Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8), drawn to a top ring of a polishing apparatus comprising a top ring main body, a retainer member, a pressing mechanism, and at least one of the retainer member and the pressing mechanism is provided with a dovetail groove, and further, Species A, figs. 4-5B, drawn to both the outer peripheral wall of the retainer member and the outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism comprising the groove in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are being examined. Claim 4, 6, and 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 4 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 4 and 6 are directed towards the embodiment of fig. 6 (Species B from restriction requirement), wherein only one of the retainer member and the pressing mechanism includes a dovetail groove for a fitting portion of one end of the band to insert through, while the other end of the band is sandwiched between an upper member and the retainer member or pressing mechanism.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence of the abstract recites, “Provided is…” and the abstract exceeds 150 words (e.g. 203 words). Further, the Examiner suggests reference numbers included in the abstract being in parentheticals. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed 01/18/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The amended statement of incorporation by reference to the international patent application no. PCT/JP2022/026170, and of the Japanese Patent Application No. 2021-118470, is ineffective as it was added after the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of the national stage application is the filing of the associated PCT, in this case, 06/30/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 01/18/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter incorporation by reference statement in the reply to this Office Action.
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 limitations are:
“a retainer member…to hold an outer edge of the substrate” in claim 1.
“a pressing mechanism…configured to press the retainer member downward” in claim 1.
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.
Fig. 4 and p. [0038] discloses the sufficient structure of “a retainer member” is ring(s) disposed around the wafer or equivalence thereof.
Fig. 4 and pp. [0039] discloses the sufficient structure of “a pressing mechanism” is a cylinder and piston or equivalence 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukushima (US 2013/0196573).
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima (US 2013/0196573) discloses a top ring (item 1; fig. 1) of a polishing apparatus (fig. 1), comprising:
a top ring main body (item 10 which includes items 41, 42, 43, 45; pp. [0104-0105]; fig. 2; similar to applicant’s disclosure, fig. 3 in instant disclosure) having a substrate support surface (item 45; fig. 2) supporting an upper surface of a substrate (pp. [0106]; substrate support surface 45 is secured to upper surface of substrate W; fig. 2);
a retainer member (includes items 20, 30; pp. [0104]; fig. 2) disposed so as to surround an outer periphery of the substrate support surface (both rings 20, 30 of retainer member surround outer periphery of substrate support surface 45; fig. 8) to hold an outer edge of the substrate (pp. [0107]; figs. 2 and 8);
a pressing mechanism (includes items 60, 80; pp. [0108] and [0114]; figs. 2 and 8) disposed above the retainer member (fig. 8) and configured to press the retainer member downward (pp. [0108] and [0114]; pressing mechanism is capable of pressing portions of retainer member downward onto polishing pad); and
a band (item 123 that mounts to outer peripheral wall(s); annotated figs. 8 and 16 below) disposed extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member (pp. [0141]; band extends over entire circumference of outer peripheral wall 32 of a portion of the retainer member, i.e. item 30 of retainer member) to an outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism (pp. [0141; bands extend over entire circumference of outer peripheral wall 83 of a portion of the pressing mechanism, i.e. item 80 of pressing mechanism), the band having at least one fitting portion (designated in annotated fig. 8 below), wherein
PNG
media_image1.png
487
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First Annotated Fig. 8.
at least one of the outer peripheral wall of the retainer member and the outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism is provided with a groove in which the fitting portion of the band is fitted (both outer peripheral wall 32 and outer peripheral wall 83 include groove, i.e. opening, in which band inserts into; fig. 8),
the groove is a dovetail groove configured to have a groove opening (defined as outermost left edge of opening in view of figs. 8 and 16, i.e. in which fitting portion is first inserted through), a groove bottom (designated in annotated fig. 16 below) opposed to the groove opening (groove bottom is on opposed end of groove, i.e. along left-right direction in view of figs. 8 and 16), a first groove side wall connecting the groove opening to the groove bottom (designated in annotated fig. 16 below), and a second groove side wall connecting the groove opening to the groove bottom (designated in annotated fig. 16 below) and opposed to the first groove side wall (first and second side walls are opposed along up-down direction in view of figs. 8 and 16), in cross-sectional view (view of figs. 8 and 16), and the dovetail groove is configured such that an interval between the first groove side wall and the second groove side wall widens as the interval approaches the groove bottom (groove is smaller at groove opening and widens, i.e. dovetail shape, when moving towards groove bottom; annotated fig. 16 below), and
PNG
media_image2.png
303
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
First Annotated Fig. 16.
the fitting portion is configured to be in contact with the first groove side wall and the second groove side wall in a state where the fitting portion of the band is fitted in the dovetail groove (in a state in which fitting portion of band 123 inserts into groove, i.e. state of figs. 8 and 16, the fitting portion is capable of contact both first and second side walls).
PNG
media_image3.png
313
361
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 16.
Regarding claim 3, Fukushima discloses the top ring of the polishing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein
a part of the band is provided with an expansion and contraction portion (defined as middle portion of band 123 between both fitting portions, i.e. bellow-shaped portion; fig. 8) expandable and contractable in a vertical direction (pp. [0141]; band 123 extends in vertical direction via bellows).
Regarding claim 5, Fukushima discloses the top ring of the polishing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the groove is provided on both the outer peripheral wall of the retainer member (groove is provided on outer peripheral wall 32 of a portion of retainer member, i.e. item 30 of retainer member; fig. 8) and the outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism (groove is also provided on outer peripheral wall 83 of a portion of pressing mechanism, i.e. item 80 of pressing mechanism; fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Fukushima discloses the top ring of the polishing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the groove opening is provided with a depressed portion (designated in second annotated fig. 16 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
197
277
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated Fig. 16.
The recitations “for a processing tool for processing the groove to pass through when the processing tool is inserted from the groove opening into the groove" is considered to be an intended use limitation. The applicant is reminded that 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 satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the depressed portion of the groove opening is able to receive a processing tool in order to process, i.e. produce, the groove prior to the fitting portion being inserted into the groove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2013/0196573) in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0039024).
Regarding claim 2, Fukushima discloses the top ring of the polishing apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the fitting portion of the band has a first projecting portion (designated in third annotated fig . 16 below) in contact with the first groove side wall (first annotated fig. 16 above) and a second projecting portion (designated in third annotated fig. 16 below) in contact with the second groove side wall (first annotated fig. 16 above).
PNG
media_image5.png
294
378
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Third Annotated Fig. 16.
Fukushima does not explicitly disclose a v-shaped groove in a cross-sectionally v shape is provided between the first projecting portion and the second projection portion.
However, Kobayashi (US 2020/0039024) teaches a top ring (item 302; fig. 4) for a polishing apparatus (fig. 4) comprising a retainer member (includes items 412, 416; fig. 10), a pressing mechanism (item 404; fig. 10), and a band (item 414; fig. 10) disposed extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member to an outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism (fig. 10), the band including a fitting portion (designated in annotated fig. 10 below), and wherein the fitting portion has a first projecting portion (designated in annotated fig. 10 below), a second projecting portion (designated in annotated fig. 10 below), and a v-shaped groove (defined by gray highlighted space between the projection portions in annotated fig. 10 below) provided between the projection portions.
PNG
media_image6.png
245
320
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 10.
Both Fukushima and Kobayashi disclose a band with fitting portion(s) including projecting portions to insert within a groove on a corresponding outer peripheral wall. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second projecting portion, as disclosed in Fukushima, with the first and second projecting portion having a v-shaped groove between the projecting portions, as taught in Kobayashi, to achieve the predictable result of inserting the fitting portion(s) of the band onto the outer peripheral wall of the retainer member and pressing mechanism in order for the gap to be sealed between the retainer member and pressing mechanism, and thereby prevent polishing liquid or the like from entering into the space between the pressing mechanism and retainer member.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 2013/0196573) in view of Loebmann (US 2013/0316620).
Regarding claim 8, Fukushima discloses the top ring of the polishing apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Fukushima discloses the substrate is a circular shape (fig. 1), and does not explicitly disclose the substrate is a polygonal substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate to be polygonal in shape since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.IV-B). Loebmann (US 2013/0316620) teaches a top ring for a polishing apparatus (fig. 1), wherein the top ring includes a retainer member (item 1; figs. 2a-2b) for holding an outer edge of a substrate (pp. [0032-0033]; figs. 2a-2b), wherein an inner surface of the retainer ring may be other shapes, i.e. non-circular shapes, for retaining wafers of different sizes and shapes (pp. [0033]). Therefore, absent any new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to change the shape of the inner surface of the retainer ring to be polygonal for a polygonal substrate, in view of the teachings of Loebmann, since such a modification would yield the same results of securing the substrate in place during use, and in view of Loebmann, there are reasonable expectations of success. Please note that in the instant application, pp. [0027], the application has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (“the shape of the substrate Wf, however is not limited to such a polygon, and may, for example, be a circular shape…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasuda (US 2008/0318499) discloses a top ring for a polishing apparatus comprising a top ring main body, a retainer member to hold a substrate, a pressing mechanism to press the retainer member downward, and a band extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member.
Nabeya (US 2009/0111362) discloses a top ring for a polishing apparatus comprising a top ring main body, a retainer member to hold a substrate, a pressing mechanism to press the retainer member downward, and a band extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member to an outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism.
Fukushima (US 2010/0273405) discloses a top ring for a polishing apparatus comprising a top ring main body, a retainer member to hold a substrate, a pressing mechanism to press the retainer member downward, and a band extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member to an outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism, wherein both peripheral walls of the retainer member and the pressing mechanism comprise a groove in which a fitting portion of the band is inserted within.
Yashuda (US 10,092,992) discloses a top ring for a polishing apparatus comprising a top ring main body, a retainer member to hold a substrate, a pressing mechanism to press the retainer member downward, and the top ring may include a band extending from an outer peripheral wall of the retainer member to an outer peripheral wall of the pressing mechanism, wherein both peripheral walls of the retainer member and the pressing mechanism comprise a groove in which a fitting portion of the band is inserted within.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights