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 .
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). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 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 CFR 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. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please 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.
Claims 1-11, 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10 and 12-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,282,755 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 1, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 1) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: a polishing station having a platen to support a polishing pad, a carrier head to hold a substrate, and a motor to rotate the carrier head; a robotic arm configured to transfer the substrate to the polishing station; and a controller including a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program having instructions to store an angular removal profile for the carrier head, receive an angular thickness profile of the substrate, calculate a loading orientation by using the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile in an algorithm configured to reduce angular asymmetry by finding a loading orientation for the carrier head relative to the substrate at which a final thickness profile for the substrate has reduced angular asymmetry relative to other possible loading orientations, cause the motor to rotate the carrier head such that the carrier head is at the calculated loading orientation, and cause the substrate to be loaded into the carrier head with the carrier head at the calculated loading orientation.
In regards to claim 2, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 1) discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the loading orientation by calculating an angular asymmetry for a plurality of possible loading orientations and determining of one of the plurality of possible loading orientations having reduced angular asymmetry in final thickness profile relative to the other possible loading orientations.
In regards to claim 3, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 2) discloses wherein the controller is configured to, for each angular difference of a plurality of angular differences, calculate a total thickness difference between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile using the angular difference as angular offset between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile.
In regards to claim 4, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 3) discloses wherein the controller is configured to select an angular difference from the plurality of angular differences that has a minimum total thickness difference.
In regards to claim 5, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 4) discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the loading orientation based on the selected angular difference.
In regards to claim 6, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 5) discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the total thickness difference as a sum of least squared differences between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile.
In regards to claim 7, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 6) discloses comprising a metrology station having a sensor configured to measure the angular thickness profile of the substrate.
In regards to claim 8, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 7) discloses wherein the sensor comprises a line scan camera.
In regards to claim 9, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 8) discloses comprising a sensor to determine an angular orientation of the substrate prior to loading of the substrate into the carrier head.
In regards to claim 10, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 10) discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect a flat or a notch on the substrate.
In regards to claim 11, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 12) discloses comprising a metrology station to measure the angular thickness profile of the substrate, and wherein the sensor is positioned in the metrology station to determine an angular orientation of the substrate in the metrology station.
In regards to claim 15, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 13) discloses wherein the carrier head has one or more markers that are indicative of the carrier head orientation, and the system comprises an optical sensor to detect the marker to measure an angular position of the carrier head.
In regards to claim 16, 11,282,755 B2 (claim 14) discloses further comprising motor encoder to measure an angular position of the carrier head.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherian et al. (Cherian) (US 2014/0242883 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: a polishing station (items 124, 124a-124d) having a platen to support a polishing pad (item 130), a carrier head (item 126) to hold a substrate (item 10), and a motor (item 150) to rotate the carrier head (item 126); a robotic arm (item 110) configured to transfer the substrate (item 10) to the polishing station (items 124, 124a-124d); and a controller (item 190) including a processor (item 192) and non-transitory computer readable medium (item 194, paragraph 39), but does not specifically disclose a non-transitory computer medium storing a computer program having instructions to store an angular removal profile for the carrier head, receive an angular thickness profile of the substrate, calculate a loading orientation by using the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile in an algorithm configured to reduce angular asymmetry by finding a loading orientation for the carrier head relative to the substrate at which a final thickness profile for the substrate has reduced angular asymmetry relative to other possible loading orientations, cause the motor to rotate the carrier head such that the carrier head is at the calculated loading orientation, and cause the substrate to be loaded into the carrier head with the carrier head at the calculated loading orientation.
The Examiner takes the position that since the Cherian has the same structure as the Applicant’s claimed invention, that the polishing system as taught by Cherian would be fully capable of performing the claimed instructions if that algorithm was stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide that particular algorithm/instructions if that is how one of ordinary skill in the art would like the apparatus to perform.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).”
In regards to claim 2, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to calculate the loading orientation by calculating an angular asymmetry for a plurality of possible loading orientations and determining of one of the plurality of possible loading orientations having reduced angular asymmetry in final thickness profile relative to the other possible loading orientations. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 3, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to, for each angular difference of a plurality of angular differences, calculate a total thickness difference between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile using the angular difference as angular offset between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 4, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to select an angular difference from the plurality of angular differences that has a minimum total thickness difference. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 5, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to determine the loading orientation based on the selected angular difference. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 6, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to calculate the total thickness difference as a sum of least squared differences between the angular removal profile and the angular thickness profile. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 7, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses comprising a metrology station (item 160) having a sensor configured to measure the angular thickness profile of the substrate.
In regards to claim 8, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses wherein the sensor comprises a line scan camera.
In regards to claim 9, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses comprising a sensor to determine an angular orientation of the substrate prior to loading of the substrate into the carrier head.
In regards to claim 10, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses wherein the sensor is configured to detect a flat or a notch on the substrate (item 10).
In regards to claim 11, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses comprising a metrology station (item 160) to measure the angular thickness profile of the substrate, and wherein the sensor is positioned in the metrology station to determine an angular orientation of the substrate in the metrology station.
In regards to claim 12, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to calculate a desired absolute angular position for the carrier head for loading of the substrate into the carrier head based on the angular orientation of the substrate and the calculated loading orientation. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 13, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to calculate an absolute angular position of the substrate upon loading into the carrier head based on the angular orientation of the substrate as measured at a measuring position by the sensor and a stored value representing an amount of rotation from a predetermined motion of one or more robots that transfer the substrate from the measuring position into the carrier head. However, the Examiner takes the position the controller of Cherian is able to be configured to perform the same claim functions being that the structures are same. Examiner notes that these are apparatus claims and deal with structure. Applicant needs to claim the structure of the controller that gives rise to these functions.
In regards to claim 14, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) does not specifically disclose wherein the controller (item 190) is configured to calculate the desired absolute angular position for the carrier head (item 126) as a sum of the absolute angular position of the substrate (item 10) and the calculated loading orientation.
In regards to claim 15, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses wherein the carrier head has one or more markers that are indicative of the carrier head (item 126) orientation, and the system comprises an optical sensor to detect the marker to measure an angular position of the carrier head (item 126).
In regards to claim 16, Cherian (Figs. 1-9 and associated text) discloses further comprising motor encoder (paragraph 38) to measure an angular position of the carrier head (item 126).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 January 6, 2026