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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-11 in the reply filed on 8/5/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-6 have been canceled by the applicant in the reply filed on 8/5/2026.
Examiner’s Comment
Newly submitted claims 21-30 and 31-35 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 21-30 would have been restricted from previously presented claim 7 if originally presented under combination/subcombination relationship.
Inventions I (previously filed claims 7-11) and II (claims 21-30) are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed (claims 7-11) does not require the particulars of the subcombination (claims 21-30) as claimed because the combination (claims 7-11) do not require the specifics of the rotational speed setting and the limitation of comparing with the rotational speed setting as required in claim 21. The subcombination has separate utility such as it can be used for drying a substrate.
Claims 31-35 would have been restricted from previously presented claim 7 if originally presented under combination/subcombination relationship.
Inventions I (previously filed claims 7-11) and III (claims 31-35) are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed (claims 7-11) does not require the particulars of the subcombination (claims 31-35) as claimed because the combination (claims 7-11) do not require the specifics of measuring and comparing the rotational torque as required in claim 31. The subcombination has separate utility such as it can be used for drying a substrate.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/29/2024, 8/19/2024, 3/3/2026, and 5/11/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halley (U.S Patent 6,629,874) and further in view of Avanzino et al. (PG Pub U.S 2003/0055526).
Regarding claim 7, Halley teaches a method, comprising: rotating a cleaning member on a surface (abstract, col 6 lines 51-57, and col 10 lines 54-64); moving the cleaning member in a cleaning pattern on the surface (col 6 lines 1-30 and col 8 lines 1-15); measuring, at a plurality of locations on the surface (col 3 lines 10-25 and col 13 lines 56-62; implicitly taught), an actual rotational speed of the cleaning member on the surface (col 11 lines 29-65; spinning speed of pad at center and edge reads on being measured at plurality of locations).
The recitation of “a method of detecting a particle on a surface” has not been given significant patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. Therefore, Halley meets the claimed limitations.
Halley fails to teach determining an average rotational speed of the cleaning member on the surface based on the measurement. However, Avanzino also teaches a CMP process wherein it is known for measuring parameters to include determining average rotational speed of the pad (para 0038 and 0055) in order to evaluate the process and adjust the parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Halley such that it includes teach determining an average rotational speed of the cleaning member on the surface based on the measurement as taught by Avanzino in order to evaluate the CMP process and adjust the parameters.
Regarding the recitation of “determining at least one of the plurality of locations where the average rotational speed is greater than the actual rotational speed of the cleaning member,” since Halley teaches the rotational speed being known at multiple positions on the substrate (col 11 lines 29-65) and since Avanzino teaches the measurement date being known to include average rotational speed in addition to the median, max, and minimum rotational speeds (para 0038 and 0055), it would be reasonably expected to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present combination of Halley and Avanzino such that it includes determining at least one of the plurality of locations where the average rotational speed is greater than the actual rotational speed of the cleaning member in order to further evaluate the CMP process and to adjust parameters for enhanced cleaning/polishing.
Regarding claim 8, since Halley (col 12 lines 1-20) and Avanzino (para 0038-0039) also teach polishing slurry can also be used with the cleaning member/pad to adjust parameters of CMP, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based one the reasoning discussed above in claim 1 to apply an additional cleaning to the at least one location of the plurality of locations where the average rotational speed is greater than the actual rotational speed of the cleaning member in order to adjust the CMP process to enhance the cleaning/polishing.
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Halley and Avanzino teaches wherein the cleaning member includes at least one scrubbing surface (pad) in contact with the surface while cleaning the surface (abstract and claim 1 of Halley).
Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Halley and Avanzino teaches a substrate table (120) including the surface (115) (col 5 lines 10-30 of Halley).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halley (U.S Patent 6,629,874), Avanzino et al. (PG Pub U.S 2003/0055526) and further in view of Ruland et al. (PG Pub U.S 2012/0171935).
Regarding claim 10, the present combination of Halley and Avanzino fails to teach wherein the scrubbing surface includes a plurality of substantial pyramid shaped grits, the scrubbing surface including silicon carbide. However, Ruland also teaches a method of CMP wherein the scrubbing surface includes a plurality of substantial pyramid shaped grits (para 0043), the scrubbing surface including silicon carbide (para 0036) in order to enhance cleaning/polishing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present combination of Halley and Avanzino such that the scrubbing surface includes a plurality of substantial pyramid shaped grits, the scrubbing surface including silicon carbide as taught by Ruland in order to enhance cleaning/polishing
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights