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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 1 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 7-8 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence refers to purported merits of the invention. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered. Examiner suggests deleting the first sentence.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Hirokawa
Claims 1, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Hirokawa discloses a polishing apparatus (Figs. 8, 9A-B, polishing apparatus as shown) comprising:
a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad having a through-hole (Figs. 8, 9A-B, polishing table 12 with polishing pad 16 having through hole 84);
a polishing head configured to press a workpiece against the polishing pad (Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B, polishing head 14 is capable of pressing workpiece 18 against the polishing pad 16);
an optical film-thickness measuring system having an optical sensor head disposed below the polishing pad (Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B; ¶¶ 0176-0181, 0212-0225, optical film-thickness measuring system 24 including optical sensor 26 with optical sensor head 124, 126);
and a sensor-head cleaning nozzle configured to emit a cleaning liquid to the optical sensor head, the sensor-head cleaning nozzle being disposed in the polishing table and pointing at the optical sensor head (Figs. 8, 9A-B; ¶¶ 0212-0225, nozzle 132 is capable of emitting water (“a cleaning liquid”) to the optical sensor head 124, 126, where nozzle 132 is in polishing table 12 and pointing at the optical sensor head 124, 126).
Regarding claim 6, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a transparent-liquid inlet passage configured to supply a transparent liquid to the through-hole, wherein the optical sensor head is disposed in the transparent-liquid inlet passage, and the sensor-head cleaning nozzle communicates with the transparent-liquid inlet passage (Figs. 8, 9A-B; ¶¶ 0212-0225, inlet passage within pipe 122 is capable of supplying water (“a transparent liquid”) to through hole 84, where optical sensor head 124, 126 is disposed in the inlet passage, and nozzle 132 is in fluid communication with the inlet passage).
Regarding claim 9, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is coupled to a cleaning-liquid supply source which is a pure-water supply source or a chemical-liquid supply source (Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B; ¶¶ 0189, 0212-0225, nozzle 132 is coupled to a pure water source via passage 44).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Hirokawa in view of Kimba1
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”) in view of US 20010005265 A1 (“Kimba1”).
Hirokawa pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B). Kimba1 pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-26; ¶¶ 0012-0014). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is disposed at a position higher than the optical sensor head. However, the Hirokawa/Kimba1 combination makes obvious this claim.
Kimba1 discloses wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is disposed at a position higher than the optical sensor head (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0083-0084, nozzle (near reference 6) is in a horizontal orientation and is disposed higher than the optical sensor head 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kimba1 with Hirokawa by moving the nozzle 132 of Hirokawa (and modifying related, supporting structure) to a horizontal position above the optical sensor head 124, 126, as taught by Kimba1. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a design choice, as taught by Kimba1, which discloses different optical sensor and nozzle configurations (see, e.g., Kimba1 Fig. 10, horizontal nozzle (near reference 6) above optical sensor head; Kimba1 Fig. 4, nozzle (near reference 6) below optical sensor head). Further, the proximity of the nozzle to the optical sensor head and the modified horizontal orientation would allow water to move close to and across the optical sensor head, where the force and velocity of the water exiting the nozzle in this configuration would be more effective in cleaning and removing contaminants from the optical sensor head compared to the water exiting the nozzle in Hirokawa’s original configuration.
Hirokawa in view of Kimba1 and Fujiwara
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”) in view of US 20010005265 A1 (“Kimba1”) and US 5421768 A (“Fujiwara”).
Hirokawa pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B). Kimba1 pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-26; ¶¶ 0012-0014). Fujiwara pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1A-2E; 1:5-16). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, the Hirokawa/Kimba1 combination makes obvious the polishing apparatus of claim 2 as applied above discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hirokawa and Kimba1 do not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction. However, the Hirokawa/Kimba1/Fujiwara combination makes obvious this claim.
Fujiwara discloses wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction (Fig. 2A, nozzle 83 is inclined downward with respect to the horizontal direction of shaft 7 and capable of spraying water onto surface 3; see discussion below re “sensor-head cleaning nozzle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Hirokawa/Kimba1 combination with the teachings of Fujiwara by inclining the sensor head cleaning nozzle 132 downward towards the optical sensor head 124, 126 (inclining the nozzle downwards from the Kimba Fig. 10 configuration). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a design choice, as taught by Kimba1, which discloses different optical sensor and nozzle configurations (see, e.g., Kimba1 Fig. 10, horizontal nozzle (near reference 6) above optical sensor head; Kimba1 Fig. 4, nozzle (near reference 6) below optical sensor head). Further, the inclining of the nozzle downwards towards the optical sensor head would allow water to better move close to and across the optical sensor head, where the force and velocity of the water exiting the nozzle in this configuration would be more effective in cleaning and removing contaminants from the optical sensor head compared to the water exiting a basic horizontal nozzle.
Hirokawa in view of Kimba1 and Takahashi
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”) in view of US 20010005265 A1 (“Kimba1”) and US 20220072590 A1 (“Takahashi”).
Hirokawa pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B). Kimba1 pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-26; ¶¶ 0012-0014). Takahashi pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs,. 1-12). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is disposed at the same height as the optical sensor head. However, the Hirokawa/Kimba1/Takahashi combination makes obvious this claim.
Takahashi discloses wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle is disposed at the same height as the optical sensor head (Fig. 3; ¶¶ 0053-0058, nozzle (at end of supply line 53 near reference 51) is at the same height as the optical sensor head 7).
Kimba1 teaches different optical sensor and nozzle configurations, including a horizontal nozzle configuration (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0083-0084, nozzle (near reference 6) is in a horizontal orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Takahashi and Kimba1 with Hirokawa by moving nozzle 132 of Hirokawa (and modifying related, supporting structure) to a horizontal position at the same height as the optical sensor head 124, 126. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is a design choice, as evidenced by Kimba1, which discloses different optical sensor and nozzle configurations (see, e.g., Kimba1 Fig. 10, horizontal nozzle (near reference 6) above optical sensor head; Kimba1 Fig. 4, nozzle (near reference 6) below optical sensor head). Further, the horizontal orientation of the nozzle and the proximity of the nozzle to the optical sensor head (note the position of the end of suction line 54 (Takahashi Fig. 3)) would allow water to move close to and across the optical sensor head (e.g., in Takahashi Fig. 3, from the supply line 53 nozzle, across the optical sensor head 7, to the suction line 54), where the force and velocity of the water exiting the nozzle in this configuration would be more effective in cleaning and removing contaminants from the optical sensor head compared to the water exiting the nozzle in Hirokawa’s original configuration.
Regarding claim 5, the Hirokawa/Kimba1/Takahashi combination makes obvious the polishing apparatus of claim 4 as applied above. Kimba1 further discloses wherein the sensor-head cleaning nozzle points in a horizontal direction (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0083-0084, nozzle (near reference 6) points in a horizontal position).
The obviousness combination and rationale is the same as for claim 4.
Hirokawa in view of Kimba2
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”) in view of US 20190022820 A1 (“Kimba2”).
Hirokawa pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B). Kimba2 pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose an ultrasonic transducer configured to apply ultrasonic waves to the cleaning liquid supplied to the sensor-head cleaning nozzle. However, the Hirokawa/Kimba2 combination makes obvious this claim.
Kimba2 discloses an ultrasonic transducer configured to apply ultrasonic waves to the cleaning liquid supplied to the sensor-head cleaning nozzle (Fig. 8; ¶¶ 0038-0039, ultrasonic transducer 80 is capable of applying ultrasonic waves to the cleaning liquid in passage 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kimba2 with Hirokawa by adding an ultrasonic transducer at or near reference 132 or 124/126 (of Hirokawa Fig. 8), to apply ultrasonic waves to the cleaning liquid supplied to the nozzle 132 (e.g., either before the nozzle exit or after the nozzle exit). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the ultrasonic waves improve the cleaning of the optical sensor by the cleaning fluid and also helps clean the surfaces of the surrounding walls (Kimba2 ¶¶ 0038-0039).
Hirokawa in view of Sugiyama
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20070173177 A1 (“Hirokawa”) in view of US 20190118332 A1 (“Sugiyama”).
Hirokawa pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2, 8, 9A-B). Sugiyama pertains to a polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-12). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Hirokawa discloses the polishing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses:
a flow-rate regulation valve coupled to the sensor-head cleaning nozzle (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0183-0189, a “flow rate control valve” is part of the water supply device (¶ 0189) and is coupled to the nozzle 132);
and an operation controller configured to control operation of the flow-rate regulation valve (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0183-0189, controller (¶ 0189) is capable of controlling the operation of the flow rate control valve),
the operation controller being configured to:
instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to cause the sensor-head cleaning nozzle to emit the cleaning liquid at a first flow rate when the workpiece is located over the optical sensor head during polishing of the workpiece (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0183-0189, controller is capable of instructing the flow rate control valve to emit fluid at a first flow rate when the substrate is located over the optical sensor head and being polished, “There is a difference in a flow rate of the measurement fluid between when the sensor 26 measures a film on the substrate 18 and when the substrate polishing apparatus is in an idling state. Specifically, when measuring the film, the flow rate is controlled at an appropriate value so as to secure a stability of measuring performance, i.e., slurry-removal performance. On the other hand, when the substrate polishing apparatus in the idling state, the flow rate is controlled at a small value so as to prevent optical fibers, which will be described later, from being dried and to prevent entry of the slurry.” (¶ 0185));
and instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to cause the sensor-head cleaning nozzle to emit the cleaning liquid…when the workpiece is not located over the optical sensor head during polishing of the workpiece (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0183-0189, controller is capable of instructing the flow rate control valve to emit fluid at a first flow rate when the substrate is located over the optical sensor head and being polished, “There is a difference in a flow rate of the measurement fluid between when the sensor 26 measures a film on the substrate 18 and when the substrate polishing apparatus is in an idling state. Specifically, when measuring the film, the flow rate is controlled at an appropriate value so as to secure a stability of measuring performance, i.e., slurry-removal performance. On the other hand, when the substrate polishing apparatus in the idling state, the flow rate is controlled at a small value so as to prevent optical fibers, which will be described later, from being dried and to prevent entry of the slurry.” (¶ 0185)).
Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose:
instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to cause the sensor-head cleaning nozzle to emit the cleaning liquid at a second flow rate higher than the first flow rate when the workpiece is not located over the optical sensor head during polishing of the workpiece.
However, the Hirokawa/Kimba2 combination makes obvious this claim.
Sugiyama discloses:
instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to cause the sensor-head cleaning nozzle to emit the cleaning liquid at a first flow rate when the workpiece is located over the optical sensor head during polishing of the workpiece (¶ 0109, “In order to perform accurate measurement using the optical sensor 50, the through hole 268 needs to be filled with a sufficient amount of fluid. For this reason, when the optical sensor 50 enters an area below the semiconductor wafer 16 from the outside of the semiconductor wafer 16, for example, a higher flow rate is set and slurry is excluded first. In the vicinity of the center of the semiconductor wafer 16, an effect of reducing influences of the fluid on the polishing is produced by setting a lower flow rate.”);
instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to cause the sensor-head cleaning nozzle to emit the cleaning liquid at a second flow rate higher than the first flow rate when the workpiece is not located over the optical sensor head during polishing of the workpiece (¶ 0109, “In order to perform accurate measurement using the optical sensor 50, the through hole 268 needs to be filled with a sufficient amount of fluid. For this reason, when the optical sensor 50 enters an area below the semiconductor wafer 16 from the outside of the semiconductor wafer 16, for example, a higher flow rate is set and slurry is excluded first. In the vicinity of the center of the semiconductor wafer 16, an effect of reducing influences of the fluid on the polishing is produced by setting a lower flow rate.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Sugiyama with Hirokawa by modifying the controller to control the flow rate control valve to emit water at a first, low flow rate when the wafer is being polished and film thickness measurements are being conducted, and at a second, higher flow rate in the “idling” state when no wafer is present being polished or measured, as taught by Sugiyama. Examiner notes that Hirokawa discloses that there is a difference in flow rate during polishing and measurement compared to the “idling” state (¶ 0185); however, Hirokawa does not explicitly state what that difference is. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because, as taught by Sugiyama ¶ 0109, a higher flow rate during the “idling” state (no wafer present) allows the through hole to be quickly filled with water and flushes out slurry in the through hole (and near or on the optical sensor head), thereby cleaning the optical sensor head; and a lower flow rate during polishing and thickness measurement is beneficial because that would reduce the influence of the moving fluid on the measurement process.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 7-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to substrate polishing devices similar to Applicant’s invention, including ones with optical sensors and cleaning liquid features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: September 30, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights