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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on February 2, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR 10-2024-0027112 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising” on line 3 should read “comprises”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3- 5 objected to as claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation “the carrier head” instead of “the substrate carrier head” as recited in the preamble of claims 1-19. To improve clarity of claims, the same phrasing of the limitation should be used for each recitation. Claim 5 objected to due to its dependence on claims 3-4.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s special definitions of “inner” denoting an element closer to an inner circumference of the retaining ring, “outer” denoting an element further from that inner circumference, and “upper surface” denoting the surface of the retaining ring facing the carrier head regardless of orientation of the carrier head (specification para 36).
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 3-5 and 16-20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a predetermined depth" in line 3. The limitation was previously recited in line 5 of claim 1. A limitation should only be recited once in a claim. Claims 4-5 rejected due to their dependence on claim 3. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the recitation in claim 1 should read “a first predetermined depth” and the recitation in claim 3 should read “a second predetermined depth.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a predetermined depth" in line 10 and again in line 11. Claims 17-19 rejected due to their dependence on claim 16. A limitation should only be recited once in a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “a first predetermined depth” and the second should read “a second predetermined depth.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "a predetermined depth" in line 19 and again in line 20. A limitation should only be recited once in a claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed that the first recitation should read “a first predetermined depth” and the second should read “a second predetermined depth.”
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.
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) 1-4, 7, 9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reedy et al. US 20160346897 A1 (herein Reedy).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reedy Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
671
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reedy Figure 7, note some elements are misnumbered: 114 as 124, 110 as 120, and 112 as 122, etc.
Regarding claim 1, Reedy teaches a substrate carrier head (50) comprising: a carrier body (52); and a retainer ring (100) coupled to the carrier body (52), wherein the retainer ring (100) comprises a weight adjusting groove (114) recessed into the retainer ring (100) by a first predetermined depth (see figure 7, note that several elements are misnumbered including 114 as 124), wherein the retainer ring (100) has an upper surface (110) facing the carrier body (52), and wherein the weight adjusting groove (114) is disposed at the upper surface (110) of the retainer ring (100).
Regarding claim 2, Reedy teaches the weight adjusting groove (114) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6), wherein the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6) are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction (see figure 4) of the retainer ring (100).
Regarding claim 3, Reedy teaches a fastening groove (112) recessed downward into the retainer ring (100) by a second predetermined depth (see figure 7, note element 112 is misnumbered as 122) is disposed at the upper surface (110) of the retainer ring (100), and wherein the carrier head (50) further includes a fastening member (59) that protrudes downward from the carrier body (52) toward the upper surface (110) of the retainer ring (100), the fastening member (59) being configured to be inserted into the fastening groove (112).
Regarding claim 4, Reedy teaches the fastening groove (112) is one of a plurality of fastening grooves (112; para 38, ln 1-3), wherein each of the fastening grooves (112; para 38, ln 1-3) is spaced apart from each other of the fastening grooves (112; para 38, ln 1-3) along the circumferential direction (see figure 7) of the carrier head (50).
Regarding claim 7, Reedy teaches the weight adjusting groove (114) has an arc shape (see figure 4) with a predetermined length (see figure 4) along a circumferential direction (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Reedy teaches the weight adjusting groove (114) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6) , wherein at least one of the weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6) has a length that is different (see figure 4) from at least one other of the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6).
Regarding claim 14, Reedy teaches a supplementary member (para 38, ln 6-7) disposed inside the weight adjusting groove (114).
Regarding claim 15, Reedy teaches the retainer ring (100) comprises an upper ring (104) disposed at an upper region of the retainer ring (100) and a lower ring (102) disposed at a lower region of the retainer ring (100), wherein the weight adjusting groove (112) is disposed only at the upper ring (104).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. US 20160236318 A1 (herein Choi).
PNG
media_image3.png
324
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi Figure 9
PNG
media_image4.png
261
469
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Choi Figure 1
PNG
media_image5.png
329
258
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Choi Figure 12
Regarding claim 20, Choi teaches a substrate polishing apparatus (10), comprising: a platen (20); and a substrate carrier head (100) disposed adjacent to the platen (20), wherein the substrate carrier head (100) comprises a carrier body (120), a retainer ring (161) coupled to the carrier body (120), a fastening member (138) that protrudes from the carrier body (120) toward the retainer ring (161), which fastening member (138) is configured to fit into a fastening groove (166) of the retainer ring (161), an inner seal ring (165a) disposed between the retainer ring (161) and the carrier body (120) at a region between a weight adjusting groove (162a) and an upper end portion of an inner surface (161c) of the retainer ring (161), and an outer seal ring (165b) disposed between the retainer ring (161) and the carrier body (120) at a region between the weight adjusting groove (162a) and an upper end portion of an outer surface (161D) of the retainer ring (161), wherein the retainer ring (161) has an upper surface (161A) facing the carrier body (120), and wherein the fastening groove (166) recessed into the retainer ring (161) by a first predetermined depth (see figure 12) and the weight adjusting groove (162a) recessed into the retainer ring (161) by a second predetermined depth (D1) , are disposed at the upper surface (161A) of the retainer ring (161), and wherein the fastening member (138) is inserted into the fastening groove (166).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy et al. US 20160346897 A1 (herein Reedy) in view of Chen TW M495259 U.
Regarding claim 6, Reedy teaches an outer weight adjusting groove (114) disposed at an outer region of the upper surface (110) of the retainer ring (110) along the radial direction.
Reedy does not teach an inner groove.
PNG
media_image6.png
337
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chen Figure 12
However, in a related device, Chen teaches a retainer ring (200) comprising a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (212) comprises: an inner weight adjusting groove (groove 212 with smaller radius) disposed at an inner region of an upper surface (210) of a retainer ring (200) along a radial direction; and an outer weight adjusting groove (groove 212 with larger radius) disposed at an outer region of the upper surface (210) of the retainer ring (200) along the radial direction. Chen further discloses that these grooves advantageously allow for the retainer ring to have a lighter weight (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the deeper double grooves of Chen to the retaining ring of Reedy to advantageously lower its weight, replacing the grooves already on Reedy (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Reedy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Reedy does not teach the adjusting groove having a ring shape.
However, in a related device, Chen teaches a retainer ring (200) with a weight adjusting groove (212) that has a ring shape (see figure 12). Chen further discloses that this groove and its counterpart advantageously allow for the retainer ring to have a lighter weight (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the deeper double grooves of Chen to the retaining ring of Reedy to advantageously lower its weight, replacing the grooves already on Reedy (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Reedy and Chen teaches the weight adjusting groove (212 of Chen) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (212 of Chen) comprising: an inner weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a smaller radius) disposed at an inner region of the upper surface (110 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy) along a radial direction; and an outer weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a larger radius) disposed at an outer region of the upper surface (110 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy) along the radial direction.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy et al. US 20160346897 A1 (herein Reedy) in view of Choi et al. US 20160236318 A1 (herein Choi).
Regarding claim 5, Reedy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Reedy does not teach any of the weight adjusting grooves disposed between adjacent fastening grooves.
However, in a related device, Choi teaches a retainer ring (161), comprising a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (162a) and a plurality of fastening grooves (166), wherein at least one of the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (one of 162a) is disposed between adjacent fastening grooves (one of 166) of the plurality of fastening grooves (166). Choi further teaches that this sequence of weight adjusting grooves advantageously allows for cooling fluid to be input into the grooves to cool the retainer ring (para 64, ln 7-10). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the deeper grooves of Choi to the retainer ring of Reedy to advantageously allow for cooling fluid to cool the retainer ring (para 64, ln 7-10). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Reedy teaches the weight adjusting groove (114) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 1-3).
Reedy does not teach the weight adjusting groove is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves, wherein each weight adjusting groove of the plurality of weight adjusting grooves has a length corresponding to each other weight adjusting groove.
However, in a related device, Choi teaches a retainer ring (161) comprising a weight adjusting groove (162a) wherein the weight adjusting groove (162a) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (162a), wherein each weight adjusting groove (162a) of the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (162a) has a length corresponding (para 90, ln 4-5) to each other weight adjusting groove (162a). Choi further teaches that this sequence of weight adjusting grooves advantageously allows for cooling fluid to be input into the grooves to cool the retainer ring (para 64, ln 7-10). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the deeper grooves of Choi to the retainer ring of Reedy to advantageously allow for cooling fluid to cool the retainer ring (para 64, ln 7-10). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Reedy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Reedy does not teach a seal ring.
However, in a related device, Choi teaches Choi teaches a retainer ring (161) comprising a weight adjusting groove (162a) and a seal ring (165a and 165b) disposed between a retainer ring (161) and a carrier body (120). Choi further teaches that this advantageously prevents fluid flow into/out of internal grooves (para 20, ln 1-4). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the seal of Choi the retainer ring of Reedy to advantageously prevent fluid from flowing between the internal grooves of Reedy and the outside of the carrier head (para 20, ln 1-4). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Reedy and Choi teaches the seal ring (165a and 165b of Choi) comprises: an inner seal ring (165a of Choi) disposed at a region between the weight adjusting groove (114 of Reedy) and an upper end portion of an inner surface (130 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy); and an outer seal ring (165b of Choi) disposed at a region between the weight adjusting groove (114 of Reedy) and an upper end portion of an outer surface (140 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy).
Regarding claim 16, Reedy teaches a substrate carrier head (50) comprising: a carrier body (52); and a retainer ring (100) coupled to the carrier body (52); a fastening member (59) that protrudes from the carrier body (52) toward the retainer ring (100), which fastening member (59) is configured to fit into a fastening groove (112) of the retainer ring (100), wherein the retainer ring (100) has an upper surface (100) facing the carrier body (52), wherein the fastening groove (112) recessed into the retainer ring (100) by a first predetermined depth (see figure 7) and a weight adjusting groove (114) recessed into the retainer ring (100) by a second predetermined depth (see figure 7) are disposed at the upper surface (110) of the retainer ring (100).
Reedy does not teach a seal ring.
However, in a related device, Choi teaches Choi teaches a retainer ring (161) comprising a weight adjusting groove (162a) and a seal ring (165a and 165b) disposed between a retainer ring (161) and a carrier body (120). Choi further teaches that this advantageously prevents fluid flow into/out of internal grooves (para 20, ln 1-4). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the seal of Choi the retainer ring of Reedy to advantageously prevent fluid from flowing between the internal grooves of Reedy and the outside of the carrier head (para 20, ln 1-4). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Reedy and Choi teaches the weight adjusting groove (114 of Reedy) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6 of Reedy), wherein the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (114; para 38, ln 5-6 of Reedy) are spaced apart from each other along a circumferential direction (see figure 4 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reedy et al. US 20160346897 A1 (herein Reedy) in view of Choi et al. US 20160236318 A1 (herein Choi) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chen TW M495259 U.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Reedy and Choi teaches the limitation of claim 16 as claimed.
The combination of Reedy and Choi does not teach that the weight adjusting groove, as combined in claim 16, has a ring shape.
However, in a related device, Chen teaches a retainer ring (200) with a weight adjusting groove (212) that has a ring shape (see figure 12). Chen further discloses that this groove and its counterpart advantageously allow for the retainer ring to have a lighter weight (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the deeper double grooves of Chen to the retaining ring of the combination of Reedy and Choi to advantageously lower its weight, replacing the weight adjusting grooves (114 of Reedy) already on the combination of Reedy and Choi (English Translation, para 33, ln 5-8). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Reedy and Choi teaches the weight adjusting groove (212 of Choi) is one of a plurality of weight adjusting grooves (212 of Choi), wherein the plurality of weight adjusting grooves (212 of Choi) comprising an inner weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a smaller radius) disposed at an inner region of the upper surface (110 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy) along a radial direction; and an outer weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a larger radius) disposed at an outer region of the upper surface (110 of Reedy) of the retainer ring (100 of Reedy) along the radial direction, wherein the fastening groove (112 of Reedy) is disposed between the inner weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a smaller radius) and the outer weight adjusting groove (element 212 of Chen with a larger radius).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagengast et al. US 20220111484 A1 as it relates to retainer rings with arc shaped weight adjusting grooves of uniform length.
Shin et al. KR 20220026783 A as it relates to retainer rings with arc shaped weight adjusting grooves of uniform length.
Shin et al. KR 20220026793 A as it relates to retainer rings with arc shaped weight adjusting grooves of uniform length.
Yasuda et al. KR 20160138352 A as it relates to retainer rings with a supplementary member in a weight adjusting groove and two ring shaped seals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights