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 .
Claims Status
The amendment filed 04/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16, 22-23, and 25-26 are pending. Claims 2-5 and 10-16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/18/2024.
In the amendment filed 04/17/2026, claims 1 and 7 were amended, no claims were newly added, and claims 19-21 and 24 were canceled. Claims 1, 6-9, 22-23, and 25-26 are under examination on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“pressing mechanism” in claim 1, 6-9, 22-23, and 25-26 (“pressing” is the function and “mechanism” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as an air cylinder (p20, ln 4); an air bag and air bag guide [0105]; and equivalents thereof.
“tape advancing device” in claim 1, 6, 8-9, 22 and 25-26 (“tape advancing” is the function and “device” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as a tape advancing roller (48), a nip roller (49) for pressing the polishing tape against the tape advancing roller, and a tape advancing motor (47) for rotating the tape advancing roller [0096], and equivalents thereof.
“translational rotating mechanism” in claim 1, 6, 20, 22 and 25-26 (“configured to cause the polishing head … to make a translational rotation motion” is the function and “mechanism” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as a motor (62), a crankshaft (70) secured to the motor, a table (69), a base (71), and a plurality of eccentric joints (65) [0091], and equivalents thereof.
“polishing-head moving mechanism” in claim 6 (“configured to translate the polishing head” is the function and “mechanism” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as a ball screw mechanism (93) and a motor (94) for driving the ball screw mechanism (93) [0127], and equivalents thereof.
“translational rotating mechanism” in claim 7-9, and 24 (“configured to cause the plurality of rollers and the plurality of motors to make a translational rotation motion” is the function and “mechanism” is the generic placeholder) interpreted as a motor (62), a crankshaft (70) secured to the motor, a table (69), a base (71), and a plurality of eccentric joints (65) (p14, ln 17-20) and the table (69) connected to the substrate holder (10) [0133], and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim term “polishing blade” is interpreted as a structure that performs polishing by pressing of the polishing tape as explained in the specification [0094]. The structure is not interpreted as a blade or sharpened surface or a structure that itself is abrasively applied to the surface to be polished. This clarification is provided for the record because the art of polishing can include polishing blades that perform cutting or direct abrading of the surface.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa (prev. presented US 2002/0098787) in view of Doi (prev. presented JP 2003-080451, citing machine translation provided 12/30/2024), Adams (prev. presented US 6,184,139), and US Patent Application Publication 2006/0172664 of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Kunisawa teaches a polishing apparatus (Fig 9) comprising: a substrate holder (30 Fig 3A, 9) configured to hold a substrate and rotate the substrate about an axis of the substrate holder (Fig 3A) [0043] (note the axis is the central point of the rollers which coincides with the center of the substrate), the substrate holder including a plurality of rollers which are rotatable about their own axes (Fig 3A, 9 and [0043]), the plurality of rollers having substrate-holding surfaces (32 Fig 3A, 9) capable of contacting a periphery of the substrate [0043]; a polishing head (7 Fig 9) [0071] configured to bring a polishing tape (51 Fig 8, note that [0066] teaches the cross section of polishing cartridge 8 in Fig 8 is a structure of the polishing device 7), having abrasive particles on one surface [0050], into contact with a back surface of the substrate to polish the back surface (Fig 9 [0071]), the polishing head being disposed below the substrate-holding surfaces (Fig 9, see 7 relative to 32), the polishing head including a polishing blade (73 Fig 8 and 9 “presser” is a blade) configured to press the polishing tape against the back surface of the substrate [0067], and a pressing mechanism configured to push the polishing blade upward (Fig. 8, spring 72 is a functional equivalent [0067]); a polishing tape supply mechanism (Fig 6, 8) having a tape feeding reel (51 Fig 6, 8 [0051]) configured to supply the polishing tape to the polishing head [0051] and a tape take-up reel (53 Fig 6, 8) [0051] configured to take up the polishing tape [0051]; a tape advancing device configured to advance the polishing tape in its longitudinal direction (rollers 54-57 [0051], shaft 62, motor 61 [0053], Fig 6, 8). Kunisawa teaches a casing (50 Fig 6, 8 [0049]) holding and to which the polishing head and polishing tape supply mechanism are fixed [0049], but fails to teach this is a table. Examiner notes that a plate of the casing may be considered a table. Kunisawa fails to teach the polishing blade being longer than a radius of the substrate, the polishing blade extends a first distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade, the first distance being longer than a second distance extending from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers, and a translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table synchronously in a circular orbit relative to the substrate holder without rotation of the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table themselves.
Regarding the polishing blade being longer than a radius of the substrate, Kunisawa fails to teach the size of the polishing blade when used in the embodiment of Fig 9. In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for polishing a substrate using a polishing tape (abstract), Doi demonstrates that when using a polishing tape to polish the flat surface of a substrate (Fig 1, 4), the structure for pressing the tape against the substrate (30 Fig 1, 4, analogous to the blade of Kunisawa) is larger than the radius of the substrate (Fig 1, 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kunisawa to include the polishing blade when polishing a flat surface of the substrate is sized to be larger than a radius of the substrate because Kunisawa does not limit the size and Doi teaches the size of the pressing pad (30 Fig 1,4) is larger than the radius of the substrate. Regarding the polishing blade extends a first distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade, the first distance being longer than a second distance extending from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers, the polishing blade of Kunisawa in view of Doi as applied in the combination demonstrates a pressing pad (30 Fig 1,4) in which the pad has an outer end positioned at an outer edge of the substrate (see 30 Fig 1,4) whereas the rollers of Kunisawa extend radially inward of the substrate outer edge (see 30 relative to substrate W in Fig 7 and 9), therefore the combination as applied results in a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade (i.e. outer edge of substrate) being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers because the rollers have an inner edge that is radially inward of the substrate edge.
Regarding the translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table synchronously in a circular orbit relative to the substrate holder without rotation of the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, and the table themselves, Kunisawa fails to teach the movement structure for the polishing head. In the same field of endeavor of a polishing apparatus (abstract), Adams teaches a translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the polishing head to make a translational rotating motion (rotary bearing 106 Fig 1-2, wave generator 110 including cylindrical sleeve 111 Fig 1-2, offset lower rotary bearing 108 Fig 1-2, drive motor 116 Fig 1-2, pulley 114 Fig 1-2, unnumbered shaft connecting the drive motor 116 to pulley 114 Fig 1-2 and see col 5, ln 25-60, note this is a functional equivalent) which is a movement of the polishing head in a circular orbit without rotation of the polishing head itself (col 5, ln 25-60 note that although rotation motion is mentioned this is not required and any rotation of the cylindrical sleeve is not rotation of the polishing head 102 and 104). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kunisawa to include the translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel, to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the polishing head in a circular orbit without rotation of the polishing head itself as taught by Adams because Adams teaches the structure allows for movement of the polishing head into position against the substrate (col 2, ln 45-60) and because Adams teaches the arrangement allows for a controlled variety of movement options which allows for customization and flexibility (col 8, ln 56-67). Note that Kunisawa has taught the polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel move together with the supporting surface (surface of 50 Fig 6, 8) as the cartridge.
Regarding specifically a table, is applicant argues the a wall of the cartridge may not be considered the table, Chen demonstrates a table (platen 230 Fig 2) to which the supply roll (240 Fig 2) [0049] and the take up roll (248 Fig 2) [0049] and the polishing head (278 Fig 2 [0048]) are fixed [0049] and teaches that this structure is moved together (via motor 232, note that while this motor provides rotation, in the combination which uses the movement structure of Adams this is a translational rotating motion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunisawa and the combination to include a table supporting the he polishing head, the tape feeding reel, the tape take-up reel and being moved with these structures because Chen demonstrates this as a functional alternative to provide a tape polishing to a substrate surface with movement of the tape and rollers (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Adams as applied in the combination further teaches a polishing head moving mechanism (Fig 1-2) configured to translate the polishing head (col 2, ln 45-60 and col 6, ln 10-30, note oscillation is a form of translation movement). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the polishing head moving mechanism as taught by Adams because Adams teaches this structure as part of the arrangement for bring the polishing head into contact with the substrate and because Adams teaches the arrangement allows for a controlled variety of movement options which allows for customization and flexibility (col 8, ln 56-67).
Regarding claim 22, the combination remains as applied to claim 1 above. Adams as applied in the combination teaches the radius of the orbital movement (Co to Cc see col 5, ln 30-50) is about ¼ of the diameter of the wafer or less (see col 6 ln 55-65 which teaches the diameter of the orbital circle is from ½ the wafer diameter which would make the radius of the orbital circle ¼ the wafer diameter to 0.1 in with a preferred orbit diameter of 1.25 in for 8 and 12 inch wafers). The plurality of rollers as taught by Kunisawa do not extend over more than ¼ of the wafer diameter (i.e. half the wafer radius) and therefore Adams as applied in the combination teaches the radius of the circular orbit is shorter than the distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa in view of Doi, Adams, and US Patent Application Publication 2006/0234503 of Yamada et al., hereinafter Yamada.
Regarding claim 7, Kunisawa teaches a polishing apparatus (Fig 9) comprising: a substrate holder (30 Fig 3A, 9) configured to hold a substrate and rotate the substrate about an axis of the substrate holder (Fig 3A) [0043] (note the axis is the central point of the rollers which coincides with the center of the substrate), the substrate holder including a plurality of rollers which are rotatable about their own axes (Fig 3A, 9 and [0043]), the plurality of rollers having substrate-holding surfaces (32 Fig 3A, 9) capable of contacting a periphery of the substrate [0043]; a polishing head (7 Fig 9) [0071] configured to bring a polishing tool (presser 73 which presses a polishing tape Fig 9, 10 or 7a, 7b Fig 11), into contact with a back surface of the substrate to polish the back surface (Fig 9 [0071]), the polishing head being disposed below the substrate-holding surfaces (Fig 9, see 7 relative to 32), a pressing mechanism configured to push the polishing tool upward (Fig. 8, spring 72 is a functional equivalent [0067]). Kunisawa fails to teach the polishing blade being longer than a radius of the substrate, a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers, and a translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the plurality of rollers and plurality of motors (substrate holder) to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the plurality of rollers and plurality of motors (substrate holder) in a circular orbit relative to the polishing head without rotation of the plurality of rollers and plurality of motors (substrate holder) themselves. Kunisawa as cited above teaches the substrate holder includes rollers but fails to teach a plurality of motors couples to the plurality of rollers.
Regarding a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers, the polishing blade of Kunisawa is moveable such that it may be positioned to meet this requirement. Further, In the same field of endeavor of an apparatus for polishing a substrate using a polishing tape (abstract), Doi demonstrates that when using a polishing tape to polish the flat surface of a substrate (Fig 1, 4), the structure for pressing the tape against the substrate (30 Fig 1, 4, analogous to the blade of Kunisawa) is larger than the radius of the substrate (Fig 1, 4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kunisawa to include the polishing blade when polishing a flat surface of the substrate is sized to be larger than a radius of the substrate because Kunisawa does not limit the size and Doi teaches the size of the pressing pad (30 Fig 1,4) is larger than the radius of the substrate. Doi as applied herein demonstrates a pressing pad (30 Fig 1,4) in which the pad has an outer end positioned at an outer edge of the substrate (see 30 Fig 1,4) whereas the rollers of Kunisawa extend radially inward of the substrate outer edge (see 30 relative to substrate W in Fig 7 and 9), therefore the combination as applied results in a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers.
Regarding the translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the substrate holder (rollers and motors) to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the substrate holder (rollers and motors) in a circular orbit without rotation of the substrate holder itself, Kunisawa fails to teach the movement structure for the substrate holder (rollers). In the same field of endeavor of a polishing apparatus (abstract), Adams teaches a translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the substrate holder (150 Fig 5-6) to make a translational rotating motion (rotary bearing 106 Fig 5-6, wave generator 110 including cylindrical sleeve 111 Fig 5-6, offset lower rotary bearing 108 Fig 5-6, drive motor 116 Fig 5-6, pulley 114 Fig 5-6, unnumbered shaft connecting the drive motor 116 to pulley 114 Fig 5-6 and see col 7, ln 40-67, note this is a functional equivalent) which is a movement of the substrate holder (rollers) in a circular orbit without rotation of the substrate holder itself (col 7, ln 40-67 note that although rotation motion is mentioned this is not required and any rotation of the cylindrical sleeve is not rotation of the wafer carrier). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kunisawa to include the translational rotating mechanism configured to cause the substrate holder (rollers) to make a translational rotating motion which is a movement of the substrate holder in a circular orbit without rotation of the substrate holder itself as taught by Adams because Adams teaches the structure allows for movement of the substrate holder into position against the polishing pad (col 2, ln 45-60) (note the pad is analogous to the polishing head) and because Adams teaches the arrangement allows for a controlled variety of movement options which allows for customization and flexibility (col 8, ln 56-67). Note that the substrate holder of Kunisawa which is an edge gripping structure (rollers) may still be moved by a mechanism as shown by Adams. Note that synchronous movement is applied by the rollers being moved together on the same supporting structure which is moved by the movement mechanism of Adams.
Regarding the motors, Yamada teaches a substrate processing apparatus (abstract Fig 25) in which the rollers (20 Fig 25) which support the substrate (wafer W Fig 25) and to which a motor (M Fig 25) is connected to each roller (Fig 25 [00270-0271]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunisawa to include a plurality of motors coupled to the plurality of rollers because Yamada teaches this allows for support and rotation of the substrate by rollers. Note that in the combination as applied including Adams, the motors are moved with the rollers because Yamada demonstrates a motor connected to each roller (Fig 25).
Regarding claim 8, Kunisawa further teaches the polishing tool includes a polishing tape (51 Fig 8, note that [0066] teaches the cross section of polishing cartridge 8 in Fig 8 is a structure of the polishing device 7), having abrasive particles on one surface [0050], a polishing blade (73 Fig 8 and 9 “presser” is a blade) configured to press the polishing tape against the back surface of the substrate [0067], and a tape advancing device configured to advance the polishing tape in its longitudinal direction (feed reel 52 (roller), take-up reel 53 (roller), shaft 62, motor 61 [0053], Fig 8). Kunisawa further teaches the pressing mechanism coupled to the polishing blade to push the polishing blade upward (Fig. 8, spring 72 is a functional equivalent [0067]). Regarding a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers, the polishing blade of Kunisawa is moveable such that it may be positioned to meet this requirement. Further, Doi as applied in the combination demonstrates a pressing pad (30 Fig 1,4) in which the pad has an outer end positioned at an outer edge of the substrate (see 30 Fig 1,4) whereas the rollers of Kunisawa extend radially inward of the substrate outer edge (see 30 relative to substrate W in Fig 7 and 9), therefore the combination as applied results in a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to an outer end of the polishing blade being longer than a distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers.
Regarding claim 23, the combination remains as applied to claim 7 above. Adams as applied in the combination teaches the radius of the orbital movement (Co to Cc see col 5, ln 30-50) is about ¼ of the diameter of the wafer or less (see col 6 ln 55-65 which teaches the diameter of the orbital circle is from ½ the wafer diameter which would make the radius of the orbital circle ¼ the wafer diameter to 0.1 in with a preferred orbit diameter of 1.25 in for 8 and 12 inch wafers). The plurality of rollers as taught by Kunisawa do not extend over more than ¼ of the wafer diameter (i.e. half the wafer radius) and therefore Adams as applied in the combination teaches the radius of the circular orbit is shorter than the distance from the axis of the substrate holder to the plurality of rollers. Note that Adams has taught the movement mechanisms are the same for the embodiment in which the substrate holder is moved (col 7, ln 40-67).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa in view of Doi, Adams, and Yamada as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kuendig (prev. presented WO02/02270 citing machine translation provided 12/30/2024).
Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 8. The combination fails to teach the polishing blade extends obliquely with respect to the advancing direction of the polishing tape. In the same field of endeavor of a tape polishing apparatus (abstract), Kuendig teaches that as an alternative to the blade being transverse to the advancing direction of the tape (Fig 1, see 12), the blade may be positioned obliquely (position B Fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination and Kunisawa to include the blade extends obliquely because Kuendig teaches this is a functional alternative (p2 paragraph 3) for the same purpose of pressing a polishing tape to a substrate surface.
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunisawa in view of Doi, Adams, and Chen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuendig.
Regarding claim 25, the combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach a polishing tape with a width narrower than a radius of the wafer. Kuendig demonstrates the polishing blade may be arranged to be perpendicular to the roll direction of the polishing tape (Fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunisawa to include the polishing blade arranged to extend perpendicularly to the extension direction of the tape because Kuendig demonstrates this is a successful arrangement for pressing a polishing tape (see Fig 5). In such an arrangement, the size of the tape may be selected to be narrower than a radius of the substrate or to be used with a substrate sized such that the tape is narrower than the radius while still allowing for the polishing tape to be pressed along the entire diameter of the substrate as demonstrated by Doi.
Regarding claim 26, the combination as applied to claim 1 fails to teach the polishing blade is arranged obliquely with respect to the direction of travel of the polishing tape. Kuendig demonstrates the polishing blade may be arranged to be obliquely positioned relative to the roll direction of the polishing tape (Fig 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunisawa to include the polishing blade o be obliquely positioned relative to the roll direction of the polishing tape because Kuendig demonstrates this is a successful arrangement for pressing a polishing tape (see Fig 5).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/17/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,865,665 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (reply p7-8) that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations of claim 1. This is not persuasive in view of the newly applied reference Chen which teaches the table and that the table with rollers and polishing head move together as cited above. Regarding the previous application of Adams (reply p8) it is noted that improved control and flexibility of movement options increases the number and type of polishing operations that may be performed by the same apparatus and therefore increases the market value of the apparatus.
Applicant argues (reply p9-11) that the previously applied combination does not teach the amended limitations regarding the motors for the rollers. This is addressed by newly applied reference Yamada which teaches the motors for the rollers. Therefore the argument is not persuasive. Regarding the argument (reply p10) that Adams does not teach moving the same holder structure, it is noted that Adams teaches moving a holder structure and there is nothing specific to the roller structure that is understood as preventing the same movement relationship particularly given that Adams demonstrates moving a plate like structure. The synchronous movement is applied by the rollers being moved together on the same supporting structure.
As indicated above, the double patenting has been overcome by the filing of the terminal disclaimer. The remaining arguments (reply p11) rely on the alleged failing of the art to teach or render obvious the amended independent claims which have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,944,582 demonstrates the blade and rollers supported together in a movable structure (Fig 4). US 6,800,020 demonstrates the blade and rollers supported together in a movable structure (Fig 4A). US 6,315,641 demonstrates an apparatus with orbital motion of the substrate and polishing head (Fig 5A, 5B).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights