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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 04/11/2024 and 10/31/2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Figures 12-17 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated; see instant Specification, Page 1, lines 26-28, “a conventional substrate processing apparatus”; see also instant Specification, Page 3, Paragraph [0009], wherein FIG. 17 is used to discuss shortcomings in several conventional substrate processing apparatuses, and is not reflective of an embodiment of the claimed invention; see also instant Specification, Page 5, lines 17-26, wherein the list of figures are labeled as an embodiment or an example of conventional art. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the substrate, which is likely a typographical error as “the substrate” has never been appropriately introduced for Claim 1. As an example, the Examiner suggests this be edited to read “a substrate”. Claims 3, 5, and 6 are also objected to for reciting an element without proper antecedent basis, but would have their objections resolved if the recitation of the substrate in Claim 1, for which the other claims depend upon, is corrected and appropriately introduced.
Claim 1 recites the surface, which is likely a typographical error as “the surface” has never been appropriately introduced in Claim 1. As an example, the Examiner suggests this be edited to read “a surface”. Claim 3 is also objected to for reciting an element without proper antecedent basis, but would have their objection resolved if the recitation of the surface in Claim 1, for which Claim 3 depends upon, is corrected and appropriately introduced.
Claim 3 recites the reference center line, twice in Claim 3, both of which are likely a typographical error as “the reference center line” has not been appropriately introduced for Claim 3. However, the Examiner wishes to provide notice that “a reference center line” has been appropriately introduced in Claim 2, which Claim 3 is not dependent upon. Please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Claim 3 recites the axis, which is likely a typographical error as “the axis” has never been appropriately introduced for Claim 3. However, the Examiner wishes to provide notice that “axes of the two rollers” has been appropriately introduced in Claim 2, which Claim 3 is not dependent upon. Please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Claim 5 recites a shape, which is likely a typographical error as Claim 4, which Claim 5 is dependent upon, already appropriately introduces “a different shape”. Here, “a different shape” and “a shape” both refer to the two of the plurality of rollers. As an example, the Examiner suggests this read “the different shape”.
Claim 6 recites the same shape, which is likely a typographical error as “the same shape” has not been appropriately introduced in Claim 6. As an example, the Examiner suggests this read as “a same shape”. Please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al (US 20190118335 A1), herein after referred to as "Kobayashi".
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a plurality of rollers arranged around a reference central point and configured to contact a circumferential portion of the substrate (Kobayashi: Abstract in view of FIG. 28, "a polishing apparatus" for a substrate comprising a plurality of rollers "contacting a periphery of the substrate; see also Kobayashi, Paragraph [0077] in view of FIGS. 2-3, substrate holder 10 includes a plurality of rollers 11 equidistant from an axis CP; see also Kobayashi, Paragraphs [0131] and [0138-0139], wherein the construction and operation of the embodiment of FIG. 28 is based upon FIGS. 1-13, and 23-27);
a pressing member configured to press a processing tool against a periphery of the surface of the substrate (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0094] in view of FIG. 1 and 28, polishing blade 55 presses a polishing tape 31 against a first surface 1 of the wafer W);
and an actuator configured to apply a pressing force to the pressing member (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0094] in view of FIG. 1 and 28, a pressing mechanism 52 pushes up on the polishing blade 55), wherein two of the plurality of rollers are adjacent to the pressing member and located at both sides of the pressing member (Kobayashi, see FIG. 28, wherein two of the plurality of rollers 11 are located adjacent to the polishing blade 55 and are located at both sides of the polishing blade 55).
Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of rollers have the same shape and are configured to hold the circumferential portion of the substrate (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0085] in view of FIGS. 5 and 28, wherein the rollers 11, which are visually observed to be approximately the same shape in FIG. 28, hold the circumferential portion of the substrate (i.e. the periphery of the wafer W), as seen in FIG. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 20190118335 A1), herein after referred to as "Kobayashi".
Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein axes of the two rollers are on a reference perpendicular line or located more radially outward than the reference perpendicular line (Kobayashi, see Annotated Figure 28, wherein axes of the two indicated rollers of Annotated Figure 28 are visually observed to be on a reference perpendicular line), the reference perpendicular line being perpendicular to a reference center line extending from the reference central point (Kobayashi: see Annotated Figure 28), the reference perpendicular line extending through the center of the pressing member (Kobayashi: see Annotated Figure 28, wherein the reference perpendicular line extends through approximately the center of the indicated polishing blade 55 and “additional polishing blade 55’”).
PNG
media_image1.png
742
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi does not disclose that the reference center line extends from the reference central point to a center of the pressing member.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it 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, to have rearranged the placement of the polishing blades 55 such that the reference center line extends from the reference central point to a center of pressing member, as it has been held that shifting the position of an element, such that the operation of the device is not modified, has been held unpatentable, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As evidenced by the reference central line already extending through a center of another polishing blade that is not adjacent to the rollers, and as evidenced by the numerous embodiments disclosed by Kobayashi (i.e. Kobayashi, FIGS. 12, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, and 36) regarding polishing blade(s) 55 placements, rearrangement of the polishing blade to have a reference center line extend from the reference central point to a center of the pressing member would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and would have required little effort given the numerous examples (i.e. Kobayashi, FIG. 20, in particular) exemplifying this embodiment of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi discloses in the primary embodiment (i.e. FIG. 28) the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kobayashi does not disclose, in the primary embodiment, a Bernoulli chuck configured to support the surface of the substrate via fluid in a non-contact manner, a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to the axis of each of the two rollers being smaller than a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to a center of the Bernoulli chuck.
However, from an alternate embodiment, Kobayashi discloses a Bernoulli chuck configured to support the surface of the substrate via fluid in a non-contact manner (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0152] in view of FIG. 34, wherein at least one Bernoulli chuck 87 is disclosed, and wherein the Bernoulli chuck 87 attracts the first surface 1 of the wafer W “by means of a fluid in a non-contact manner”).
It would have been obvious to have combined the polishing apparatus disclosed in the primary embodiment (i.e. FIG. 28) with the alternative embodiment (i.e. FIG. 34), such that the polishing apparatus includes Bernoulli chucks below the wafer W, providing support by attracting the wafer by means of a fluid in a non-contact manner (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0152] in view of FIGS. 34-35). One would be motivated to do this in support of creating a more efficient design, wherein Kobayashi remarks that the Bernoulli chucks apply a downward suction force to the wafer W, which helps counteract the upward polishing load applied to the wafer W by the polishing tape 31 and polishing blade 55, thus preventing the wafer W from bending (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0155] in view of FIGS. 34-35). Additionally, “the construction of this embodiment can be applied to the embodiments described above with reference to FIGS. 1 through 33” (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0155]).
The alternate embodiment of Kobayashi does not disclose a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to the axis of each of the two rollers being smaller than a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to a center of the Bernoulli chuck.
However, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it 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, to have rearranged the Bernoulli chucks 87 such that a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to the axis of each of the two rollers being smaller than a central angle between the reference center line and a line extending from the reference central point to a center of the Bernoulli chuck, since an obvious matter of design choice was held as unpatentable, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). When seeking to ascertain the criticality of the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 8, lines 22-26 of the instant Specification discloses, inter alia, “a plurality of Bernoulli chucks 50 configured to support the first surface (lower surface) 2a of the substrate W in a non-contact manner through fluid”, and also that these Bernoulli chucks 50 “are arranged under the first surface 2a of the substrate W held by the substrate holder 10, and are arranged so as to face the first surface 2a”. Additionally, Applicant further remarks on Page 11, Paragraph [0034] of the instant Specification that, “Since the pressing member 21A is located closer to the two rollers 11A and 11B than to the Bernoulli chucks 50, the two rollers 11A and 11B can work together with the Bernoulli chucks 50 to significantly reduce the upward deflection of the substrate W”. However, Kobayashi also discloses a plurality of Bernoulli chucks 50 which support the first surface 1 of the wafer “in a non-contact manner” through fluid, which are also disposed below the substrate-holding surfaces 11a (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0152]), and have suction surfaces 87a facing upward (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0153]). Furthermore, Kobayashi already addresses reducing the upward deflection of the wafer W caused by the polishing tape 31 and polishing blades 55 (Kobayashi, Paragraph [0085], rollers with “substrate-holding surface 11a”, and Paragraph [0155] pertaining to the Bernoulli chucks 50).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al (US 20190118335 A1), herein after referred to as "Kobayashi", in view of Ziemins et al (US 6622334 B1), herein after referred to as "Ziemins".
Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the two rollers have the same shape as the other rollers of the plurality of rollers (Kobayashi: see FIG. 28, wherein the rollers 11 are visually observed to be the same shape).
Kobayashi does not disclose the two rollers have a different shape.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Ziemins discloses two rollers with a different shape than the other plurality of rollers (Ziemins: in view of FIG. 2, wherein the two guide wheels 28 have a different shape than the drive wheels 24).
Ziemins discloses a “brush cleaning apparatus for cleaning a major surface of a wafer”, comprising guide wheels 28 with polish pad material disposed on a circumference of the guide wheels, and drive wheels 24 for rotating the wafer 20 (Ziemins: see Abstract and Col. 3, lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Kobayashi in view of Ziemins such that the rollers 11 of FIG. 28, disclosed by Kobayashi, have two different shaped rollers included in their design, as disclosed by Ziemins. The apparatus disclosed by Ziemins utilizes the two different shaped rollers for two different purposes, wherein the guide wheels 28 are designed primarily to clean an edge portion of a wafer W (Ziemins: Col. 3, lines 18-22), whereas the drive wheels are primarily for “rotating the wafer 20 in a direction” (Ziemins: Col. 3, line 8). Kobayashi also discloses two different shapes of rollers (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0085] in view of FIG. 5, the roller 11 “has a cylindrical substrate-holding surface 11a”; see also Paragraph [0086] in view of FIG. 6, the roller 11 has an hourglass-shaped substrate-holding surface 11a; see also Paragraph [0077], wherein “five or more rollers 11 may be provided”). It is noted that, between the roller 11 embodiments disclosed by Kobayashi (i.e. FIG. 5 versus FIG. 6), FIG. 6 is capable of restricting inclination of the wafer W, “and can restrict the vertical height and movement of the wafer during polishing of the wafer W” (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0086] in view of FIGS. 5-6). Based on this knowledge, someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the two designs of rollers such that at least two rollers 11 in the design are intended to prevent the vertical rise and movement of the wafer W during polishing due to their different shape than the other plurality of rollers (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi in view of Ziemins discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Kobayashi further discloses the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein each of the two rollers has a tapered surface in a shape of an truncated cone (Kobayashi: Paragraphs [0085-0086] in view of FIGS. 5-6, wherein tapered surface 11b is described as having “a shape of a truncated cone”, but both an upper and lower surface of the substrate-holding surface 11a have a nearly identical structure to that of the tapered surface 11b, such that a lower substrate-holding surface could be considered a truncated cone whereas an upper substrate-holding surface could be considered an inverted truncated cone) and is configured to apply a reaction force against the pressing force to the circumferential portion of the substrate (Kobayashi: Paragraph [0086] in view of Annotated Figure 6, the substrate-holding surface 11a, which is contacting a circumferential portion of the substrate, “can restrict inclination of the wafer W, and can restrict the vertical height and movement of the wafer W during polishing of the wafer W”).
PNG
media_image2.png
448
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights