Figs. 9-10; Nystrom 5:51-62).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim for the same reasons as for claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim for the same reasons as for claim 19.
Regarding claim 22, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious this claim for the same reasons as for claim 19 (see § 112(d) rejection above).
Regarding claim 23, the Lim/Nystrom/Yamaguchi combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 19 as applied above.
Yamaguchi discloses wherein the cleaning liquid is deionized water (Figs. 1-3; 30:4-15, 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).
The obviousness rationale for claim 23 is the same as for claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 6066230 A (“Arai”), US 6015337 A (“Hiyama”), and US 20030148712 A1 (“Lim”).
Regarding claim 4, the Arai/Hiyama combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 3 as applied above. As set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above, the Arai/Hiyama combination makes obvious the limitation “wherein the first gear is attached to the inner platen and is positioned to engage a toothed surface of the outer platen”. However, the prior art of record does 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 the second motor which are attached to the inner platen, and rotate together with the inner platen (e.g., at the same rotational speed about the (first) vertical axis) by virtue of being attached to the inner platen (see Spec. Fig. 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 Arai, Hiyama, or Lim to meet the recited combination of claim 4 without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure.
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claim 5 is allowable for depending from claim 4.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 8-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, and 11-23 are rejected. Claims 4-5 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 6248006 B1 (“Mukhopadhyay”) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with multiple annular platens (Abstr.; Figs. 2-3);
KR 20090027523 A (“Choi”) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with inner and outer platens (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3).
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