CTNF 18/711,957 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 polishing unit” of claim 1. This is shown as numeral 20 and described and illustrated as a disk with a flat surface 21 [Application Publication; paragraph 0054]. Therefore, this is considered a disk with a flat polishing surface and equivalents thereof. “a control unit” of claim 1. The control unit is shown as numeral 22 and described similarly to a controller with computer instructions thereon for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the control unit will be considered as such and equivalents thereof. “a pressure measurement unit” of claim 3. Applicant describes a “pressure sensor” as capable of measuring a “repulsive force” [Application Publication; paragraph 0065]. Applicant does not describe what the “pressure measurement unit” is in explicit detail, but one of ordinary skill in the art would consider this to be a pressure sensor. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be a pressure sensor, or equivalents thereof. “an optical fiber core wire diameter measurement unit” of claim 4. Applicant shows this as numeral 24. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be a sensor use for measuring the wire diameter, and equivalents thereof. “a selection unit” of claim 4. Applicant identifies this as numeral 25. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this a module. “an embedding unit” of claim 4. 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(a) 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Applicant doesn’t define what the “an optical fiber core wire diameter measurement unit,” the “selection unit”, or the “embedding unit” are. Applicant merely shows these as boxes and does not disclose whether or not they are sensors, controllers, modules within controllers, etc. For example, the “measurement unit” would be understood to be simply a sensor (though, the examiner notes that it’s not clear what type of sensor, like a caliper, a camera, etc.). Yet, Applicant also shows a selection unit and embedding unit as seemingly being part of the measurement unit, seemingly implying that there might be a controller aspect to the measurement unit. This is separate from the “control unit” 22. Since these terms are means-plus-function terms (a generic “unit” coupled to a function), then the words themselves convey no meaning in terms of structure. The measurement unit could be a sensor, a controller, both, or it could be none of these. The selection unit could be a module of the measurement unit, a separate controller, or a module of the control unit, or none of the above. The embedding unit could be a module or a physical structure like a robot arm. This is used to illustrate that there’s no clear structural definition for these structures. 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. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is 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 claim 4, the Applicant doesn’t define what the “an optical fiber core wire diameter measurement unit,” the “selection unit”, or the “embedding unit” are. Applicant merely shows these as boxes and does not disclose whether or not they are sensors, controllers, modules within controllers, etc. For example, the “measurement unit” would be understood to be simply a sensor (though, the examiner notes that it’s not clear what type of sensor, like a caliper, a camera, etc.). Yet, Applicant also shows a selection unit and embedding unit as seemingly being part of the measurement unit, seemingly implying that there might be a controller aspect to the measurement unit. This is separate from the “control unit” 22. Since these terms are means-plus-function terms (a generic “unit” coupled to a function), then the words themselves convey no meaning in terms of structure. The measurement unit could be a sensor, a controller, both, or it could be none of these. The selection unit could be a module of the measurement unit, a separate controller, or a module of the control unit, or none of the above. The embedding unit could be a module or a physical structure like a robot arm. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the measurement unit to be a sensor for measuring lengths/distances, the selection unit as being a module of the “control unit”, and the embedding unit as being a robot arm for placing the optical fiber core wire in the groove of the wire holding unit. 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, 2, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koinkar (US-6,719,608) in view of Wang (US-2013/0122613) . Regarding claim 1 (Original), Koinkar (US-6,719,608) discloses an optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing device (“The fiber device 100 may be used as a building block to construct a variety of fiber devices, including but not limited to, fiber optical monitors, fiber couplers, fiber attenuators, fiber modulators, fiber beam splitters, optical fiber switches, and fiber frequency-division multiplexers.”) [Koinkar; col. 3, lines 15-20] comprising: an optical fiber core wire holding unit (substrate 110) having a groove (grooves 120) in which a portion of a side surface of an optical fiber core wire (fiber 140) is embedded so as to protrude from an open plane (top of substrate 110) by a predetermined distance (Fig. 4); a polishing unit (“Polishing Pad”) (Fig. 9F) in which a polishing flat surface facing the open plane in parallel polishes the portion of the side surface of the optical fiber core wire (Fiber 140) (Fig. 9F) (“FIG. 9F shows polishing of the substrate on one side by using the above template assembly system 900.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 11-13] (“The polishing continues until both the fiber cladding and the substrate 110 are at the level indicated by the dashed line 520 to form the coplanar surfaces 144 and 112, respectively.”) [Koinkar; col. 6, lines 2-5] (Fig. 4); and a control unit (“CMP can also be controlled to achieve high polishing uniformity by properly adjusting and controlling the distance between core and polished surface precisely.”) [Koinkar; col. 10, lines 37-40] that causes the polishing unit (“Polishing Pad”) to start polishing the portion of the side surface of the optical fiber core wire (fiber 140) (Fig. 4) and to finish polishing when the polishing flat surface of the polishing unit reaches the open plane (top of substrate 110) (“The polishing continues until both the fiber cladding and the substrate 110 are at the level indicated by the dashed line 520 to form the coplanar surfaces 144 and 112, respectively.”) [Koinkar; col. 6, lines 2-5] (Fig. 4). While Koinkar does not explicitly disclose a “control unit,” CMP machines are known to use controllers for automating operations, such as taught by Wang (US-2013/0122613), for controlling the operations desired by Koinkar and, therefore, it would be obvious to automate the CMP functions with a control unit as taught by Wang [Wang; paragraphs 0016, 0017]. Regarding claim 2 (Original), Koinkar discloses the optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the polishing unit to finish polishing after an elapse of a predetermined polishing time from the start of the polishing (Koinkar mentions that polishing for a predetermined/[reset polishing time is known in the art) (“this monitoring mechanism may be used to overcome the shortcoming of a polishing system that terminates polishing according to a preset polishing time without actual measurement of the fiber cladding”) [Koinkar; col. 11, lines 34-38]. Regarding claim 5 (Original), Koinkar discloses an optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing method comprising: a selection step of selecting an optical fiber core wire holding unit (substrate 110) having a groove (groove 220) in which an optical fiber core wire (fiber 140) can be embedded such that a portion of a side surface of the optical fiber core wire (fiber 140) protrudes from an open plane (top surface of substrate 110) by a predetermined distance (Fig. 4); an embedding step of embedding the optical fiber core wire in the groove (groove 220) (Fig. 4); and a polishing step of starting polishing the portion of the side surface of the optical fiber core protruding from the open plane with a polishing flat surface of a polishing unit (polishing pad) and finishing polishing with the polishing unit (polishing pad) when the polishing flat surface of the polishing unit reaches the open plane of the groove (“The polishing continues until both the fiber cladding and the substrate 110 are at the level indicated by the dashed line 520 to form the coplanar surfaces 144 and 112, respectively.”) [Koinkar; col. 6, lines 2-5] (Fig. 4) (“FIG. 9F shows polishing of the substrate on one side by using the above template assembly system 900.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 11-13]. Regarding claim 6 (Original), Koinkar discloses the optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing method according to claim 5, wherein in the polishing step, the polishing is finished after an elapse of a predetermined polishing time from the start of the polishing (Koinkar mentions that polishing for a predetermined/[reset polishing time is known in the art) (“this monitoring mechanism may be used to overcome the shortcoming of a polishing system that terminates polishing according to a preset polishing time without actual measurement of the fiber cladding”) [Koinkar; col. 11, lines 34-38] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koinkar (US-6,719,608) in view of Wang (US-20130122613) and further in view of Lukner (US-2002/0182978) . Regarding claim 3, Koinkar discloses the optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a pressure measurement unit that measures a repulsive force received by the polishing unit (polishing pad) from the optical fiber core wire (substrate 110) and the optical fiber core wire holding unit (substrate 110), wherein the control unit causes the polishing unit to finish polishing when the repulsive force measured by the pressure measurement unit reaches a predetermined value or higher. As to receiving a repulsive force received by the polishing unit (i.e. polishing pad) from the optical fiber core wire, Wang (US-20130122613) teaches a planarization device that comprises a polishing pad 510 move into contact with a workpiece (wafer 506) such that the polishing pad receives a repulsive force (equal and opposite force from pushing down) (“the pad holder 502 and polishing pad 510 exert a localized downward force on the wafer surface”) [Wang; paragraph 0026]. Since Koinkar incorporates planarization devices pertinent to wafer planarization, (“The basic effect of CMP is to planarize a non-planar surface. CMP accomplishes this by pressing the surface to be planarized that is held on a rotating carrier against a polishing pad attached to a rotating platen.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 50-53], it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a device such as Wang’s shown in Figure 5A to provide localized planarization, particularly with a device such as shown by Koinkar where the workpiece requires localized planarization as opposed to global wafer planarization as shown by Koinkar (“FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate operation of a localized planarization station 500 (e.g., 206 in FIG. 2) used to carry out localized planarization on a wafer in accordance with some embodiments.”) [Wang; paragraph 0024]. As to the pressure measurement unit, Lukner (US-2002/0182978) teaches using a pressure measurement unit (sensor 100 for detecting down force 24) [Lukner; paragraph 0028] that measures a repulsive force received between a polishing unit (polishing pad 18) and a workpiece (wafer 14), wherein a control unit causes the polishing unit to finish polishing when the repulsive force measured by the pressure measurement unit reaches a predetermined value or higher (“First, the values may comprise only down force 24 measurements made by the sensor 100 during each unit of time set by the clock 124 during a complete polishing operation of a wafer 14. Since the standard deviation of the down force 24 is a measure of the quality of vibrations occurring during polishing, the standard deviation calculated by the facilities 124 may be used to evaluate, or as a measure of, the quality of the planarization achieved by the polished wafer 14. Moreover this standard deviation may be used to adjust the apparatus 10 which effected polishing so that subsequent polishing operations will produce acceptable planarizations.”) [Lukner; paragraph 0028]. Since Lukner is pertinent to CMP and Koinkar uses CMP techniques to polish (“including fabrication techniques based on the chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) and a fiber protection template, are described in detail”) [Koinkar; col. 3, lines 11-13], it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the movable part of Koinkar in view of Wang, which is the polishing pad and pad holder 504, to include a pressure sensor, as taught by Lukner, in order to monitor planarization to a desired degree (“The basic effect of CMP is to planarize a non-planar surface. CMP accomplishes this by pressing the surface to be planarized that is held on a rotating carrier against a polishing pad attached to a rotating platen.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 50-53] (“may be used to evaluate, or as a measure of, the quality of the planarization achieved by the polished wafer 14”) [Lukner; paragraph 0028]. Regarding claim 7 (Original), Koinkar discloses the optical multiplexing/demultiplexing circuit manufacturing method according to claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein in the polishing step, a repulsive force received by the polishing unit from the optical fiber core wire and the optical fiber core wire holding unit is measured and the polishing is finished when the measured repulsive force reaches a predetermined value or higher. As to receiving a repulsive force received by the polishing unit (i.e. polishing pad) from the optical fiber core wire, Wang (US-20130122613) teaches a planarization device that comprises a polishing pad 510 move into contact with a workpiece (wafer 506) such that the polishing pad receives a repulsive force (equal and opposite force from pushing down) (“the pad holder 502 and polishing pad 510 exert a localized downward force on the wafer surface”) [Wang; paragraph 0026]. Since Koinkar incorporates planarization devices pertinent to wafer planarization, (“The basic effect of CMP is to planarize a non-planar surface. CMP accomplishes this by pressing the surface to be planarized that is held on a rotating carrier against a polishing pad attached to a rotating platen.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 50-53], it therefore would’ve been obvious to use a device such as Wang’s shown in Figure 5A to provide localized planarization, particularly with a device such as shown by Koinkar where the workpiece requires localized planarization as opposed to global wafer planarization as shown by Koinkar (“FIGS. 5A-5D illustrate operation of a localized planarization station 500 (e.g., 206 in FIG. 2) used to carry out localized planarization on a wafer in accordance with some embodiments.”) [Wang; paragraph 0024]. As to the pressure measurement unit, Lukner (US-2002/0182978) teaches using a pressure measurement unit (sensor 100 for detecting down force 24) [Lukner; paragraph 0028] that measures a repulsive force received between a polishing unit (polishing pad 18) and a workpiece (wafer 14), wherein a control unit causes the polishing unit to finish polishing when the repulsive force measured by the pressure measurement unit reaches a predetermined value or higher (“First, the values may comprise only down force 24 measurements made by the sensor 100 during each unit of time set by the clock 124 during a complete polishing operation of a wafer 14. Since the standard deviation of the down force 24 is a measure of the quality of vibrations occurring during polishing, the standard deviation calculated by the facilities 124 may be used to evaluate, or as a measure of, the quality of the planarization achieved by the polished wafer 14. Moreover this standard deviation may be used to adjust the apparatus 10 which effected polishing so that subsequent polishing operations will produce acceptable planarizations.”) [Lukner; paragraph 0028]. Since Lukner is pertinent to CMP and Koinkar uses CMP techniques to polish (“including fabrication techniques based on the chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) and a fiber protection template, are described in detail”) [Koinkar; col. 3, lines 11-13], it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the movable part of Koinkar in view of Wang, which is the polishing pad and pad holder 504, to include a pressure sensor, as taught by Lukner, in order to monitor planarization to a desired degree (“The basic effect of CMP is to planarize a non-planar surface. CMP accomplishes this by pressing the surface to be planarized that is held on a rotating carrier against a polishing pad attached to a rotating platen.”) [Koinkar; col. 9, lines 50-53] (“may be used to evaluate, or as a measure of, the quality of the planarization achieved by the polished wafer 14”) [Lukner; paragraph 0028] . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “the optical fiber core wire holding unit corresponding to the diameter of the measured optical fiber core wire is selected based on the correspondence relationship between the diameter of the optical fiber core wire and the predetermined distance.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6464574, US-6299506 and US-20120100779 are 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: 18/711,957 Page 2 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 3 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 4 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 5 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 6 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 7 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 8 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 9 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 10 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 11 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 12 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 13 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/711,957 Page 14 Art Unit: 3723
Prosecution Insights