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 filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objections and rejections under 112(b), the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections and the objections. However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 103 are not considered persuasive, as discussed below. A new ground of rejection has been made, as presented below, over Lee in view of Tsutsumi and Wu, in light of the newly amended claims.
Applicant argues that because Lee discloses two polishing transfer stations 116 and that stations 116 are movable, that Lee fails to disclose the technical feature of the polishing unit consists of one fixed working position and two modules. However, Lee was not relied upon to disclose a single fixed working position in the previous action and therefore this argument is moot.
Further, Applicant argues that Lee fails to disclose that the height of the transfer stations 116 can be changed by the wafer transfer unit 120. However, Lee was not relied upon to disclose a height adjustable fixed working position in the previous action and therefore this argument is moot.
Applicant argues that Tsutsumi is unrelated to wafer polishing and therefore an artisan would not be motivated to adopt the fixed structure and robot system of Tsutsumi into Lee to arrive at the claimed structure. However, Tsutsumi addresses the pertinent problem of efficiently and effectively transferring workpieces with a robot system and fixed working position, and therefore even though it may not be in the same field of endeavor, Tsutsumi solves the same problem.
Further, Applicant argues that the robots of Tsutsumi are not located in a diagonal direction of the unit 11. Unit 11 was not mapped as the fixed working position in the previous action and therefore the robots do not need to be diagonal from that unit. See previous mapping of the arms being in a diagonal direction of the fixed working position, explained as the base of the robot arms being located in a diagonal direction of the worktable S2 as seen in Fig 1, and as described below.
Additionally, Applicant argues that Tsutsumi failed to provide any teaching pertaining to the height adjustable structure. However, Tsutsumi was not relied on to disclose a height adjustable fixed working position in the previous action and therefore this argument is moot.
Lastly, Applicant argues that Wu discloses a height adjustable structure that is directed towards components that are different than the components closest to the fixed working position of the current application. However, the mapping of Wu clearly maps the components containing height adjustable structure to the claim limitations, and therefore meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20210260716) in view of Tsutsumi (WO2015075775) and Wu (US20200376523).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a wafer polishing system, comprising:
at least one polishing unit (defined as one of the 3 rows of polishing unit array 100 [0083] annotated Fig 1 below);
wherein, one of the at least one polishing unit consists of two polishing modules located on two sides of the one fixed working position (polishing units 110 [0083]-[0085] Figs 1-2);
each of the two polishing modules comprises a polishing platform and a polishing arm capable of driving a wafer to rotate with respect to the polishing platform to implement a polishing process (polishing platform defined as pad 117 and polishing arms defined as 111 which, in combination with polishing head 112, are capable of rotating a wafer with respect to the pad 117 [0078] [0085] Figs 1-3);
PNG
media_image1.png
402
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Lee fails to disclose the at least one polishing unit consists of one fixed working position (however it should be noted that although Lee fails to disclose one fixed working position, it does disclose transfer stations 116); the polishing arms of the two polishing modules on the two sides are located in a diagonal direction of the one fixed working position and are able to swing between the one fixed working position and the polishing platforms to transfer the wafer respectively, and movement areas of the polishing arms have an overlap, wherein the one fixed working position is configured as a height-adjustable structure, and when the one fixed working position does not interact with the polishing arms for wafer loading or unloading, the one fixed working position is located below a plane where the polishing platforms are located.
Tsutsumi is concerned with workpiece transfer systems and teaches a fixed working position, arms located in a diagonal direction of the fixed working position and the arms are able to swing between the fixed working position and their own respective regions to transfer work respectively and movement areas of the arms have an overlap (fixed working position defined as the hand off position between arms shown as region S2 in Fig 1 below, and it is also explained that the robots may receive work directly from each other or from a work table in the common area (here the common area is at S2 as marked below) pg 2 [11], as seen in Fig 1 below the base of the arms are located in a diagonal direction of the worktable S2 and the arms are seen and described as swinging between the fixed working position and their own respective regions to transfer work respectively, and the movement areas of the arms have an overlap as indicated by the shaded region of Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
763
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transfer stations and polishing arms of the wafer polishing system of Lee to incorporate the fixed working position and arm positioning of Tsutsumi in order to improve process efficiency; by reducing the number of transfer stations to one per set of polishing units the wafer transfer unit is able to more efficiently load wafers to be polishing as it doesn’t need to spend time travelling between stations.
Wu is also concerned with wafer polishing systems and teaches a fixed working position configured as a height-adjustable structure (pedestal 204 of load cup 8 can be vertically movable relative to the housing 206 [0056]-[0057] Fig 2A shown below; further, the recitations “when the fixed working position does not interact with the polishing arm for wafer loading or unloading, the fixed working position is located below a plane where the polishing platform is located " is considered to be an intended use limitation. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the modified system of Lee is capable of having the fixed working position be located below a plane where the polishing platform is located when not interacting with the polishing arms because they are height adjustable).
PNG
media_image3.png
521
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer polishing system of Lee, as modified above, to incorporate the height adjustable structure of Wu’s fixed working position in order to more efficiently load and unload wafers to and from the heads of the polishing units.
Regarding claim 2, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses after the polishing arm of one polishing module obtains the wafer from the one fixed working position, the polishing process is completed, and the wafer is placed back to the one fixed working position along a first trajectory; after the polishing arm of the other polishing module obtains the wafer from the one fixed working position, the polishing process is completed, and the wafer is placed back to the one fixed working position along a second trajectory; and the first trajectory and the second trajectory are approximately S-shaped (The recitations “obtaining the wafer from the fixed working position, and placing the wafer back to the fixed working position along a first and second trajectory" are considered to be intended use limitations. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the system described above is capable of performing this step and the first trajectory is defined as path 601 and the second trajectory is defined as path 602 as shown in Tsutsumi fig 1 above, and the full arc (not shown) of 601 and 602 would form an approximately S-shaped path when connected).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a central axis of the one fixed working position passes through a centre of the overlap (as shown above in Tsutsumi fig 1 a central axis of the fixed working position would pass through a center of the overlap).
Regarding claim 4, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the first trajectory and the second trajectory are movement trajectories of a centre of the wafer and have only one point of tangency (the modified system of Lee as described above would be capable of having first and second trajectories that are movement trajectories of a center of the wafer and only have one point of tangency).
Regarding claim 5, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a swing angle of the polishing arm is less than 180° (the modified system of Lee as described above would be capable of having a swing angle of the polishing arm being less than 180°).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses after a first polishing arm of the polishing arms obtains the wafer from the one fixed working position, the wafer is polished on a first polishing platform of the polishing platforms; and at the same time, another wafer is placed on the one fixed working position, a second polishing arm of the polishing arms obtains the other wafer from the one fixed working position, and the wafer is polished on a second polishing platform of the polishing platforms (The recitations “after a first polishing arm obtains the wafer from the fixed working position, the wafer is polished on a first polishing platform; and at the same time, another wafer is placed on the fixed working position, a second polishing arm obtains the wafer from the fixed working position, and the wafer is polished on a second polishing platform" are considered to be intended use limitations. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114- II. In the instant case, the first polishing module of Lee as described above is capable of obtaining the wafer from the fixed working position via the first polishing arm and polishing said wafer on the corresponding first polishing platform and the modified system of Lee as described above is capable of delivering another wafer to the fixed working position, as the first wafer is being polished, via wafer transfer unit 120 and then having a second polishing arm obtain the wafer from the fixed working position and initiate polishing of the wafer on a second polishing platform as described above).
Regarding claim 10, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a number of the at least one polishing unit is three, the three polishing units are adjacently arranged in a vertical direction, and each polishing unit is provided with the two polishing modules (as seen in fig 1 of Lee above and as described in [0022], Lee contains three polishing units arranged along a vertical direction, each unit provided with two polishing modules).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses a connecting line between centres of the polishing platforms of the two polishing modules in each polishing unit intersects with a central axis of the one fixed working position (with the single central fixed working position of Lee as described above, a connecting line between the centers of the polishing platforms would intersect with a central axis of the fixed working position).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights