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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2025 and 01/20/2026 were filed after the mailing date of the application on 10/10/2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. As recited, claims 1, 3, 12 & 13 requires each of the first and second stage actuators to vertically translate both the carrier head and the motor. While the figures do support the first stage actuator moving the carrier head and the motor, the second stage actuator is only shown to move the carrier head. Therefore, the second stage actuator vertically translating the carrier head and the motor must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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 USC § 112
Claims 1 & 12 and their dependent claims (claims 2-11 & 13-18) 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.
Regarding claims 1 & 12 it is unclear how the second stage actuator vertically translates the carrier head and the motor (emphasis added)In the disclosure, the second stage actuator appears to act only on the carrier head, and not on the motor, as disclosed by applicant. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of this Office Action, with regard to the translation caused by the second stage actuator, “the carrier head and the motor” will be interpreted as “the carrier head”. Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim. No new matter should be entered.
The term “hard stop” in claims 6 & 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15& 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf, in view of the disclosure of Metcalf.
Regarding claim 1, Metcalf teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system (fig. 1), comprising:
a carrier head (element 28, fig. 1);
a motor (element 12, fig. 1) that is coupled (element 10, 38, fig. 1) with the carrier head, the motor being operable to rotate the carrier head about a central axis of the carrier head (element 134, fig. 5; col. 7, line 63-67);
a two-stage downforce actuator (element 18, 84, fig. 1) that is operable to vertically translate the carrier head and the motor between a raised position and a cleaning position (element 18, col. 4, line 20-24), wherein the two-stage downforce actuator comprises:
a first stage that comprises a linear actuator (element 18, fig. 1; col. 4, line 24-27, 38-43) that is operable to vertically translate the carrier head and the motor between the raised position (col. 4, line 20-24, 27-30; note, positioning device moves between the lowered cleaning position and a raised rest position) and the cleaning position (col. 4, line 20-24, 27-30; note, positioning device moves between the lowered cleaning position and a raised rest position); and
a second stage that comprises an expandable flexure (element 62, 84, fig. 1; col 5, line 32-39, col. 6, line 11-21; note, both bellows (element 84) and flexible kinematic coupling element (element 62) work in conjunction to facilitate translation of carrier head and transfer of motor torque) that is operable to vertically translate the carrier head and the motor (As described in 112(b) rejection above; col. 6, line 35-40; note, pressure provided to bellows causes downward force, thereby vertically translating carrier head) between the cleaning position and the raised position (note, bellows expand to move between raised rest position and lowered cleaning position).
Metcalf fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first stage is operable to vertically translate at least an upper 50% of a vertical travel distance between the raised position; and
wherein the second stage is operable to vertically translate no greater than a lower 50% of the vertical distance between the raised position and the cleaning position.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the travel of the first stage is “at least an upper 50%” of the vertical distance or the travel of the second stage is “no greater than a lower 50%” of the vertical distance or that these particular dimensions provides any unexpected result, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel distances of the stages, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, Metcalf discloses a substantially identical two-stage downforce actuator to that of applicant where the only difference is Metcalf does not indicate the specific vertical travel of each of the stages. Modifying the two-stage actuator of Metcalf so that the travel of the first stage is “at least an upper 50%” of the vertical distance and the travel of the second stage is “no greater than a lower 50%” of the vertical distance, is well within the level of skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would understand that the modification would not change the operation of Metcalf.
Regarding claim 2, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the linear actuator comprises a pneumatic actuator (element 18, fig. 1; col. 4, line 24-27).
Regarding claim 3, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the expandable flexure expands to vertically transfer the carrier head downward (As described in 112(b) rejection above; Metcalf; col. 6, line 35-40; pressure provided to bellows causes downward force, thereby extending or expanding bellows downwardly to contact transfer plate, thereby urging carrier head downward);
a top end of the expandable flexure defines a fluid inlet port (Metcalf; element 82, 86, fig. 1; col. 6, line 11-19; note fluid source (load pressure source, element 82) connects to bellows through fluid inlet port (air passage, element 86)).
Metcalf fails to explicitly disclose:
the expandable flexure contracts to vertically transfer the carrier head and the motor upward (As described in 112(b) rejection above).
However, Metcalf further teaches that “positioning device 18 moves the piston 16 between the lowered polish position 16 shown in solid lines in FIG. 1, and a raised rest position 16' shown in dashed lines in FIG. 1” (col. 4, line 27-30) and that “positioning device 18 could be a pneumatic bellows rather than a cylinder” (col. 4, line 38-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metcalf by permitting the expandable flexure to contract to transfer the carrier head upward. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since Metcalf suggests the viability of bellows as an actuator for positioning device 18, bellows would need to be capable of both raising and lowering the carrier head. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the expandable flexure should also be able to expand and contract to raise and lower the carrier head. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the
incorporation of a raising mechanism would increase adjustability and offer a finer movement in the total stroke.
Regarding claim 4, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches:
wherein the fluid inlet port is fluidly coupled with a fluid source (Metcalf; element 82, 88, fig. 1; col. 6, line 11-19; note, fluid source (load pressure source, element 82) and fluidly coupled (external tubing, element 88)).
Regarding claim 5, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein a top end (element 10, 14, fig. 1) of the expandable flexure (element 84) is coupled with a shaft of the motor (element 10, fig. 1; see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c) below; note, top end of expandable flexure is secured to mounting plate (element 14), the expandable flexure being in a fixed location, rotationally. Bottom end of expandable flexure interacts directly with and is coupled to the top side of load transfer plate (element 34)) and a bottom end (element 34, fig. 1) of the expandable flexure is coupled with a shaft of the carrier head (element 34, 36, 38, fig. 1; see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c); note, flexible kinematic coupling element (element 62) transfers motor torque from motor shaft (element 10) to carrier head through flange (element 34,
PNG
media_image1.png
442
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
36) and friction drive ring (element 38)).
Regarding claim 7, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the expandable flexure comprises a dual flexure that comprises an expandable top surface and an expandable bottom surface (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c)).
Metcalf teaches expandable flexure (bellows, element 84), which are constructed of a folded sheet. When expanded, the folds, and their respective surfaces, move away from each other to permit expansion of the member.
Regarding claim 8, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the expandable flexure comprises:
a peripheral edge (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c));
an upper mounting hub (element 14, fig. 1) that is coupled with the motor (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b & c) below; note, bellows coupled to mounting plate (element 14) by securing ring (no element #) which is coupled to motor housing (no element #));
an upper flexible wall that extends between and couples the peripheral edge with the upper mounting hub (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c));
a lower mounting hub (element 92, fig. 1) that is coupled with the carrier head (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b & c) below; note, bellows coupled to load transfer plate (element 34) via thrust bearing (element 92), which is further coupled to carrier head via external flange (element 36))); and
a lower flexible wall that extends between and couples the peripheral edge with the lower mounting hub (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c)).
PNG
media_image2.png
489
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the first stage comprises a hard stop that limits a downward travel position of the linear actuator (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (a) below; note, lower portion of first stage actuator limits downward travel of linear actuator to lowest position (element 16)).
PNG
media_image3.png
731
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
a cleaning pad (element 60, 128, fig. 1) disposed below the carrier head (element 28, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Metcalf teaches a two-stage downforce actuator (element 18, 84, fig. 1), comprising:
a first stage that comprises a linear actuator (element 18, fig. 1; col. 4, line 24-27, 38-43) that is operable to vertically translate a carrier head and a motor between a raised position (col. 4, line 20-24, 27-30; note, positioning device moves between the lowered cleaning position and a raised rest position) and a cleaning position (col. 4, line 20-24, 27-30; note, positioning device moves between the lowered cleaning position and a raised rest position); and
a second stage that comprises an expandable flexure (element 62, 84, fig. 1; col 5, line 32-39, col. 6, line 11-21; note, both bellows (element 84) and flexible kinematic coupling element (element 62) work in conjunction to facilitate translation of carrier head and transfer of motor torque) that is operable to vertically translate the carrier head and the motor (As described in 112(b) rejection above; col. 6, line 35-40; note, pressure provided to bellows causes downward force, thereby vertically translating carrier head) between the cleaning position and the raised position (note, bellows expand to move between raised rest position and lowered cleaning position).
Metcalf fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first stage is operable to vertically translate at least an upper 50% of a vertical travel distance between the raised position; and
wherein the second stage is operable to vertically translate no greater than a lower 50% of the vertical distance between the raised position and the cleaning position.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the travel of the first stage is “at least an upper 50%” of the vertical distance or the travel of the second stage is “no greater than a lower 50%” of the vertical distance or that these particular dimensions provides any unexpected result, and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the travel distances of the stages, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, Metcalf discloses a substantially identical two-stage downforce actuator to that of applicant where the only difference is Metcalf does not indicate the specific vertical travel of each of the stages. Modifying the two-stage actuator of Metcalf so that the travel of the first stage is “at least an upper 50%” of the vertical distance and the travel of the second stage is “no greater than a lower 50%” of the vertical distance, is well within the level of skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would understand that the modification would not change the operation of Metcalf.
Regarding claim 13, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches:
wherein the expandable flexure expands to vertically transfer the carrier head and the motor downward (As described in 112(b) rejection above; Metcalf; col. 6, line 35-40; note, pressure provided to bellows causes downward force, thereby extending or expanding bellows downwardly to contact transfer plate, thereby urging carrier head downward);
Metcalf teaches that “positioning device 18 moves the piston 16 between the lowered polish position 16 shown in solid lines in FIG. 1, and a raised rest position 16' shown in dashed lines in FIG. 1” (col. 4, line 27-30) and that “positioning device 18 could be a pneumatic bellows rather than a cylinder” (col. 4, line 38-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metcalf by permitting the expandable flexure to contract to transfer the carrier head upward. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since Metcalf suggests the viability of bellows as an actuator for positioning device 18, bellows would need to be capable of both raising and lowering the carrier head. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the expandable flexure should also be able to expand and contract to raise and lower the carrier head. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the
incorporation of a raising mechanism would increase adjustability and offer a finer movement in the total stroke.
Regarding claim 14, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches:
wherein the expandable flexure defines an interior fluid chamber between a top wall and a bottom wall of the expandable flexure (element 86, fig. 1; see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (c); note, bellows have ribbed structure, where ribs have top and bottom walls, defining the interior fluid chamber).
Regarding claim 15, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches:
wherein in a contracted state, inner surface of the top wall and inner surface of the bottom wall are in contact (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b) below).
PNG
media_image2.png
489
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Metcalf teaches securing rings to attach the bellows to the upper and lower mounting surfaces.
The drawings are not to scale; however, it would be evident to one of ordinary skill in the art that one of the securing rings, either the central ring or the peripheral rings, would come in contact with the vertically adjacent portions of the bellows, when the bellows are compressed or in a contracted state. Since the securing rings comprise a portion of the flexure (bellows), the top and bottom walls of the flexure would come in contact at either the central or peripheral regions.
Regarding claim 17, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, and further teaches:
wherein a peripheral edge of the expandable flexure that extends about an interior fluid chamber of the expandable flexure comprises thickened walls relative to flexible portions of the top wall and the bottom wall that bound the interior fluid chamber (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b & c); note, bellow walls thickened where sheet walls of bellows overlap and where bellows are secured to upper and lower hubs by securing rings).
Regarding claim 18, Metcalf discloses the limitations of claim 14, and further discloses:
wherein the top wall of the expandable flexure comprises an upper mounting hub (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b & c); note, bellows coupled to mounting plate (element 14), which comprises the upper mounting hub); and
the bottom wall of the expandable flexure comprises a lower mounting hub (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b & c); note, bellows coupled to load transfer plate (element 34) via thrust bearing (element 92), where the thrust bearing comprises the lower mounting hub).
Regarding claim 19, Metcalf discloses a method of cleaning a substrate, comprising:
positioning a substrate within a carrier head of a cleaning system (claim 11, step 1; col. 9, line 12);
lowering the carrier head and the substrate toward an upper surface of a cleaning pad (claim 11, step 3; col. 9, line 15-16) without contacting the upper surface of the cleaning pad (note, bellows of Metcalf capable of being inflated prior to making contact with surface of cleaning pad);
inflating an expandable flexure of the cleaning system to move the carrier head downward to press the substrate against the upper surface of the cleaning pad (claim 11, step 4; col. 9, line 18-22; note, load force device connected to a source of load pressure); and
cleaning the substrate against the upper surface of the cleaning pad (claim 11, step 4; col. 9, line 18-22; claim 12; line 23-28).
Regarding claim 20, Metcalf discloses the limitations of claim 19, and further discloses:
wherein inflating the expandable flexure comprises pumping a fluid into an interior fluid chamber of the expandable flexure (claim 11, step 4; col. 9, line 18-22; note, load force device connected to a source of load pressure) such that a bottom surface of the expandable flexure presses against an upper surface of the carrier head to press the carrier head and the substrate downward against the cleaning pad (claim 11, step 4; col. 9, line 18-22; note, “load force device applying the load force to the carrier through a connection separate from said coupling to polish said wafers”).
Claims 6 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf, modified, as applied to claims 5 and 14, and further in view of Nabeya (US 8083571 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Metcalf discloses the limitations of claim 5, but fails to disclose:
wherein a portion of a carrier head shaft that extends above the expandable flexure comprises a shoulder that forms a hard stop when a top surface of the expandable flexure presses against the shoulder.
Metcalf does teach structures that serve as a hard stop to limit the extension of the expandable flexure (see Metcalf annotated fig. 1 (b)).
Nabeya teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system,
wherein a portion of a carrier head shaft that extends above the expandable flexure (see Nabeya annotated fig. 9 (a) below; note, retainer ring (element 302) of the carrier head (upper member, element 300) houses flexure (elastic membrane, element 404)) comprises a shoulder that forms a hard stop (see Nabeya annotated fig. 9 (a)) when a top surface of the expandable flexure presses against the shoulder (see Nabeya annotated fig. 9 (a)).
PNG
media_image4.png
576
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Metcalf by incorporating the hard stop of Nabeya into a portion of the carrier head to limit the expansion of the expandable flexure. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of limiting the stroke of the expandable flexure to prevent overextension and to facilitate downward travel of the flexure.
Regarding claim 16, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, but fails to teach:
wherein in a contracted state, inner surface of the top wall and inner surface of the bottom wall are vertically spaced apart.
Nabeya teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system,
wherein in a contracted state, inner surface of the top wall and inner surface of the bottom wall are vertically spaced apart (see Nabeya annotated fig. 9 (b) below).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
468
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Metcalf by incorporating the expandable flexure structure and geometry of Nabeya. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that having the inner surface of the top wall and inner surface of the bottom wall are vertically spaced apart when the flexure is in a contracted state would provide additional function in the expandable flexure. Retaining this space when the flexure is in the contracted state would provide an initial fluid volume of the flexure and offer more reliable and repeatable expansion of the flexure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf in view of Katsuoka et al. (US 7585205 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Metcalf modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach:
wherein the expandable flexure comprises polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Katsuoka teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system
wherein the flexible substrate holder (element 42, fig. 6A) comprises polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Katsuoka teaches that “the substrate holder is made of an elastic material and has such a shape and a thickness which allow the substrate holder 42 to move elastically in response to the deformation of the substrate G and the cleaning pad 61 on the turntable 60”. Katsuoka further teaches that the holder may be made of PEEK (polyether ether ketone) (col.12, line 42-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Metcalf modified by incorporating PEEK as the material for constructing the expandable flexure. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that, at a suitable thickness, PEEK is a resilient and flexible material which could be used to construct the expandable flexure taught by Metcalf.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 7059948 B2) teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system with a two-stage actuator, wherein a first linear actuator provides vertical guidance and downforce during cleaning. A second pneumatic actuator provides for the transfer and retention of the substrate at intermediate steps in the machine process.
Lee et al. (US 11577364 B2) teaches a chemical mechanical cleaning system with a flexible connection member, wherein the flexible member can be inflated and deflated to act as an airbag to apply a lesser downforce than a primary linear actuator. Further, the flexible member carries a carrier head, a carrier head motor, and the linear actuator which vertically traverses both the carrier head and the motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEEGAN T MARTIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KEEGAN T MARTIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723