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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the temperature adjustment device of claim 12, the rotating member of claim 14, and the polishing pad and exposure hole of claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley (US 6135865) in view of Lee (US 6019665) and further in view of Oliver (US 5876271).
Regarding claim 1, Beardsley teaches a substrate lapping apparatus, comprising: a disk-shaped platen (212), wherein the platen includes: a groove (218) downwardly recessed from a top surface of the platen (figs 2-3); and a liquid receiving space (216), wherein the groove extends straight in a horizontal direction (as shown in fig 2), wherein the liquid receiving space is downwardly recessed from the top surface of the platen and connected to an edge of the platen (shown in fig 3).
Beardsley does not teach a switch dam associated with the platen which vertically moves to be associated with the edge of the platen so as to open and close the liquid receiving space. Lee teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a platen (16) and a switch dam (28) associated with the platen (figs 6-7C), wherein the switch dam vertically moves to be associated with the edge of the platen so as to open and close the liquid receiving space (col 5, lines 18-27; col 6, lines 18-23; pivots vertically upward as shown in figs 7b, 7c). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vertically movable switch dam associated with the edge of the platen of Beardsley so as to open and close the liquid receiving space, as this provides the ability to adjust the amount of slurry on the apparatus and therefore provide better control of the polishing process as taught by Lee (col 5, lines 31-52).
Beardsley does not teach a plurality of grooves (Beardsley teaches a single groove 218 as shown in fig 2). Oliver teaches a lapping apparatus including a platen (707) with a plurality of grooves (elements 738; fig 8B). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a plurality of grooves in the platen of Beardsley, in order to improve the slurry distribution function of the platen which is provided by the groove of Beardsley (Beardsley col 5, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 2, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley does not teach a supply hole that downwardly extends from a bottom surface that defines the liquid receiving space. Oliver further teaches the platen provides a supply hole (740; fig 8C) that downwardly extends from a bottom surface that defines a liquid receiving space (as shown in fig 8A, supply hole 740 extends downward from bottom surface of element 741 which defines a liquid receiving space). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. (B)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the liquid delivery means including the supply hole taught by Oliver in place of the overhead liquid delivery means (204) of Beardsley, as these are known alternative ways of achieving the predictable result of supplying slurry to a platen in a substrate lapping apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley, in the embodiment of figs 2-3, does not teach a depth of the liquid receiving space is greater than a depth of each of the plurality of grooves (as shown in fig 3, the depths of elements 218 and 216 are equal). However, in the embodiment of fig 5, Beardsley teaches a depth of liquid receiving space (304) is greater than a depth of groove (316; fig 5; groove 316 stops at bottom of element 312 while liquid receiving space 304 extends to bottom surface of platen). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the depth of the liquid receiving space (216) of Beardsley greater than the depth of the plurality (plurality rendered obvious as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) of grooves (218) of Beardsley, as adjusting the relative depth of the grooves and liquid receiving space achieves the predictable result of adjusting the volume of liquid across different regions of the platen, thus adjusting polishing characteristics of the lapping apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley further teaches the liquid receiving space (216) has a circular sector shape (as shown in fig 2) and wherein the switch dam (rendered obvious by Lee as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) has an arc shape (Lee fig 7A).
Regarding claim 6, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley, as modified, further teaches each of the plurality of grooves (plurality rendered obvious by Oliver as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) passes through a center of the platen (Beardsley’s groove 218 passes through center as shown in fig 2), and wherein the plurality of grooves are arranged in a circumferential direction (Oliver’s plurality of grooves shown in fig 8B passing through center and circumferentially spaced, which arrangement is applied to the platen of Beardsley when employed as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Beardsley further teaches a rotating member associated with a bottom surface of the platen (as described col 3, lines 56-59, the platen is described as “rotating”, and col 1, lines 48-53 describe rotating member 10 for rotating a platen by its bottom surface as shown in fig 1). Beardsley does not teach a central axis of the rotating member is spaced apart in the horizontal direction from a central axis of the platen. Oliver further teaches a substrate lapping apparatus wherein a central axis (308) of a rotating member is spaced apart in a horizontal direction from a central axis (320) of a platen (304; fig 3b; col 4, lines 31-50) It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the central axis of the rotating member of Beardsley to be spaced apart in the horizontal direction from a central axis of the platen, as this allows uniform polishing rates across the workpiece as taught by Oliver (col 5, lines 21-39).
Regarding claim 8, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley further teaches the liquid receiving space is a plurality of liquid receiving spaces (fig 2; liquid receiving spaces at top and bottom of platen as viewed in fig 2), and wherein the plurality of liquid receiving spaces are spaced apart from each other in the horizontal direction (liquid receiving spaces spaced apart by the groove 218).
Regarding claim 18, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley further teaches a polishing head (unlabeled head supporting substrate 202 shown in fig 3) on the platen, the polishing head supporting a substrate (202; fig 3).
Regarding claim 19, Beardsley further teaches a liquid supply device (220) configured to supply a polishing liquid (206) to the liquid receiving space (fig 3). Beardsley does not teach the liquid supply device connected to a supply hole. Oliver teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a platen that provides a supply hole (740; fig 8C) connected to a liquid receiving space (as shown in fig 8A, supply hole 740 extends downward from bottom surface of element 741 which defines a liquid receiving space). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. (C)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the liquid delivery means including the supply hole taught by Oliver in the liquid receiving space of Beardsley, as this is a known way of achieving the predictable result of supplying slurry to a platen in a substrate lapping apparatus as taught by Oliver.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley, Lee, and Oliver as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tien (US 2020/0361053).
Regarding claim 5, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Beardsley is silent as to the material of the platen. Tien teaches a platen (114) including metal ([0021]; “stainless steel”). It is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal as the material of the platen in the apparatus of Beardsley, as metal is known to be suitable for use in platens in lapping apparatuses, as they are inert to the supplied polishing liquid as taught by Tien ([0021]).
Claim(s) 10-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley (US 6135865) in view of Oliver (US 5876271).
Regarding claim 10, Beardsley teaches a substrate lapping apparatus comprising a disk-shaped platen (212); and a polishing head on the platen (fig 3; unlabeled head holding substrate 202), the polishing head supporting a substrate (202; fig 3), wherein the platen includes: a groove (218) downwardly recessed from a top surface of the platen (figs 2-3), the groove straightly running across the platen (fig 2); a liquid receiving space (216) downwardly recessed from the top surface of the platen (fig 3), wherein the liquid receiving space is connected to an edge of the platen (as shown in figs 2-3).
Beardsley does not teach a supply hole that downwardly extends from a bottom surface that defines the liquid receiving space. Oliver teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a platen that provides a supply hole (740; fig 8C) that downwardly extends from a bottom surface that defines a liquid receiving space (as shown in fig 8A, supply hole 740 extends downward from bottom surface of element 741 which defines a liquid receiving space). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. (C)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the liquid delivery means including the supply hole taught by Oliver in the liquid receiving space of Beardsley, as these is a known ways of achieving the predictable result of supplying slurry to a platen in a substrate lapping apparatus as taught by Oliver.
Regarding claim 11, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Beardsley further teaches a liquid supply device (220), wherein the liquid supply device is connected to the supply hole to supply a polishing liquid through the supply hole to the liquid receiving space (when the liquid delivery means of Oliver is employed as described in the rejection of claim 10 above, the liquid supply device is connected to the supply hole for the supply of polishing liquid as described in col 8, lines 40-53 of Oliver).
Regarding claim 14, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10. Beardsley further teaches rotating mechanism (“motor”) that rotates the platen and a rotating member associated with a bottom surface of the platen (as described col 3, lines 56-59, the platen is described as “rotating”, and col 1, lines 48-53 describe a rotating member 10 and motor for rotating a platen by its bottom surface as shown in fig 1). Beardsley does not teach a central axis of the rotating member is spaced apart in the horizontal direction from a central axis of the platen. Oliver further teaches a substrate lapping apparatus wherein a central axis (308) of a rotating member is spaced apart in a horizontal direction from a central axis (320) of a platen (304; fig 3b; col 4, lines 31-50) It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the central axis of the rotating member of Beardsley to be spaced apart in the horizontal direction from a central axis of the platen, as this allows uniform polishing rates across the workpiece as taught by Oliver (col 5, lines 21-39).
Regarding claim 15, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Beardsley further teaches a slurry nozzle (204; fig 3) upwardly spaced apart from the top surface of the platen so as to supply slurry (206) to the top surface of the platen (col 3, lines 44-55).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley and Oliver as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2017/0136601).
Regarding claim 12, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Beardsley does not teach the liquid supply device includes a temperature adjustment device. Cheng teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a liquid supply device (180) with a temperature adjustment device (190) configured to adjust a temperature of the polishing liquid supplied to the apparatus ([0015-0016]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature adjustment device to the liquid supply device of Beardsley so as to adjust a temperature of the polishing liquid supplied to the receiving space, as this temperature adjustment increases the material removal rate of the apparatus as taught by Cheng ([0017-0019]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley and Oliver as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee (US 6019665).
Regarding claim 13, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Beardsley does not teach a switch dam associated with the platen which vertically moves to be associated with the edge of the platen so as to open and close the liquid receiving space. Lee teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a platen (16) and a switch dam (28) associated with the platen (figs 6-7C), wherein the switch dam vertically moves to open and close the liquid receiving space (col 5, lines 18-27; col 6, lines 18-23; pivots vertically upward as shown in figs 7b, 7c). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vertically movable switch dam associated with the edge of the platen of Beardsley so as to open and close the liquid receiving space, as this provides the ability to adjust the amount of slurry on the apparatus and therefore provide better control of the polishing process as taught by Lee (col 5, lines 31-52).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley and Oliver as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tien (US 2020/0361053).
Regarding claim 16, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Beardsley further teaches a polishing pad (208) on the platen (fig 3). Beardsley does not teach an exposure hole that vertically penetrates the polishing pad to expose the liquid receiving space. Tien teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a polishing pad (120) that provides an exposure hole (120a) that vertically penetrates the polishing pad (fig 1C) to expose a liquid receiving space (exposes space 114C as shown in fig 1C). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an exposure hole vertically penetrating the polishing pad of Beardsley to expose the liquid receiving space, as this allows the liquid to pass through to the upper surface of the pad as taught by Tien ([0023]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley and Oliver as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Suen (US 9352443).
Regarding claim 17, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as described above. Beardsley is silent as to a diameter of the platen. Suen teaches a substrate lapping apparatus wherein a diameter of a platen (110) is in a range of about 300 to 800mm (col 3, lines 18-34; 350mm). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the diameter of the platen of Beardsley to be between 300 and 800mm, as the size of the platen may be selected by a person of ordinary skill based on the size of the substrate workpiece as taught by Suen (col 3, lines 18-34).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beardsley, Lee, and Oliver as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2017/0136601).
Regarding claim 20, Beardsley, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 19 as described above. Beardsley does not teach the liquid supply device includes a temperature adjustment device. Cheng teaches a substrate lapping apparatus including a liquid supply device (180) with a temperature adjustment device (190) configured to adjust a temperature of the polishing liquid supplied to the apparatus ([0015-0016]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a temperature adjustment device to the liquid supply device of Beardsley so as to adjust a temperature of the polishing liquid supplied to the receiving space, as this temperature adjustment increases the material removal rate of the apparatus as taught by Cheng ([0017-0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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: Regarding claim 9, Beardsley appears to be the closest prior art. While Beardsley teaches many aspects of the claimed invention, including a plurality of liquid receiving spaces as described in the rejections above, Beardsley does not teach or suggest a first and second receiving space wherein an area of the first receiving space is different from an area of the second receiving space. As shown in fig 2 of Beardsley, the liquid receiving spaces (216) are horizontally spaced from each other by the groove (218). However, in Beardsley, these spaces are the same size. There is nothing in the art to teach or suggest the use of spaced apart receiving spaces having different areas. This would not be an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill, as the prior art generally prefers an even distribution of polishing liquid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar substrate lapping apparatuses are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights