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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2019/0344398).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing table (4) configured to support a polishing pad (3; note that the polishing pad is not positively recited as a part of the claimed apparatus) having a through-hole (12); a polishing head (6) configured to press a workpiece (5) against the polishing pad (fig 1, [0037]); an optical film-thickness measuring system having an optical sensor head (including light emitting and receiving elements detailed below) mounted to the polishing table (as shown in fig 1); a transparent-liquid inlet passage (unlabeled passage between elements 14 and 12) configured to supply a transparent liquid to the through-hole (described [0041]); and a light-emitting-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (unlabeled passage on left side containing element 10) and a light-receiving-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (unlabeled passage on right side containing element 11) communicating with the through-hole (as shown in fig 1, these passages provide an outlet for fluid from the through hole 12), wherein the optical sensor head has a light-emitting surface (end surface of element 10) configured to emit light obliquely upward ([0041]; fig 1) and a light-receiving surface (end surface of element 11) configured to receive reflected light from the workpiece ([0041]), and the light-emitting surface faces the light-emitting-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (faces top of diagonal passage on left side in fig 1), and the light-receiving surface faces the light-receiving-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (faces top of diagonal passage on right side).
Regarding claims 2-6, Watanabe further discloses the light-emitting surface and the light-receiving surface face obliquely upward (as shown in fig 1); the light-emitting surface is located in the light-emitting-side transparent-liquid outlet passage, and the light-receiving surface is located in the light-receiving-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (fig 1; elements 10 and 11 in their respective passages); the transparent-liquid inlet passage (central passage connected to element 14) is located between the light-emitting-side transparent-liquid outlet passage and the light-receiving-side transparent-liquid outlet passage (as shown in fig 1); the light-emitting-side transparent-liquid outlet passage and the light-receiving-side transparent-liquid outlet passage are arranged symmetrically with respect to the transparent-liquid inlet passage (symmetrical configuration of passages shown in fig 1); and the transparent-liquid inlet passage is coupled to a transparent-liquid supply source (14) which is a pure-water supply source or a chemical-liquid supply source ([0041]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimba (US 2019/0022820).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Watanabe does not teach an ultrasonic vibrator configured to apply ultrasonic waves to the transparent liquid flowing through the transparent-liquid inlet passage. Kimba teaches a polishing apparatus including an ultrasonic vibrator (80) configured to apply ultrasonic waves to a transparent liquid flowing through a transparent-liquid inlet passage ([0039]; fig 3; in inlet 7). 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 ultrasonic vibrator configured to apply ultrasonic waves to the transparent liquid flowing through the transparent-liquid inlet passage of Watanabe in order to clean the walls of the inlet passage as taught by Kimba ([0039]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirokawa (US 2007/0042679).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Watanabe does not teach a flow-rate regulation valve coupled to the transparent liquid inlet passage, or an operation controller configured to instruct the flow rate regulation valve to supply the transparent fluid at a particular flow rate. Hirokawa teaches a polishing apparatus including a flow-rate regulation valve (56) coupled to a transparent-liquid inlet passage (42; fig 1); and an operation controller (28) configured to control operation of the flow-rate regulation valve ([0110], controller 28 controls entire system), the operation controller being configured to: instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to supply transparent liquid to the through-hole at a first flow rate when the workpiece is located over the through-hole during polishing of the workpiece (high and low flow rates described [0114], [0125]; fluid supply during workpiece over through hole described in [0144] and fig 8); and instruct the flow-rate regulation valve to supply the transparent liquid to the through-hole at a second flow rate lower than the first flow rate when the workpiece is not located over the through-hole during polishing of the workpiece ([0146], [0169]; low flow rate when substrate is not blocking the through hole). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a flow rate regulation valve and controller configured to instruct the valve to supply the transparent fluid at a first flow rate when the workpiece is located over the through-hole during polishing, an a second flow rate lower than the first flow rate when the workpiece is not located over the through hole during polishing the workpiece of Watanabe, as this allows transparency to be maintained while reducing water usage as taught by Hirokawa ([0144-0147]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar apparatuses with optical film thickness measurement systems 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