DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 06/27/2024. The preliminary amendment submitted on 06/27/2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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 2 (Original), the limitation “the cavitation generating emission device has a double tubular shape including the inner tube with a small diameter” is indefinite because the term “small” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” 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. How small is “small”? How would one of ordinary skill in the art know where infringement begins and ends. One of ordinary skill in the art would only know that the outer tube, as claimed in claim 2, is larger than the inner tube but there is nothing to compare what “small” means in relation to the cavitation generating emission device.
Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takaaki (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003179018), hereinafter referred to as Takaaki.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Takaaki discloses a polishing method for polishing a workpiece [Takaaki, fig 5a, 3 is a workpiece being polished], the method comprising: a cavitation generating emission step of making a first liquid flow, generating cavitation in the first liquid flow, and making the first liquid flow collide with the workpiece [Takaaki, pages 37-38, pp 0050, 19 produces a cavitation jet onto 3]; and a polishing step of then polishing the workpiece [Takaaki, page 3, pp 0002, 5 polishes a wafer].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Takaaki further discloses the polishing method according to claim 5, wherein the cavitation generating emission step includes a step of oxidizing a surface of the workpiece [Takaaki, pages 37-38, pp 0050, 19 produces a cavitation jet onto 3, where the definition of cavitation is to burst air bubbles of a fluid on a surface, where when the air bubbles burst, this causes the surface to be combined with oxygen, which is oxidization, thus 19 oxidizes the surface of 3].
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0387309) in view of Takaaki (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003179018), hereinafter referred to as Sanders and Takaaki, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Sanders discloses a cavitation generating emission device [Sanders, fig 3, 200], wherein
the cavitation generating emission device has an inner tube [Sanders, fig 3, 240] in which a first liquid flow flows [Sanders, page 3, pp 0048, 240 has a fluid flow],
the inner tube includes a cavitation generating unit [Sanders, fig 3, and page 4, pp 0049, 250], and
the cavitation generating emission device is configured to generate cavitation in the first liquid flow [Sanders, pages 4-5, pp’s 0060-0061] and make the first liquid flow collide with a workpiece [Sanders, page 1, pp’s 0002-0005, teaching that the cavitation device of Sanders is used in the cavitation peening area against hard surface workpieces].
Sanders does not explicitly disclose a polishing apparatus that polishes the workpiece, the polishing apparatus comprising the cavitation generating emission device.
Takaaki teaches a polishing apparatus that polishes a workpiece [Takaaki, fig 5a, 19 polishes 3], the polishing apparatus comprising a cavitation generating emission device [Takaaki, abstract, 19 is a cavitation device], wherein the cavitation generating emission device is configured to generate cavitation in the first liquid flow and make the first liquid flow collide with the workpiece [Takaaki, abstract, 19 causes 44 to hit the substrate 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the nozzle of Sanders within the cmp system of Takaaki because the nozzle of Sanders allows for the optimization of cavitation intensity without increased flow rate [Sanders, page 2, pp 0026, summarized] which is beneficial to the end user by reducing processing costs associated with increased flow rates.
Regarding claim 7, Takaaki discloses the polishing method according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cavitation generating emission step includes a step of making a second liquid flow and discharging the first liquid flow including the cavitation while being covered by the second liquid flow.
Sanders teaches a cavitation generating emission device [Sanders, fig 3, 200], used in a method comprising: a cavitation generating emission step of making a first liquid flow, generating cavitation in the first liquid flow, and making the first liquid flow collide with the workpiece [Sanders, pages 4-5, pp’s 0060-0061], wherein the cavitation generating emission step includes a step of making a second liquid flow [Sanders, fig 3, 256 has path 242 for a second flow] and discharging the first liquid flow including the cavitation [Sanders, figs 3-4, 246 includes flow path for 240 which communicates with 250] while being covered by the second liquid flow [Sanders, fig 3, showing the outer flow from 242 covers the first inner flow 240].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the nozzle and method Sanders within the cmp polishing method of Takaaki because the nozzle of Sanders allows for the optimization of cavitation intensity without increased flow rate [Sanders, page 2, pp 0026, summarized] which is beneficial to the end user by reducing processing costs associated with increased flow rates.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0387309) in view of Takaaki (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003179018), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wurz (US PGPUB No. 2010/01136900), hereinafter referred to as Sanders, Takaaki, and Wurz, respectively.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Sanders as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the cavitation generating emission device [Sanders, fig 3, 200] has a double tubular shape including the inner tube with a small diameter and a first outer tube having a larger diameter than the inner tube [Sanders, fig 3, 246 is the inner tube and has a smaller diameter than outer tube 256 which has a larger diameter than the inner tube],
the inner tube includes a first flow path communicating with the cavitation generating unit [Sanders, figs 3-4, 246 includes flow path for 240 which communicates with 250], the first outer tube has a second flow path in which a second liquid flow flows [Sanders, fig 3, 256 has path 242 for a second flow],
the cavitation generating unit [Sanders, fig 4, 250] further includes a first tapered pipe portion that has a diameter decreasing toward a forward end portion of the inner tube [Sanders, fig 12, 622 tapers to 623], the cavitation generating unit has a plurality of configurations to optimize the cavitation jet [Sanders, figs 8-14, showing the nozzle having different configurations and page 2, pp 0026], and
the cavitation generating emission device is configured to make the first liquid flow covered by the second liquid flow collide with the workpiece [Sanders, page 1, pp 0005, the cavitation peening operates on workpieces by colliding the flow with a workpiece].
Sanders as modified does not explicitly disclose a second tapered pipe portion that communicates with the first tapered pipe portion and has a diameter increasing toward the forward end portion, and the cavitation generating emission device is configured to produce the cavitation in the first liquid flow in the second tapered pipe portion
Wurz teaches an atomizing nozzle [Wurz, fig 4] comprising a double tubular shape including the inner tube with a small diameter and a first outer tube having a larger diameter than the inner tube [Wurz, fig 2, 36 has a smaller diameter than 35],
the inner tube includes a first flow path communicating with an atomizing unit [Wurz, fig 2, 36 communicates with nozzle 104], the first outer tube has a second flow path in which a second liquid flow flows [Wurz, fig 2, 35 flows to 37],
the atomizing nozzle further includes a first tapered pipe portion that has a diameter decreasing toward a forward end portion of the inner tube [Wurz, fig 4, N2 tapers to N3], and a second tapered pipe portion that communicates with the first tapered pipe portion and has a diameter increasing toward the forward end portion [Wurz, fig 4, N3 flares outward to N4], and
the atomizing nozzle is configured to produce atomizing in the first liquid flow in the second tapered pipe portion [Wurz, page 7, pp 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a configuration of nozzle that tapers outward as taught by Wurz as the cavitation generating unit configuration of Sanders because Wurz found that having cavitation was beneficial in operating in the desired work field and that this nozzle configuration gave the advantageous effect of the density of energy required at the nozzle for atomizing (or producing air inclusions bubbles that burst which is the definition of cavitation) the fluid film (or work surface) is reduced which results in low pressurized air consumption for annular gap of the secondary atomization nozzle at the nozzle orifice which reduces energy consumption [Wurz, page 6, pp’s 0087-0089 and page 7, pp 0093] which is beneficial to the end user of the nozzle as lower energy consumption reduces operating costs.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0387309) in view of Takaaki (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003179018), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, respectively, and in further view of Shibuya et al (US PGPUB No. 20170301573), hereinafter referred to as Sanders, Takaaki, and Shibuya respectively.
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Sanders as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the workpiece is made of silicon carbide (SiC). The Office notes that per MPEP 2115 that it is held that the “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims”. Where in the instant case, the Office gives the proper patentability weight to the material of the workpiece. However, in order to promote compact prosecution, the Office sets forth the following rejection.
Shibuya teaches a polishing apparatus that polishes a workpiece [Shibuya, abstract], wherein the workpiece is made of silicon carbide (SiC) [Shibuya, page 1, pp 0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the polishing apparatus of Sanders as modified to work on a silicon carbide (SiC) workpiece as taught by Shibuya because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the SiC workpiece of Shibuya for the workpiece of Sanders as modified, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the device of Sanders as modified being able to work on a workpiece made of SiC.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaaki (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003179018), as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Shibuya et al (US PGPUB No. 20170301573), hereinafter referred to as Takaaki and Shibuya respectively.
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Takaaki further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the workpiece is made of silicon carbide (SiC).
Shibuya teaches a polishing apparatus that polishes a workpiece [Shibuya, abstract], wherein the workpiece is made of silicon carbide (SiC) [Shibuya, page 1, pp 0013].
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 polishing apparatus of Takaaki to work on a silicon carbide (SiC) workpiece as taught by Shibuya because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substitution of the SiC workpiece of Shibuya for the workpiece of Takaaki, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the device of Takaaki being able to work on a workpiece made of SiC.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Sanders et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0387309) teaches the pressure of the inner fluid flow is higher than the outer fluid flow [Sanders, pages 2-3, pp 0036].
Shibuya et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0301573) teaches a polishing apparatus comprising a cavitation nozzle [Shibuya, fig 2, 1B], wherein an inner fluid flow flows through an inner tube [Shibuya, fig 2, 14 is a gas] and a liquid flow flows through an outer tube [Shibuya, fig 2, 12 is a liquid], wherein the force (pressure) of the gas is higher than that of the liquid [Shibuya, page 2, pp’s 0025-0026].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the first liquid flow flows in the inner tube at a lower pressure than the second liquid flow flowing in the first outer tube” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art teaches contrary to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “wherein the first liquid flow is at a lower pressure than the second liquid flow” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where the prior art teaches contrary to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights