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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 and 23-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “traces” in claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 23-25 is used without a clear meaning. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The disclosure presents three types of “traces”: background, which appear to be historical data stored within the memory; measure traces recorded during the polishing process; and modified traces which is the calculated through subtracting background trace values from corresponding measured trace values. Per the applicant’s specification, “traces” have correlating time or position values. “Traces” do not have any units, nor is it clear what the “trace” is a measure of. Per the specification, traces are generated during sensor sweeps, and a “sequence of raw signal values is received that provides a measured trace for the respective sweep…For a given trace, the signal can be captured (and thus the graph can represent the signal) as a function of time or of position…” relating to the thickness of a layer of the substrate. To the examiner’s best understanding, a “trace” serves a variable (i.e. “x” or “y”) place holder of values, but has it’s own sort of unit. This unit expresses a representation of the thickness of a substrate or layer of a substrate at a certain moment within the polishing process, based upon time or position.
Claims 2-14 and 23-25 are rejected as they dependent upon claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
In regards to claim 1, the claims require a computer program with instructions that cause a computer to store data of traces from previous scans, scan and receive a sequence of raw signal values to measure trace in-situ, and calculating a difference between the stored trace and measured trace, wherein the calculated trace is used to determine a thickness value and detect a polishing end point or modify a polishing parameter.
The requirement of a “background trace” being subtracted from a correlative measured trace based on correlative time or position distinguishes the claims from art found in searching. References either rely upon filters in order to remove noise from the scanned values, or measure thickness values and find the difference between the thickness values. The application of “traces” requires further processing not made obvious or anticipated by the art found in searching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights