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 .
Drawings
Figures 9-12 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. 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 Interpretation
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.
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: “hydrostatic-plate moving device” and “hydrostatic-plate rotating device” in claims 5 and 6.
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 § 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 1-3, 5, 9-11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi (US 10632587) in view of Eisenstock (US 8148266).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi discloses a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a substrate holder having a suction holding surface configured to hold a first surface of a substrate (holding/rotating mechanism 106 has a holding stage 4 which holds a first surface of the substrate by vacuum suction, col 8 lines 7-18, Figs 4-5 shown below);
a processing head arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of the substrate (processing head defined as polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
368
439
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Nakanishi fails to disclose a hydrostatic plate having a fluid support surface facing the suction holding surface; and
a fluid supply line coupled to the hydrostatic plate and configured to supply fluid to a space between the fluid support surface and a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being an opposite side of the substrate from the first surface, the fluid support surface being larger than the suction holding surface.
Eisenstock is also concerned with substrate processing apparatus and teaches a hydrostatic plate having a fluid support surface facing the suction holding surface (plate defined as hydrostatic pressure head 115 which has a fluid support surface defined as recess 117 and including the span of gaps G to G1, would face the suction holding surface of Nakanishi as described above, col 10-11 lines 55-12 Figs 5-6 shown below); and
a fluid supply line coupled to the hydrostatic plate and configured to supply fluid to a space between the fluid support surface and a second surface of the substrate, the second surface being an opposite side of the substrate from the first surface, the fluid support surface being larger than the suction holding surface (fluid supply conduit 119 supplies fluid to a space, recess 117 and gaps G and G1, between the fluid support surface and a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface; as seen in Figs 5-6 below, the fluid support surface spanning from G to G1 is larger than the substrate 51, and as seen above, the suction holding surface 4 of Nakanishi is smaller than the substrate W1 and so the fluid support surface is capable of being larger than the suction holding surface).
PNG
media_image3.png
676
431
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 added the hydrostatic plate of Eisenstock to the substrate processing apparatus of Nakanishi in order to provide the apparatus with redundant means of biasing or holding the substrate with pressure to ensure it is in the proper orientation and alignment for polishing while the processing head is removing material from the outer circumferential portion of the substrate (Eisenstock: col 10 lines 22-54).
Regarding claim 2, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the processing head is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of the first surface (polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of any face of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 3, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the processing head is movable so as to process the outer circumferential portion of the first surface and an outer circumferential portion of the second surface (polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of any face of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 5, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Nakanishi, as modified, fails to disclose a hydrostatic-plate moving device configured to move the hydrostatic plate away from and toward the suction holding surface.
Eisenstock teaches a hydrostatic-plate moving device configured to move the hydrostatic plate away from and toward the suction holding surface (the pressure head is vertically movably mounted and so it is capable of moving towards and way from the suction holding surface, col 10 lines 60-65 Fig 6 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the vertical adjustment functionality of the hydrostatic plate of Eisenstock when modifying the substrate processing apparatus of Nakanishi in order for the hydrostatic pressure head to properly pressurize the substrate and achieve planarity (Eisenstock: col 10-11, lines 55-12).
Regarding claim 9, Nakanishi discloses a substrate processing method comprising:
rotating a substrate while holding a first surface of the substrate on a suction holding surface (the first surface, defined as the bottom surface, of substrate W1 is rotated and held by holding stage 4, defined as the suction holding surface, which is part of holding mechanism 106 which rotates/holds W1, col 8 lines 7-18, Figs 4-5 shown above);
processing an outer circumferential portion of the substrate by pressing a processing tool against the outer circumferential portion with a processing head (processing tool defined as polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
However, Nakanishi fails to disclose supplying a fluid to a space between a second surface of the substrate and a fluid support surface of a hydrostatic plate while processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate, the second surface being an opposite side of the substrate from the first surface, the fluid support surface being larger than the suction holding surface.
Eisenstock is also concerned with substrate processing methods and teaches supplying a fluid to a space between a second surface of the substrate and a fluid support surface of a hydrostatic plate while processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate, the second surface being an opposite side of the substrate from the first surface, the fluid support surface being larger than the suction holding surface (fluid supplied by supply conduit 119 to a space between fluid support surface, defined as recess 117 and including the span of gaps G to G1, and a second surface of the substrate W1 while Nakanishi’s processing tool processes the outer portion of the substrate, as described above, the second surface being the upper surface of the substrate opposite the first surface of the substrate, the fluid support surface spanning from G to G1 is larger than the substrate 51, and as seen above, the suction holding surface 4 of Nakanishi is smaller than the substrate W1 and so the fluid support surface is larger than the suction holding surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the hydrostatic plate of Eisenstock to the substrate processing method of Nakanishi in order to provide the substrate with biasing pressure to ensure it is oriented correctly while the processing head is removing material from the outer circumferential portion of the substrate (Eisenstock: col 11 lines 22-54).
Regarding claim 10, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate comprises processing at least an outer circumferential portion of the first surface (polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of any face of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 11, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate comprises processing the outer circumferential portion of the first surface and an outer circumferential portion of the second surface (polishing head 108, which as seen in Figs 7, 8 and 12, is arranged to process an outer circumferential portion of any face of the substrate, col 4 lines 22-33).
Regarding claim 16, Nakanishi, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further discloses the fluid is a liquid (the fluid being supplied by conduit 119 in Eisenstock is a slurry which is a combination of abrasive material and liquid, Eisenstock col 10 lines 22-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8 and 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following are statements of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the closest art of record, Nakanishi (US 10632587) in view of Eisenstock (US 8148266) teaches a substrate processing apparatus and substrate processing method consistent with claims 3 and 11, as described above, however the references alone or in combination, do not teach, suggest, or make obvious adding a recess to a hydrostatic support such that a processing head can enter and process both sides of the outer circumferential portion of the substrate in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the closest art of record, Nakanishi (US 10632587) in view of Eisenstock (US 8148266) teach a substrate processing apparatus and substrate processing method consistent with claims 1 and 9, as described above, however the references alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious making the hydrostatic plate rotatable, or rotating the hydrostatic plate after processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, the closest art of record, Nakanishi (US 10632587) in view of Eisenstock (US 8148266) teach a substrate processing apparatus and substrate processing method consistent with claims 1 and 9, as described above, however the references alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious configuring a cleaning-liquid supply nozzle to supply cleaning liquid onto an upper surface of a hydrostatic plate, or to do so after processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate, in combination with the additional elements of the claims. Additionally, Igata (US 11787006) teaches the use of a cleaning nozzle to supply an upper surface of a substrate to wash off debris, however Igata alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious configuring a cleaning-liquid supply nozzle to supply cleaning liquid onto an upper surface of a hydrostatic plate, or to do so after processing the outer circumferential portion of the substrate, in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the closest art of record, Nakanishi (US 10632587) in view of Eisenstock (US 8148266) teach a substrate processing apparatus and substrate processing method consistent with claims 1 and 9, as described above, and however the references alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious the use of a flow-rate regulation valve configured to regulate a flow rate of the fluid supplied, or configuring the controller to operate the flow rate regulation valves based on a force applied from a processing head to the outer circumferential portion of the substrate in combination with the additional elements of the claims. Additionally, Arai (US 6012964) teaches the use of a flow-rate regulation valve configured to regulate a flow rate of the fluid supplied, however Arai alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious configuring the controller to operate the flow rate regulation valves based on a force applied from a processing head to the outer circumferential portion of the substrate in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Conclusion
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