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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “low emissivity” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low emissivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not distinctly point out what threshold is considered to be low emissivity, as such the scope of the claim is unclear.
The term “low emissivity” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low emissivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim does not distinctly point out what threshold is considered to be low emissivity, as such the scope of the claim is unclear.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. JP-2001009699-A (herein Yoshino) in view of Woo KR-20180055113-A.
PNG
media_image1.png
276
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshino Figure 2
Regarding claim 1, Yoshino teaches a polishing apparatus (English Translation, Abstract) comprising: a plurality of window members (Wn) configured to transmit radiation; a polishing pad (13) in which the window members (Wn) are embedded; a polishing table (11) configured to support the polishing pad (13) and rotate together with the polishing pad (13); a polishing head (14) configured to rotatably hold a substrate (10) and press the substrate against the polishing pad (13); and a plurality of optical sensors (Sn) arranged below the window members (Wn) and configured to measure a surface of the substrate (10) held by the polishing head (14).
Yoshino does not teach that the optical sensors are infrared temperature sensors.
PNG
media_image2.png
401
298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Woo Figure 4
However, in a related device, Woo teaches a polishing apparatus (10) with infrared temperature sensors (220) arranged below a polishing pad (110) in a radial direction. Woo further teaches that temperature sensors advantageously allow for enhanced accuracy of other measurement devices as the other devices will vary in measurements as temperatures change (English Translation pg. 2, ln 31-33). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, to combine the infrared temperature sensors of Woo into the sensor package of Yoshino to advantageously enhance the optical measurements, by allowing for temperature to be taken into account of the measurements (English Translation pg. 2, ln 31-33). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teach the infrared radiation thermometers (220 of Woo) are arranged in a radial direction (see elements 200 of Woo) of the polishing table (11 of Yoshino) and rotate together with the polishing table (11 of Yoshino).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teach each of the infrared radiation thermometers (220 of Woo) is a radiation thermometer (220 of Woo) with a capability to measure a temperature of an object to be measured, which has low emissivity, by suppressing effects of external disturbances.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshino teaches a polishing apparatus (English Translation, Abstract) comprising: a window member (Wn) configured to transmit radiation; a polishing pad (13) in which the window member (Wn) is embedded; a polishing table (11) configured to support the polishing pad (13) and rotate together with the polishing pad (13); a polishing head (14) configured to rotatably hold a substrate (10) and press the substrate against the polishing pad (13); and a plurality of optical sensors (Sn) arranged below the window members (Wn) and configured to measure a surface of the substrate (10) held by the polishing head (14), wherein the optical sensors (Sn) comprise a plurality of light receiving portions arranged along a rotation locus of the window member (Wn).
Yoshino does not teach that the optical sensors are infrared temperature sensors.
However, in a related device, Woo teaches a polishing apparatus (10) with infrared temperature sensors (220) arranged below a polishing pad (110). Woo further teaches that temperature sensors advantageously allow for enhanced accuracy of other measurement devices as the other devices will vary in measurements as temperatures change (English Translation pg. 2, ln 31-33). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, to combine the infrared temperature sensors of Woo into the sensor package of Yoshino to advantageously enhance the optical measurements, by allowing for temperature to be taken into account of the measurements (English Translation pg. 2, ln 31-33). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teach the polishing table (11 of Yoshino) comprises a black body fixed to a lower surface (English Translation, pg. 11, ln 23-25 of Yoshino) of the polishing table (11 of Yoshino), and wherein the black body is arranged at a position corresponding to the rotation locus of the window member (Wn of Yoshino) (English Translation, pg. 11, ln 23-25 of Yoshino).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teach each of the infrared radiation thermometers (220 of Woo) is a radiation thermometer (220 of Woo) with a capability to measure a temperature of an object to be measured, which has low emissivity, by suppressing effects of external disturbances.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshino teaches a polishing apparatus (English Translation, Abstract) comprising: a polishing pad (13), a polishing table (11) configured to support the polishing pad (13) and rotate together with the polishing pad (13); a polishing head (14) configured to rotatably hold a substrate (10) and press the substrate against the polishing pad (13); and a plurality of optical sensors (Sn) arranged below the window members (Wn) and configured to measure a surface of the substrate (10) held by the polishing head (14), a second measurement device (combination of Sn and Wn) configured to measure the surface of a second region of the substrate (10), and wherein the second measuring device (combination of Sn and Wn) comprises: a second window member (Wn) configured to transmit a radiation and embedded in the polishing pad (13); and a second optical sensor (Sn) arranged below the polishing table (13) and comprising a plurality of light receiving portions (each of individual sensors Sn) arranged along a rotation locus of the second window member (Wn).
Yoshino does not teach a first measurement device as claimed or that the optical sensors are infrared temperature sensors.
However, in a related device, Woo teaches a polishing apparatus (10) with infrared temperature sensors (220) arranged below a polishing pad (110) where the sensors (220) are configured to measure a surface of a first region of a substrate (12); wherein the infrared temperature sensors (220) comprise a plurality of first infrared temperature sensors (220) arranged below the polishing pad (110), having a larger temperature distribution than the first region. Woo further teaches that temperature sensors advantageously allow for enhanced accuracy of other measurement devices as the other devices will vary in measurements as temperatures change (English Translation pg. 2, ln 31-33) and that the distributed measurement points advantageously allow for a greater distribution of measurement points (English Translation, pg. 5, ln 29-31). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, to combine the infrared sensors of Woo with the optical sensors under windows of Yoshino to advantageously allow for more accurate measurements, and to extend the window Wt of Yoshino into the multiple radial window arrangement of Woo to allow for an advantageously increased distribution of measurement points (English Translation, pg. 2, ln 31-33; pg. 5, ln 29-31). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. JP-2001009699-A (herein Yoshino) in view of Woo KR-20180055113-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. JP-2008145133-A.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Yoshino and Woo does not teach the infrared sensors comprising a shutter with a black body.
However, in a related device, Okamoto teaches an infrared radiation thermometer (English Translation, abstract) comprising a shutter (5) having a black body structure (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 21-23) configured to open and close a light receiving portion (English Translation, abstract) of each of the infrared radiation thermometers (English Translation, Abstract). Okamoto further teaches that this advantageously increases the accuracy of the calibration of the sensor (English translation, pg. 3, ln 23-26). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, to combine the shutter of Okamoto with the infrared sensors of the combination of Yoshino and Woo to advantageously increase the accuracy of calibration (English translation, pg. 3, ln 23-26). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. JP-2001009699-A (herein Yoshino) in view of Woo KR-20180055113-A as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Swedek et al. US-7112119-B1 (herein Swedek).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoshino and Woo teaches the limitations of claim 5 as claimed.
The combination of Yoshino and Woo does not teach a liquid removal system.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
467
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Swedek Figure 2
However, in a related device, Swedek teaches a polishing apparatus (abstract) which comprises a liquid removal mechanism (col 5, ln6-7) configured to remove a liquid from a light path a window member (40). Swedek further teaches that this system advantageously prevents condensation or fogging on the window (col 5, ln 20-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, to combine the sensors of the combination of Yoshino and Woo with the liquid removal device of Swedek to advantageously prevents condensation or fogging on the window (col 5, ln 20-23). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Yoshino, Woo, and Swedek teach the liquid removal mechanism comprises (col 5, ln6-7): a gas injection device (60) configured to inject a gas across the light path (64); and a liquid collection member (62) configured to collect the liquid blown out of the light path (64) by the gas injection device (60).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshino et al. JP-2001009699-A (herein Yoshino) in view of Woo KR-20180055113-A and Swedek et al. US-7112119-B1 (herein Swedek) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. WO-2006062158-A1 (herein Ogawa).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoshino, Woo, and Swedek teaches the limitations of claim 7 as claimed.
The combination of Yoshino, Woo, and Swedek does not teach the liquid removal mechanism including an elastic ring that surrounds the window member.
PNG
media_image4.png
217
345
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ogawa Figure 8
However, in a related device, Ogawa teaches a polishing pad (1) comprising a liquid removal mechanism which comprises an elastic ring (23) surrounding the window member (9), and wherein the elastic ring protrudes (see figure 8, note that 23 protrudes down from the polishing surface) from a polishing surface of the polishing pad (1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the applicable technique of an elastic sealing ring as taught by Ogawa to the device of the combination of Yoshino, Woo, and Swedek. Further, applying the sealing ring would have yielded predictable results and improved the system’s watertightness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hao et al. CN-105092046-A as it relates to devices with spinning black bodies that interpose on sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm EST.
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 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights