CTNF 18/632,450 CTNF 88152 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: A contact cleaning unit of claim 1 – Applicant identified the “contact cleaning unit” as numeral 150 and states that it “may be a brush scrubbing module using a rotating brush to scrub the substrate surface” [Application Publication; paragraph 0029] and “a contact cleaning unit 150, e.g., brush cleaner 200, which may be utilized in the CMP system 100 as described above” [Application Publication; paragraph 0034]. Therefore, the “contact cleaning unit” is considered to be a brush and equivalents thereof. A non-contact cleaning unit of claim 2 – Applicant identified the non-contact cleaning unit as numeral 140. Applicant states “the non-contact cleaning unit 140 may be a rotating spray cleaning module that features a rotating spray head above the substrate, spraying cleaning solution from all angles” [Application Publication; paragraph 0028] and “[a]dditionally, the non-contact cleaning unit 140 may be an inline spray cleaning module” [Application Publication; paragraph 0029]. Therefore, the non-contact cleaning unit is considered to be a sprayer or spray head, and equivalents thereof. A controller configured to perform the claimed functions – Applicant describes this as “a controller 160, which generally includes one or more processors, memory, and support circuits. The one or more processors may include a central processing unit (CPU) and may be one of any form of a general purpose processor that can be used in an industrial setting. The memory, or non-transitory computer-readable medium, is accessible by the one or more processors and may be one or more of memory such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), floppy disk, hard disk, or any other form of digital storage, local or remote. The support circuits are coupled to the one or more processors and may include cache, clock circuits, input/output subsystems, power supplies, and the like. The various methods disclosed herein may generally be implemented under the control of the one or more processors by the one or more processors executing computer instruction code stored in the memory as, for example, a software routine. When the computer instruction code is executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors controls the CMP system 100A to perform processes in accordance with the various methods disclosed herein.” Therefore, the “controller” is considered to be the structure defined herein with computer instruction code thereon for performing the claimed functions of the controller. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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, 2, 8, 9, and 16, and those claims depending therefrom, are 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. Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 18 , the claimed “adjacent” is ambiguous as a relative term. The term “adjacent” can mean “near” or “nearby,” which may hold different meanings in terms of actual precise measurement. Therefore, the term “adjacent” is ambiguous. To overcome issues with the word “adjacent,” one can (based on what was originally disclosed in the specification) claim the exact distance between considered to be “adjacent,” the type(s) of connection between the two adjacent structures, the reach of a third structure (ex. a robot arm capable of moving from structure_a to structure_b), etc. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this as “nearby,” noting that it requires something to be reasonably nearby (in other words, excluding something that typically would be universally considered far away). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (US-2020/0294821) . Regarding claim 15 , Wu discloses a method for polishing a substrate, comprising: placing a substrate on a first non-contact cleaning unit (spray unit 15) cleaning the substrate using a first non-contact cleaning method (“The polishing chambers 120 may also include transporters or swing transporters for transporting the wafers to and from the polishing chambers, as well as turn over wafer stations (or just turn over tools) for turning over (or flipping) the wafer (so as to polish an opposite side of the wafer).”) [Wu; paragraph 0017] (“After the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller.”) [Wu; paragraph 0020] (“the cleaning stage 1 also includes a controller 16, and the controller 16 may be a computer system”) [Wu; paragraph 0028] (“the controller 16 is coupled to the fluid delivery unit 14 and the drive mechanism 13 and configured to control their operation”) [Wu; paragraph 0030].; transferring the substrate to a first polishing station (“[a]fter the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller”) [Wu; paragraph0020]; transferring the substrate to a contact cleaning unit (rollers 10a) from the first polishing station (“The post-CMP cleaning apparatus 50 may include one or more cleaning chambers (cleaning stages) in FIG. 1 and may be used to clean a semiconductor wafer W after a CMP process.”) [Wu; paragraph 0021]; and cleaning the substrate using a contact cleaning method (“The post-CMP cleaning apparatus 50 may include one or more cleaning chambers (cleaning stages) in FIG. 1 and may be used to clean a semiconductor wafer W after a CMP process.”) [Wu; paragraph 0021] (“As shown in FIG. 2, a cleaning stage 1 of the post-CMP cleaning apparatus 50 includes a cleaner 10 including a pair of brush rollers 10A for performing a scrubbing process onto both surfaces of the polished semiconductor wafer W.”) [Wu; paragraph 0022]. Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the first non-contact cleaning method is spray cleaning (“As shown in FIG. 2, the spray unit 15 includes a pair of spray bars 15A fluidly connected to the fluid delivery unit 14. The two spray bars 15A are respectively adjacent to both sides of the semiconductor wafer W. Several nozzles 15B are mounted on each spray bar 15A for spraying the cleaning solution CS1 onto the semiconductor wafer W. Although not shown, during the scrubbing process, the two spray bars 15A may be driven by a drive mechanism (for example a motor) or mechanisms to rotate (to predetermined orientations) so that the cleaning solution CS1 is accurately directed to both surfaces of the semiconductor wafer W via the nozzles 15B.”) [Wu; paragraph 0027]. Regarding claim 19, Wu discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the contact cleaning method is brush scrubbing (brush roller 10a) (Fig. 2) (“As shown in FIG. 2, a cleaning stage 1 of the post-CMP cleaning apparatus 50 includes a cleaner 10 including a pair of brush rollers 10A for performing a scrubbing process onto both surfaces of the polished semiconductor wafer W.”) [Wu; paragraph 0022]. Regarding claim 20, Wu discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the contact cleaning unit (brush rollers 10a) is disposed within a polishing module (a module being a part of a unit that is a part of the total structure) of a chemical mechanical polishing system (Fig. 1) (The cleaning units are a part of the polishing process, whereby the polishing takes place and then the wafers are cleaned immediately afterward, occasionally being transferred back to a polisher. Therefore, the cleaning units are considered part of the “polishing module,” which is the part of the system that performs polishing.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) . Regarding claim 1, Wu (US-2020/0294821) discloses a system for polishing a substrate, comprising: one or more polishing stations (polishing chambers 120, 121) disposed within a polishing module (CMP system 100 comprising the polishing chambers 120, 121) (Fig. 1); a contact cleaning unit (brush rollers 10A) disposed adjacent (i.e. near) to the one or more polishing stations (120, 121) (Fig. 1); and a controller configured to: transfer the substrate to a first polishing station of the one or more polishing stations (“The polishing chambers 120 may also include transporters or swing transporters for transporting the wafers to and from the polishing chambers, as well as turn over wafer stations (or just turn over tools) for turning over (or flipping) the wafer (so as to polish an opposite side of the wafer).”) [Wu; paragraph 0017] (“After the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller.”) [Wu; paragraph 0020]; transfer the substrate to the contact cleaning unit from the first polishing station (“The polishing chambers 120 may also include transporters or swing transporters for transporting the wafers to and from the polishing chambers, as well as turn over wafer stations (or just turn over tools) for turning over (or flipping) the wafer (so as to polish an opposite side of the wafer).”) [Wu; paragraph 0017] (“After the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller.”) [Wu; paragraph 0020]; and clean the substrate using a contact cleaning method (“the cleaning stage 1 also includes a controller 16, and the controller 16 may be a computer system”) [Wu; paragraph 0028] (“the controller 16 is coupled to the fluid delivery unit 14 and the drive mechanism 13 and configured to control their operation”) [Wu; paragraph 0030]. While Wu is not explicit that the mentioned “controller” is the same as the controller 16, it would’ve been obvious to use one controller as opposed to several controllers in order to simply automation and reduce cost, as is known from reducing multiple things down to one, and therefore would’ve been obvious to make these the same controller for performing each task. Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the contact cleaning unit (brush rollers 10a) is a brush cleaner (brush roller 10a) (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the brush cleaner (brush roller 10a) includes a cylindrical roller (Fig. 2) configured to contact a surface of the substrate (W) during the contact cleaning method (Fig. 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) in view of Hirokawa (US-6,595,831) . Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a non-contact cleaning unit (spray unit 15) disposed adjacent (i.e. near) to a carrier head (“polishing head”) (Fig. 1) of the one or more polishing stations (120, 121) (“Each of the polishing chambers 120 and 121 may include tools such as polishing tables, polishing heads, platens, slurry delivery systems, pad conditioners, etc., for polishing one or more wafers.”) [Wu; paragraph 0016], and but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station, place a substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit; and before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station but after placing the substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit, clean the substrate using a first non-contact cleaning method. However, Hirokawa (US-6,595,831) teaches “[f]oreign matter generated in the first polishing process such as fragments of abrasive particles, binders, or additives, or used or reacted chemical agents, may remain on the polished surface of the wafer to cause some damage to the finished surface at the finish polishing process. By cleaning the wafer before the finish process, such damage can be prevented to thereby provide high quality polishing.” This would make obvious, before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station, placing a substrate on a cleaning unit (“cleaning the wafer before the finish process”), wherein before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station but after placing the substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit, clean the substrate using a first cleaning method (“cleaning the wafer before the finish process”) [Hirokawa; col. 8, line 62 – col. 9, line 2] as claimed. As Wu teaches “[a]fter the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller” [Wu; paragraph0020], thus illustrating the capability to transfer a substrate to and from a cleaning station from a polishing station, it would’ve been obvious to clean the substrate (with both contact and non-contact cleaning units of Wu) before polishing in order to remove any foreign matter on the surface of the substrate that “[may cause some damage to the finished surface” after polishing (“Foreign matter generated in the first polishing process such as fragments of abrasive particles, binders, or additives, or used or reacted chemical agents, may remain on the polished surface of the wafer to cause some damage to the finished surface at the finish polishing process. By cleaning the wafer before the finish process, such damage can be prevented to thereby provide high quality polishing.”) [Hirokawa; col. 8, line 62 – col. 9, line 2] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4, 10-13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) in view of Tolles (US-20100035526) . Regarding claim 3 , Wu discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to transfer the substrate to a second polishing station of the one or more polishing stations after cleaning the substrate using the contact cleaning method. However, Tolles (US-20100035526) teaches transferring a substrate to a second polishing station of one or more polishing stations (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114] after cleaning the substrate (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices such as shown in Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the controller to move the substrate of Wu to a second polishing station of the one or more polishing stations of Wu after cleaning the substrate, using both a contact and/or a non-contact method as taught by Wu, in order to subsequently polish the substrate further in a multi-step process as described by Tolles. Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses the system of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to clean the substrate using a second non-contact cleaning method on a second non-contact cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on the second polishing station. However, Tolles teaches cleaning the substrate using a second cleaning method (i.e. cleaning) on a second cleaning unit (80c) after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station (50b) (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101] (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices, such as taught by Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller to use a second cleaning method on a second cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station to clean the substrate more efficiently (more stations means more convenience) (“In this situation, batch processing for the polishing stations becomes more feasible with a higher utilization of the expensive parts of the apparatus.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0116]. Regarding claim 8, Wu discloses a system for polishing a substrate, comprising: one or more polishing stations (polishing chambers 120, 121) disposed within a polishing; a contact cleaning unit disposed adjacent to the one or more polishing stations; and a controller configured to: transfer the substrate to a first polishing station of the one or more polishing stations (“The polishing chambers 120 may also include transporters or swing transporters for transporting the wafers to and from the polishing chambers, as well as turn over wafer stations (or just turn over tools) for turning over (or flipping) the wafer (so as to polish an opposite side of the wafer).”) [Wu; paragraph 0017] (“After the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller.”) [Wu; paragraph 0020]; transfer the substrate to the contact cleaning unit from the first polishing station (“The polishing chambers 120 may also include transporters or swing transporters for transporting the wafers to and from the polishing chambers, as well as turn over wafer stations (or just turn over tools) for turning over (or flipping) the wafer (so as to polish an opposite side of the wafer).”) [Wu; paragraph 0017] (“After the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller.”) [Wu; paragraph 0020]; and clean the substrate using a contact cleaning method (“the cleaning stage 1 also includes a controller 16, and the controller 16 may be a computer system”) [Wu; paragraph 0028] (“the controller 16 is coupled to the fluid delivery unit 14 and the drive mechanism 13 and configured to control their operation”) [Wu; paragraph 0030]. Wu fails to disclose the one or more polishing stations are arranged in a circular arrangement. However, Tolles (US-2010/0035526) teaches arranging polishing stations (110a-110d) in a circular arrangement (Figs. 6A-6D). Since Tolles is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add more polishing stations (“polishing tables, polishing heads, platens”) [Wu; paragraph 0016] to the polishing chambers 121, 120 of Wu and arrange them in a circular manner as taught by Tolles in order to allow for more stations and/or multi-step processing (“Three principal polishing processes are the in-line process, the multi-step process, and the batch process.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0109] (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114]. Regarding claim 10 , Wu discloses the system of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to transfer the substrate to a second polishing station of the one or more polishing stations after cleaning the substrate using the contact cleaning method. However, Tolles (US-20100035526) teaches transferring a substrate to a second polishing station of one or more polishing stations (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114] after cleaning the substrate (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices such as shown in Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the controller to move the substrate of Wu to a second polishing station of the one or more polishing stations of Wu after cleaning the substrate, using both a contact and/or a non-contact method as taught by Wu, in order to subsequently polish the substrate further in a multi-step process as described by Tolles. Regarding claim 11 , Wu discloses the system of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to clean the substrate using a second non-contact cleaning method on a second non-contact cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on the second polishing station. However, Tolles teaches cleaning the substrate using a second cleaning method (i.e. cleaning) on a second cleaning unit (80c) after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station (50b) (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101] (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices, such as taught by Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller to use a second cleaning method on a second cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station to clean the substrate more efficiently (more stations means more convenience) (“In this situation, batch processing for the polishing stations becomes more feasible with a higher utilization of the expensive parts of the apparatus.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0116]. Regarding claim 12 , Wu discloses the system of claim 8, wherein contact cleaning unit (brush rollers 10a) is a brush cleaner (brush roller 10a) (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 13 , Wu discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the brush cleaner (brush roller 10a) includes a cylindrical roller (Fig. 2) configured to contact a surface of the substrate (W) during the contact cleaning method (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 16 , Wu discloses the method of claim 15, but fails to disclose transferring the substrate (W) to a second polishing station after cleaning the substrate using the contact cleaning method. However, Tolles (US-20100035526) teaches transferring a substrate to a second polishing station of one or more polishing stations (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114] after cleaning the substrate (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices such as shown in Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the controller to move the substrate of Wu to a second polishing station of the one or more polishing stations of Wu after cleaning the substrate, using both a contact and/or a non-contact method as taught by Wu, in order to subsequently polish the substrate further in a multi-step process as described by Tolles. Regarding claim 17 , Wu discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising cleaning the substrate using a second non-contact cleaning method on a second non-contact cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on the second polishing station. However, Tolles teaches cleaning the substrate using a second cleaning method (i.e. cleaning) on a second cleaning unit (80c) after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station (50b) (“Two intermediate washing stations 80a and 80b are located between neighboring ones of the polishing stations 50a, 50b, and 50c, and a third washing station 80c may be located between the last polishing station 50c and the transfer station 70. These rinse a wafer 40 as it passes from one polishing station to another and to the transfer station 70 and may effectively buff the wafer 40 as well.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0101] (“The multi-step process divides a polishing process into multiple and different steps, typically with gradated polishing. For example, the first polishing station 50a may perform a rough polish on the wafer, the second polishing station 50b may perform a fine polish, and the third polishing station 50c may buff the wafer.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0114]. Since Tolles is pertinent to CMP devices, such as taught by Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller to use a second cleaning method on a second cleaning unit after polishing the substrate on a second polishing station to clean the substrate more efficiently (more stations means more convenience) (“In this situation, batch processing for the polishing stations becomes more feasible with a higher utilization of the expensive parts of the apparatus.”) [Tolles; paragraph 0116] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) in view of Malik (US-2002/0173872) . Regarding claim 7 , Wu discloses the system of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the brush cleaner includes a tubular cover disposed on the cylindrical roller, the tubular cover being a removable sleeve. However, Malik (US-2002/0173872) teaches a brush cleaner (roller assembly 20) includes a tubular cover (pad 24) disposed on a cylindrical roller (drum 22), the tubular cover (pad 24) being a sleeve (Fig. 1A). Since Malik is in the same field of endeavor as Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a tubular cover on a cylindrical roller, as taught by Malik, for the cylindrical roller of Wu in order to apply different materials to the surface of a drum, particularly where cleaning material often differs from a more rigid supporting surface in areas of cleaning (“The upper pad is made from a polyurethane poromeric material a millimeter or so thick, such as pad material sold under the trade names POLITEX DG, POLITEX SUPREME, AND UR-100 by RODEL, INC., of Newark, Del., commonly referred to as "POLITEX" pads.”) [Malik; paragraph 0035] (“The lower brush 18 is a PVA brush supplied with the double-brush scrubber, but could be other material.”) [Malik; paragraph 0034]. While Malik does not explicitly state it is removable, it is well-known to make things removable within mechanical parts for easy replacement and/or exchanging alternate sleeves. For example, the lower drum (16) of Malik shows a different type of sleeve (brush sleeve 18) than the upper drum (22). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to make these removable (i.e. as in having a removable attachment, such as press-fit) in order to replace any worn out pads, or to use a drum for multiple types of sleeves, such as a brush sleeve or a pad sleeve as shown by Malik . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) in view of Tolles (US-20100035526) and further in view of Hirokawa (US-6,595,831) . Regarding claim 9 , Wu discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising a non-contact cleaning unit disposed adjacent to a carrier head of the one or more polishing stations, but fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station, place a substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit; and before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station but after placing the substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit, clean the substrate using a first non-contact cleaning method. However, Hirokawa (US-6,595,831) teaches “[f]oreign matter generated in the first polishing process such as fragments of abrasive particles, binders, or additives, or used or reacted chemical agents, may remain on the polished surface of the wafer to cause some damage to the finished surface at the finish polishing process. By cleaning the wafer before the finish process, such damage can be prevented to thereby provide high quality polishing.” This would make obvious, before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station, placing a substrate on a cleaning unit (“cleaning the wafer before the finish process”), wherein before transferring the substrate to the first polishing station but after placing the substrate on the non-contact cleaning unit, clean the substrate using a first cleaning method (“cleaning the wafer before the finish process”) [Hirokawa; col. 8, line 62 – col. 9, line 2] as claimed. As Wu teaches “[a]fter the wafers are cleaned by the cleaning chambers 130 to 133, they may still be transported back to the polishing chambers 120 to 121 for further polishing, depending on control instructions received from a controller” [Wu; paragraph0020], thus illustrating the capability to transfer a substrate to and from a cleaning station from a polishing station, it would’ve been obvious to clean the substrate (with both contact and non-contact cleaning units of Wu) before polishing in order to remove any foreign matter on the surface of the substrate that “[may cause some damage to the finished surface” after polishing (“Foreign matter generated in the first polishing process such as fragments of abrasive particles, binders, or additives, or used or reacted chemical agents, may remain on the polished surface of the wafer to cause some damage to the finished surface at the finish polishing process. By cleaning the wafer before the finish process, such damage can be prevented to thereby provide high quality polishing.”) [Hirokawa; col. 8, line 62 – col. 9, line 2] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US-2020/0294821) in view of Tolles (US-20100035526), and further in view of Malik (US-2002/0173872) . Regarding claim 14 , Wu discloses the system of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the brush cleaner includes a tubular cover disposed on the cylindrical roller, the tubular cover being a removable sleeve. However, Malik (US-2002/0173872) teaches a brush cleaner (roller assembly 20) includes a tubular cover (pad 24) disposed on a cylindrical roller (drum 22), the tubular cover (pad 24) being a sleeve (Fig. 1A). Since Malik is in the same field of endeavor as Wu, it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a tubular cover on a cylindrical roller, as taught by Malik, for the cylindrical roller of Wu in order to apply different materials to the surface of a drum, particularly where cleaning material often differs from a more rigid supporting surface in areas of cleaning (“The upper pad is made from a polyurethane poromeric material a millimeter or so thick, such as pad material sold under the trade names POLITEX DG, POLITEX SUPREME, AND UR-100 by RODEL, INC., of Newark, Del., commonly referred to as "POLITEX" pads.”) [Malik; paragraph 0035] (“The lower brush 18 is a PVA brush supplied with the double-brush scrubber, but could be other material.”) [Malik; paragraph 0034]. While Malik does not explicitly state it is removable, it is well-known to make things removable within mechanical parts for easy replacement and/or exchanging alternate sleeves. For example, the lower drum (16) of Malik shows a different type of sleeve (brush sleeve 18) than the upper drum (22). Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to make these removable (i.e. as in having a removable attachment, such as press-fit) in order to replace any worn out pads, or to use a drum for multiple types of sleeves, such as a brush sleeve or a pad sleeve as shown by Malik . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20150096591 is pertinent to claim 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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. /JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 2 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 3 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 4 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 5 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 6 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 7 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/632,450 Page 8 Art Unit: 3723
Prosecution Insights