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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn in view of the election requirement.
Claims 1-9 have been rejected.
Priority and Formal Matters
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed for Application No. CN202210432780.1 on 11/22/2023.
The instant application therefore claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 4/24/2022 claiming benefit to CN202210432780.1.
Claims 10-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01 June 2026.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: a determining unit in claims 1, 4, and 5. The specification does not provide any corresponding structure for performing the steps of the determining unit.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections-35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
(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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite a determining unit, however, the specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps. While the disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification, it must be clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation (see MPEP § 2181(II)(A)). Here, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably conclude the determining unit be performed with a general purpose computer, by a human (similar to the other manual calibration steps disclosed in the specification in at least ¶ 0021), a particular measuring device such as an electronic caliper, etc.. Therefore, there fails to be adequate written description for the determining unit.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-9 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy the written description requirement issues of claim 1. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite a determining unit, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the determining function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to have any specific hardware configuration or computer for performing the claimed steps. The metes and bounds of the determining unit is unclear as the configuration could reasonably be performed with a general purpose computer, by a human (similar to the other manual calibration steps disclosed in the specification in at least ¶ 0021), a particular measuring device such as an electronic caliper, etc.. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function,
applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 3, and 6-9 depend on claim 1 and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1. As dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claims they depend on, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN110411344A)[hereinafter Liu].
Claim 1 is rejected because Liu teaches on all elements of the claim:
a device for calibrating working positions of a polishing head and a transfer station, comprising is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 037-38 and ¶ 040-41 (teaching on a distance based calibration of a polishing head and a transfer station)
a transfer station (1) capable of reciprocating along a linear trajectory (2) is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 037-38 (teaching on a loading/unloading table (treated as synonymous to a linear transfer station))
a polishing head (3) capable of rotating in a circumferential direction, with a rotational trajectory (5) intersecting with the linear trajectory (2) at least once is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 038 (teaching on a rotating polishing head intersecting with a coaxial intersection with the loading/unloading table)
a sensor assembly (4) used for monitoring the change of a distance between an outer edge of the polishing head (3) and a sensor (41), comprising the sensor (41), and capable of measuring the distance at least at two radial ends of the transfer station (1); and is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 091 and ¶ 101-102 (teaching on a plurality of measuring components (treated as synonymous to a sensor array) for distance monitoring between the polishing head edge and the radial ends of the loading/unloading table)
a determining unit used for outputting a minimum linear distance between the outer edge of the polishing head (3) and the sensor (41) monitored by the sensor assembly (4) to determine whether central axes of the polishing head (3) and the transfer station (1) coincide is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 039-41 (teaching on determining a minimum/shortest linear distance (for example - AA') between the calibration points insofar that the calibration purpose is the polishing head circle and the center of the loading and unloading table coincide and thus coaxial)
As per claim 2, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein there are at least two sensors (41) which are arranged at the two radial ends of the transfer station (1); or there is one sensor (41) which is capable of moving to the two radial ends around an outer edge of the transfer station (1) is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 041, ¶ 091, and ¶ 101-102 (teaching on the plurality of measuring components being located on the radial points of the loading/unloading table - here points C and D)
As per claim 3, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the number of the sensors (41) is at least two, the sensors are arranged in an extending direction of the linear trajectory (2) is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 041, ¶ 091, and ¶ 101-102 (teaching on the plurality of measuring components being located on the radial points of the loading/unloading table - here points C and D at either side of the circumference)
As per claim 4, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein the determining unit is used for outputting a minimum value of the sum of the distances between the outer edge of the polishing head (3) and the sensor (41) monitored by the sensor assembly (4), or/and outputting a minimum value of the difference between the distances between the outer edge of the polishing head (3) and the sensor (41) monitored by the sensor assembly (4), so as to determine whether the central axes of the polishing head (3) and the transfer station (1) coincide is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 039-41 and ¶ 043-44 (teaching on determining a minimum/shortest linear distance (for example - AA') between the calibration points insofar that the calibration purpose is the polishing head circle and the center of the loading and unloading table coincide and thus coaxial and calibrating the devices accordingly)
As per claim 5, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein the determining unit is used for comparing a minimum value of the sum of the distances between the outer edge of the polishing head (3) and the sensor (41) monitored by the sensor assembly (4) with a set value, or/and comparing a minimum value of the difference between the distances between the outer edge of the polishing head (3) and the sensor (41) monitored by the sensor assembly (4) with a set value, so as to determine whether the central axes of the polishing head (3) and the transfer station (1) coincide is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 039-41, ¶ 043-44, and ¶ 052 (teaching on determining a minimum/shortest linear distance (for example - AA') between the calibration point pairs and determining that that directional pairs are equal (Examiner notes this would necessarily require subtracting distance values and comparing to a zero value “minimum”))
As per claim 6, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein the sensor assembly (4) further comprises a receiving groove (42) arranged on the transfer station (1) and a fixed base (43) connected with the sensor (41), and the fixed base (43) and the receiving groove (42) are detachably connected is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 0093 (teaching on the fixing member between the measuring members and the loading/unloading platform including a screw-in (treated as synonymous with a receiving groove) connection wherein a screw can necessarily be "detached")
As per claim 8, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein the sensor (41) is a distance measuring sensor, and there are two in total is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 091 and ¶ 101-102 (teaching on a plurality of measuring components (treated as synonymous to a sensor array) for distance monitoring between the polishing head edge and the radial ends of the loading/unloading table)
As per claim 9, Liu discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Liu also discloses the following:
the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 1, wherein the transfer station (1) is driven by a support (11) to reciprocate along the linear trajectory (2), and is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 037-38 (teaching on a loading/unloading table (treated as synonymous to a linear transfer station))
the polishing head (3) is driven by a polishing head swing arm (31) to rotate in the circumferential direction is taught in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 038 and ¶ 044 (teaching on a rotating polishing head on a controlled movement fixture (treated as synonymous to an arm) calibrated via intersecting with a coaxial intersection with the loading/unloading table)
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The limitation in claim 7 stating: the device for calibrating the working positions of the polishing head and the transfer station according to claim 6, wherein a longitudinal section of the receiving groove (42) is U-shaped, a transverse section of the fixed base (43) is I-shaped, and a necking section (431) of the fixed base (43) is inserted into a notch (421) of the receiving groove (42) from top to bottom is free of the prior art.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Liu (CN110411344A)[hereinafter Liu] teaching on the fixing member between the measuring members and the loading/unloading platform including a screw-in (treated as synonymous with a receiving groove) connection in the Detailed Ways in ¶ 0093
Tolles et al. (US 20070238399 A1) teaching on calibration method for a polishing head with a linear polishing path with a transfer station with sensors connected to each side of the transfer station slide on a horizontally extending fin in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0127 and in Figure 9 reference character 928 and 926
While Liu and Tolles teach on different attachment configurations, neither teach on the embodiment specifically required by the instant claim. Therefore, claim 7 is free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hung TC, Chang SH, Ding CH, Su YT, Improvement of residual error in hydrodynamic polishing by recursive error compensation strategy, 93 Microelectron Eng 27–34 (2012) teaching on tool positioning optimization based on linear distances in § 2.Recursive error compensation strategy and Fig. 4 on p. 29
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights