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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Spring (US 3169201 A).
Examiner notes that Economikos (US 20080051008) is still relied on in as a teaching reference for disclosing that alternating the current through an electromagnet can be used to produce rotational motion See Economikos Para [0023] “the apparatus 100 further includes a coil 118 wound around the periphery of the wafer 104, chuck 102 and magnetic slurry particles 112. The coil 118 has an alternating current (AC) excitation source 120 so as to provide a magnetic field of varying polarity. In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”) in order to induce rotation in a magnetic slurry (See Para [0024] “In operation, the ferromagnetic slurry particles 112 (in the presence of an applied magnetic field of alternating polarity through coil 118) change their orientation so as to align their internal magnetization with the externally applied magnetic field. Coupled with a small amount of mechanical rotation (through the rotating pad 106 and/or chuck 102), the magnetic slurry particles 112 rotate between the pad 106 and the wafer 104.”
Finally, regarding double patenting MPEP 804 I. B. 1. Does not allow for double patenting rejections to be held in abeyance. It states, “A provisional double patenting rejection should be made and maintained by the examiner until the rejection has been obviated or is no longer applicable except as noted below… As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only compliance with objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.”.
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 1-3, 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 8 of ‘358 teaches A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets”);
a platen comprising a plurality of stator magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “a platen; a plurality of second magnets;”); and
a controller coupled to the plurality of stator magnets, the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by controlling a polarity of each of the stator magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets to rotate the polisher head.”).
but does not explicitly disclose the first magnets arranged along a peripheral region of the polisher head
However, Natalicio teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with a plurality of magnets arranged along a peripheral region of the polisher head (See Fig. 2 and 3 of Natalicio showing rotor magnets at the periphery 230 of the polishing head).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first magnets to be arranged around a peripheral of the polishing head as doing so would allow an operator to better control the polishing profile across an entire substrate.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 8 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen (See Claim 1 of ‘358 “a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen;”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 8 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 8 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented horizontally with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head (Claim 8 of ‘358 “wherein the first magnets are oriented laterally within the polisher head.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented horizontally, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 8 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of each of the first magnets have a same orientation (Claim 1 of ‘358 as modified in claim 5 has oriented magnets in the same orientation).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 8 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of stator magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a major surface of the platen
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Claims 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Hayashi (US 20020033230 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate.
However, Hayashi discloses a similar CMP polishing head utilizing magnets wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate (See 54 and 55 in Fig. 2 of Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic configuration of ‘358 as modified in such a way that the north-south poles of magnets alternate as doing so would assist in fixing the polishing head in a specific position, minimizing undesirable movement during the polishing operation and increasing the efficacy of the polishing operation.
Claim 8, 9, 11 and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 11 of ‘358 teaches A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (Claim 9 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets”);
a plurality of second magnets (Claim 9 of ‘358 “a plurality of second magnets;”) arranged around a periphery of the polisher head in a top-down view (Claim 11 ‘358 “wherein each of the plurality of second magnets are arranged such that an axis between poles of each of the plurality of second magnets are parallel to the axis of the polisher head when the polisher head is placed on the platen.”); and
a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets (See Claim 9 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets to rotate the polisher head.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses a platen, wherein the plurality of second magnets is within the platen (See Claim 10 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned within the platen.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets are evenly spaced apart.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the spacing of the magnets in such a way that they are evenly space apart as doing so would be a simple matter of rearrangement of parts and would allow for a more uniform attraction between the polishing head and platen, and assist in promoting an even grinding profile. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of first magnets is different than a number of second magnets.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the number of first or second magnets as doing so would be a simple matter of duplication of parts and would allow for flexibility in the design while still allowing for an even grinding profile on the substrate from the polishing operation. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1)
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise permanent magnets (See Claim 9 of ‘358 “the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets;”).
And Natalicio discloses a similar device utilizing permanent magnets (Col 5 Line 31-39 ” This exemplary configuration of using permanent magnets as plurality of rotors 250 has the advantage in that no electrical wires need to be provided to the rotating portion of the pressure plate 210 to magnetize the plurality of rotors 250. It should be appreciated, however, that plurality of rotors 250 can be configured as electromagnets. In such a configuration, a rotary slip-joint or the like may be used for applying current to the electromagnets.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first magnets to be a plurality of permanent magnets, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a magnetic portion would be either permanent or electromagnetic and would recognize that they are known equivalents to each other as advantageously taught by Natalicio.
Claims 10, 13, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses A platen (See Claim 9 of ‘358 “a platen”), but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of second magnets are outside the platen.
However, Economikos teaches a similar CMP apparatus wherein an electromagnet (coils 118) is positioned outside of the platen (See Figure 2B. of Economikos).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magnets of ‘358 to be located outside of the platen as doing so would reduce unwanted forces on the polishing head, keeping the head in a desired position and keeping a uniform force on the polishing head during the operation as doing so would help ensure an even polishing profile.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller alternates a polarity of the plurality of second magnets.
However, Economikos discloses a similar CMP polishing utilizing an electromagnet, wherein the polarity of the magnet’s alternates (See Para [0023] “as further shown in FIGS. 2(a) and 2(b), the apparatus 100 further includes a coil 118 wound around the periphery of the wafer 104, chuck 102 and magnetic slurry particles 112. The coil 118 has an alternating current (AC) excitation source 120 so as to provide a magnetic field of varying polarity.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic configuration in such a way that polarity of the magnets in the polishing head alternate and the controller alternates a polarity of the plurality of the second magnets to correspond to the polishing heads as doing so would assist in fixing the polishing head in a specific position, minimizing undesirable movement during the polishing operation and increasing the efficacy of the polishing operation.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets are stationary magnets during use of the polishing apparatus.
However, Economikos discloses a similar polishing apparatus with a magnet (118) that remains stationary during the use of the polishing apparatus.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magnets of Claim 11 of ‘358 to be stationary during the operation of the polishing apparatus as doing so would reduce unwanted forces on the polishing head, keeping the head in a desired position and keeping a uniform force on the polishing head during the operation as doing so would help ensure an even polishing profile
Claims 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 17 of ‘358 disclose A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of permanent magnets (See Claim 17 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets; a platen;”);
a platen (Claim 17 of ‘358 “a platen”);
a plurality of electromagnets (Claim 17 of ‘358 “plurality of second magnets;”); and
a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to alternate an orientation of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets (Claim 17 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control rotation of the polisher head by controlling a magnetic field generated by the plurality of second magnets.”).
But does not explicitly disclose that these first magnets are permanent magnets and the second magnets are electromagnets.
However, Natalicio disclose a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus utilizing a set of permeant rotor Magnets (250, See Col 5 Line 22-26 “This exemplary configuration of using permanent magnets as plurality of rotors 250 has the advantage in that no electrical wires need to be provided to the rotating portion of the pressure plate 210 to magnetize the plurality of rotors 250. It should be appreciated, however, that plurality of rotors 250 can be configured as electromagnets. In such a configuration, a rotary slip-joint or the like may be used for applying current to the electromagnets.”) and a set of Electromagnets as stators (260, See Col 5 Line 47- Col 5 Line 52 “It should be recognized, however, that the plurality of stators 260 can include electric coils configured to produce various amounts of magnetic flux depending on the particular application. For example, increasing the amount of magnetic flux produced by stators 260 can increase the overall torque applied to pressure plate 210.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first and second magnets to be permanent and electromagnets respectively to allow an operator to have a greater degree of control over the polishing apparatus.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 of ‘358 disclose further comprising: a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen (See Claim 17 of ‘358 “a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen;”).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 17 of ‘358 does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the permanent magnets are arranged vertically relative to a polishing surface of the platen.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 18 of ‘358 discloses all the limitation of claim 16 as taught above and in addition disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned within the platen (See Claim 18 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned within the platen.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 19 of ‘358 discloses all the limitation of claim 16 as taught above and in addition disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned outside of the platen (See Claim 19 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned outside of the platen.”).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein a number of first magnets is different than a number of second magnets.” Should be “a number of the plurality of first magnets is different than a number of the plurality of second magnets.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Natalicio (US 6213855 B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Natalicio discloses:
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (250);
a plurality of second magnets (260) arranged around a periphery of the polisher head in a top down view (arranged around the periphery of the lower housing 230); and
a controller (electric power source) coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets (See Col 5 Line 53-65 “For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses further comprising:
a platen (202), wherein the plurality of second magnets are outside of the platen (See Figure 2 showing magnets 260 outside of the platen).
Regarding Claim 11, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses, wherein the plurality of second magnets are evenly spaced apart (See Fig. 3 showing the magnets 260 evenly spaced apart).
Regarding Claim 14, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8, and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise permanent magnets (Col 5 Line 23-26 “With reference to FIG. 2, in the present exemplary embodiment, plurality of rotors 250 include permanent magnets ranging in diameter from about 8 to 12 inches in diameter and about 3/4 inch wide.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses, Wherein the plurality of second magnets are stationary magnets during use of the polishing apparatus (Stator magnets are stationary with respect to the pressure plate 210, See Col 5 Line 3-10 “an electric direct drive motor comprising a plurality of rotors 250 and stators 260 is employed to rotate pressure plate 210 about lower housing 230 of wafer carrier 200. With reference to FIG. 3, in the present exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a plurality of rotors 250 are disposed about the circumference of arm 212, and a plurality of stators 260 are disposed about the circumference of lower housing 230.”).
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, 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Spring (US 3169201 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Natalicio discloses
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (250) arranged along a peripheral region of the polisher head (See 250 in Fig. 3);
a platen (202)
The polishing head additionally including a plurality of stator magnets (260);
a controller coupled to the plurality of stator magnets (electric power source), the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by controlling a polarity of each of the stator magnets (See Col 5 Line 53-65 “With reference to FIG. 3, when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the platen comprising the plurality of stator magnets;
However, Economikos discloses a single magnet in a platen (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus by controlling a polarity of the magnet (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
And Spring discloses an electromagnetic drive wherein the stator (34 comprised of solenoid coils 52), is positioned external to the rotor (32 comprised of conductive laminations 36, see figure 2 showing the special relationship between the stator and rotor components) in order to drive an output shaft (10).
Spring also discloses an optional embodiment wherein there is both an external and internal stator with respect to the rotor (Col 4 Line 33-40 “It will be understood that where an actuating device of the type being described is intended or required to handle greater loads, there may be, in addition to a larger external stator of the type described above, a stator internal to the laminations 36, the internal stator then being energized approximately 900 out of phase with the external stator, and, if desired, having a lesser number of cores.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not effect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” And Spring teaches that rotational movement can be produced by stators positioned interior or exterior to the rotors (See citation of Col 4 above and Fig. 2 of Spring). As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 3, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head.
However, Spring discloses an electromagnetic drive comprising a plurality of stator (34 comprised of solenoid coils 52) and rotor magnets (32 comprised of conductive laminations 36, see figures 1 and 2 showing the special relationship between the stator and rotor components) wherein the pole faces of the stator are positioned to face the rotor (See Col 4 Line 20-27 “As herein shown (FIGS. 1 and 2), the stator 34 is preferably comprised of sixteen pairs of evenly spaced solenoid coils 52 disposed circularly. The coils of each pair are wired in series. These are mounted on the legs of sixteen U-shaped cores 54 which, as indicated in FIG. 2, are laminated and have pole faces 56, 58 to confront rotor lamination faces 46. In the illustrative construction each pole face diametrically is approximately .400"”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the magnets as modifying the orientation of the magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of spring cited above that the polar faces of the stator and rotor magnets should face or confront in order to produce an effective electromagnetic drive, additionally, It would be obvious to have the polar faces of the magnets to be oriented be in a vertical orientation as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polar faces of a rotor and stator would need to face each other in order to produce the forces necessary for the device to work as expected, and that if one were to place the stator magnets in the platen (as modified in claim 1) the stator and rotor magnets would be spatially oriented vertically to each other, and would have their polar faces oriented in the north-south direction. Finally, Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 7, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of stator magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a major surface of the platen.
However, Spring discloses an electromagnetic drive comprising a plurality of stator (34 comprised of solenoid coils 52) and rotor magnets (32 comprised of conductive laminations 36, see figures 1 and 2 showing the special relationship between the stator and rotor components) wherein the pole faces of the stator are positioned to face the rotor (See Col 4 Line 20-27 “As herein shown (FIGS. 1 and 2), the stator 34 is preferably comprised of sixteen pairs of evenly spaced solenoid coils 52 disposed circularly. The coils of each pair are wired in series. These are mounted on the legs of sixteen U-shaped cores 54 which, as indicated in FIG. 2, are laminated and have pole faces 56, 58 to confront rotor lamination faces 46. In the illustrative construction each pole face diametrically is approximately .400"”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the magnets as modifying the orientation of the magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of spring cited above that the polar faces of the stator and rotor magnets should face or confront in order to produce an effective electromagnetic drive, additionally, it would be obvious to have the polar faces of the magnets to be oriented be in a vertical orientation as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polar faces of a rotor and stator would need to face each other in order to produce the forces necessary for the device to work as expected, and that if one were to place the stator magnets in the platen (as modified in claim 1) the stator and rotor magnets would be spatially oriented vertically to each other, and would have their polar faces oriented in the north-south direction. Finally, Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 9, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses a platen (202), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets are within the platen.
However, Economikos discloses a single magnet in a platen (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
And Spring discloses an electromagnetic drive wherein the stator (34 comprised of solenoid coils 52), is positioned external to the rotor (32 comprised of conductive laminations 36, see figures 1 and 2 showing the special relationship between the stator and rotor components) in order to drive an output shaft (10).
Spring also discloses an optional embodiment wherein there is both an external and internal stator with respect to the rotor (Col 4 Line 33-40 “It will be understood that where an actuating device of the type being described is intended or required to handle greater loads, there may be, in addition to a larger external stator of the type described above, a stator internal to the laminations 36, the internal stator then being energized approximately 900 out of phase with the external stator, and, if desired, having a lesser number of cores.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not effect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” And spring teaches that rotational movement can be produced by stators positioned interior or exterior to the rotors (See citation of Col 4 above and Fig. 2 of Spring). As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Spring (US 3169201 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Hayashi (US 20020033230 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 3 but does not explicitly disclose wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate.
However, Hayashi discloses a similar CMP polishing head utilizing magnets wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate (See 54 and 55 in Fig. 2 of Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic configuration of Natalicio in such a way that the north-south poles of magnets alternate as doing so would assist in fixing the polishing head in a specific position, minimizing undesirable movement during the polishing operation and increasing the efficacy of the polishing operation.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Spring (US 3169201 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Iwaki (US 20180123438 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented horizontally with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head.
However, Iwaki discloses a similar circular magnetic drive (See Fig. 2), wherein the north-south poles of each of the plurality of the first magnets (1, including 6a-6c) are oriented horizontally (Theta direction, in the x-y plane, see Fig. 2, directional guide in Fig. 2 and Fig. 7) with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface (Sides of 1 in the x direction, see directional guide in Fig. 2 of the driven part (1)).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the plurality of first magnets to be orientated horizontally with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polishing head as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that doing so would allow for one to produce the rotational movement of the polishing head as disclosed by Iwaki (See Para [0052] “the moving element may be caused to move in the X-direction and to rotate in the θ direction.”)
Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 6, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses suggests wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of each of the first magnets have a same orientation (Col 5 Line 53- 65 “when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.” The sequential powering of the stators suggests that the first magnets (250) are oriented such either all rotor north poles or all rotor south poles face inward towards the stator magnets, ).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the north-south poles of each of the first magnets of Natalicio as modified such that each of the first magnets have a same orientation, as one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would understand that doing so would allow for one to sequentially power the stator magnets 260 to produced the desired rotational effect of the polishing head as discussed by Natalicio.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of first magnets is different than a number of second magnets (Natalicio describes that the number of rotor and stator magnets is flexible depending on the needed torque, and that the pattern that said rotors and stators are placed is similarly flexible, See Col 6 Line 10-26
“Although eight rotors 250 and eight stators 260 are depicted in FIG. 3, it should be appreciated that any number of rotors 250 and stators 260 can be employed depending on the particular application. For example, the torque applied to pressure plate 210 can be increased or decreased by employing more or fewer rotors 250 and stators 260. This aspect of the present invention is particularly advantageous in that the torque applied to pressure plate 210 can be increased without necessarily increasing the size of the existing rotors 250 and stators 260 which would increase the vertical profile of wafer carrier 200.
Additionally, although rotors 250 and stators 260 are depicted in FIG. 3 as being disposed in equally spaced increments, it should be appreciated that rotors 250 and stators 260 can be disposed in various patterns depending on the particular application. Disposing rotors 250 and stator 260 in equally spaced increments, however, has the advantage of equally distributing the torque applied to the pressure plate 210, thus facilitating a more uniform polishing and planarizing of wafer 102.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the number of rotor and stator magnets as advantageously suggested by Natalicio as doing so would not disrupt the operation of the device and would allow for desirable changes in applied torque, and the distribution of torque which would affect the uniformity of the polishing and planarization of a wafer and to better suit the particular application the device is applied to.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Spring (US 3169201 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Doan (US 5738562 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and in addition teaches further comprising: a holder (220) configured to place the polisher head on the platen (See Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 51-56 “A depicted in FIG. 2, a carrier head 200 according to various aspects of the present invention is suitably employed to polish or to planarize a wafer 102 by applying pressure on wafer 102 to engage the underside of wafer 102 against a polishing pad 206.”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen.
However, Doan does teach a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein the polisher head is configured to sit directly on the polishing pad without a holder, (See 20 Fig. 1 and Col 2 Line 11-20 “Those having skill in the field of this invention will, of course, understand that a wide variety of variations to the design of the described chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus are possible, and that these variations are encompassed within the scope of the claims. For example, although the wafer carrier 20 is depicted in the FIGURE as being held on the polishing pad 12 by the force of gravity, it will be understood that the wafer carrier 20 could also be held against the polishing pad 12 by a force exerted by a mechanical arm attached to the wafer carrier 20.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the polishing head with a mechanical arm of Natalicio as modified with the free standing polishing head as taught by Doan as necessary to better suit a given polishing operation as Doan teaches that these are known equivalents that would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 6234868 B1).
Regarding Claim 13, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose Wherein the controller alternates a polarity of the plurality of second magnets.
However, Economikos discloses a similar polishing apparatus wherein a controller alternates a polarity of an electromagnet (See Economikos Para [0023] “the apparatus 100 further includes a coil 118 wound around the periphery of the wafer 104, chuck 102 and magnetic slurry particles 112. The coil 118 has an alternating current (AC) excitation source 120 so as to provide a magnetic field of varying polarity. In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”) in order to induce rotation in a magnetic slurry (See Para [0024] “In operation, the ferromagnetic slurry particles 112 (in the presence of an applied magnetic field of alternating polarity through coil 118) change their orientation so as to align their internal magnetization with the externally applied magnetic field. Coupled with a small amount of mechanical rotation (through the rotating pad 106 and/or chuck 102), the magnetic slurry particles 112 rotate between the pad 106 and the wafer 104.”).
And Natalicio discloses sequentially energizing a plurality of electromagnetic stators to create a rotational force (See Col 5 Line 53-65 “With reference to FIG. 3, when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Natalicio such that it can alternate the polarity of the stator magnets sequentially instead sequentially powering the stator magnets, as these are known equivalents for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and as such it would be obvious to substitute one for the other (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding Claim 16, Natalicio discloses a polishing apparatus comprising:
A polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of permanent magnets (250);
A platen (202);
A plurality of electromagnets (stators 260); and
A controller electrically coupled to the plurality of electromagnets (Power source of magnets 260, See Col 5 Line 53-65 “With reference to FIG. 3, when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”),
But does not explicitly disclose the controller configured to alternate an orientation of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets
However, Economikos discloses a similar polishing apparatus wherein a controller alternates a polarity of an electromagnet (See Economikos Para [0023] “the apparatus 100 further includes a coil 118 wound around the periphery of the wafer 104, chuck 102 and magnetic slurry particles 112. The coil 118 has an alternating current (AC) excitation source 120 so as to provide a magnetic field of varying polarity. In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”) in order to induce rotation in a magnetic slurry (See Para [0024] “In operation, the ferromagnetic slurry particles 112 (in the presence of an applied magnetic field of alternating polarity through coil 118) change their orientation so as to align their internal magnetization with the externally applied magnetic field. Coupled with a small amount of mechanical rotation (through the rotating pad 106 and/or chuck 102), the magnetic slurry particles 112 rotate between the pad 106 and the wafer 104.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the controller of Natalicio such that it can alternate the polarity of the stator magnets sequentially instead sequentially powering the stator magnets, as these are known equivalents for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and as such it would be obvious to substitute one for the other (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding Claim 18, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition discloses wherein each of the permanent magnets (250) are arranged vertically relative to a polishing surface of the platen (See Fig. 2 of Natalicio, showing magnets 250 oriented vertically above polishing surface 206 of platen 202).
Regarding Claim 20, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned outside of the platen (See Fig. 2 of Natalicio where electromagnets 260 are outside of the platen).
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) and Economikos (US 6234868 B1) as modified in claim 16 and in further view of Doan (US 5738562 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition discloses a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen (220 holds the head on the platen, see figure 2).
But does not explicitly disclose, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen
However, Doan does teach a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein the polisher head is configured to sit directly on the polishing pad without a holder, (See 20 Fig. 1 and Col 2 Line 11-20 “Those having skill in the field of this invention will, of course, understand that a wide variety of variations to the design of the described chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus are possible, and that these variations are encompassed within the scope of the claims. For example, although the wafer carrier 20 is depicted in the FIGURE as being held on the polishing pad 12 by the force of gravity, it will be understood that the wafer carrier 20 could also be held against the polishing pad 12 by a force exerted by a mechanical arm attached to the wafer carrier 20.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the polishing head with a mechanical arm of Natalicio with the free standing polishing head as taught by Doan as necessary to better suit a given polishing operation as Doan teaches that these are known equivalents that would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) and Economikos (US 6234868 B1) as modified in claim 16 and in further view of Spring (US 3169201 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is position within the platen.
However, Economikos discloses a single magnet in a platen (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
And Spring discloses an electromagnetic drive wherein the stator (34 comprised of solenoid coils 52), is positioned external to the rotor (32 comprised of conductive laminations 36, see figure 2 showing the special relationship between the stator and rotor components) in order to drive an output shaft (10).
Spring also discloses an optional embodiment wherein there is both an external and internal stator with respect to the rotor (Col 4 Line 33-40 “It will be understood that where an actuating device of the type being described is intended or required to handle greater loads, there may be, in addition to a larger external stator of the type described above, a stator internal to the laminations 36, the internal stator then being energized approximately 900 out of phase with the external stator, and, if desired, having a lesser number of cores.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” And spring teaches that rotational movement can be produced by stators positioned interior or exterior to the rotors (See citation of Col 4 above and Fig. 2 of Spring). As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723