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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first limiting assembly”, “polishing assembly”, “second limiting assembly”, and “ingot fixing assembly” in claim 1; “fall prevention assembly” in claim 2; “first driving assembly”, “second driving assembly”, “third driving assembly”, and “electrically control assembly” in claim 3; and “fourth driving assembly” in claim 7..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (US PGPub 2015/0114430, "Sakata").
1. Sakata teaches a machine tool capable of polishing (tool may replace a CMP platen in a SMP system, see Sakata [0031]) an ingot edge comprising:
a case body (108);
a support base (118) movably disposed (substrate support 188 is movable, Sakata [0039]) on the case body along a first axis (support 118 may be raised or lowered, Sakata fig. 2 and [0055]);
a first limiting assembly (including shaft 606) disposed on the case body (Sakata fig. 6 and [0039]), the first limiting assembly configured to limit a position of the support base on the first axis (shaft 606 controls movement in a horizontal direction, and also prevents support 118 from moving vertically, as doing so would prevent 118 from supporting the substrate against the force of gravity, see Sakata [0030]);
a polishing assembly (208) movably disposed above the support base (208 is on movable swing arm 106, see Sakata figs. 1a-2) along the first axis (polishing assembly is disposed above 118 along a substantially vertical axis, Sakata fig. 2);
a second limiting assembly (106) disposed on the case body, the second limiting assembly configured to limit a position of the polishing assembly on the first axis (polishing assembly 208 is fixed to 106 and therefore positionally limited to the swing radius.); and
an ingot fixing assembly (substrate chuck 104) rotatably disposed around a second axis (motor 202 controls rotation of 104, see Sakata [0040]) and located between the support base and the polishing assembly (the center of 104 is at a vertical position between 208 and 118, see Sakata fig. 2), wherein the support base is adapted to support an ingot (118 is capable of supporting a circular workpiece such as an ingot, see Sakata [0039]), the ingot fixing assembly fixes an end surface of the ingot (chuck 104 is capable of adhering to a circular workpiece 102 such as an ingot, Sakata fig. 3 and [0032]) and the polishing assembly is in contact with an edge of the ingot (pad 208 may be moved to target workpiece edges for treatment, Sakata [0031] and [0057]).
Sakata does not explicitly teach that the first limiting assembly and second limiting assembly are detachably disposed on the case body.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Sakata teaches the presence of a service hatch (110) for accessing parts of the tool for service (Sakata [0033] and [0038]). One of ordinary skill would infer from this teaching that individual elements of the tool may require regular service or replacement. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would be expected to understand that replacing components or component assemblies of a tool is desirable, as it is often less expensive than replacing an entire tool. For this reason, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the tool of Sakata such that the first limiting assembly and second limiting assembly are detachably disposed on the case body so as to facilitate service of individual components thereof.
4. Sakata as modified teaches the ingot edge-polishing machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising: an ingot positioning member (portion of chuck 104 having notches 10a,120c, see Sakata fig. 1c) movably disposed (due to their connection to the chuck, the notches are rotatable and on the case body, see Sakata fig. 1c) on the case body along a third axis (an axial line may be drawn such that it intersects both 120a and 120c, see Sakata fig. 1c) and located between the support base and the polishing assembly (notches 120a,120c may be located immediately above support 118 and below a center of polishing assembly 208, see Sakata figs. 1a-2).
5. Sakata as modified teaches the ingot edge-polishing machine tool according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first driving assembly (substrate support is driven by motor, see Sakata [0040]) driving the support base to move along the first axis (the substrate support may be lowered, see Sakata [0055]), which would move it along the first axis;
a second driving assembly (motor 204 controls motion of polishing module 208, see Sakata [0040]) driving the polishing assembly to move along the first axis (motion includes component along first axis, see Sakata figs. 1a-1c);
a third driving assembly (motor 202, see Sakata [0040]) driving the ingot fixing assembly to rotate (Sakata [0040]); and
an electrically control assembly (210) disposed on the case body and electrically connected to the first driving assembly, the second driving assembly, and the third driving assembly (controller 210 controls system assemblies including the various motors, Sakata [0040]).
6. Sakata as modified teaches the ingot edge-polishing machine tool according to claim 1, wherein the ingot fixing assembly comprises a suction nozzle (carrier film 812 on substrate chuck 104 includes vacuum holes 816, Sakata fig. 8 and [0051]-[0052]) rotatably disposed around the second axis (carrier film would be on chuck 104, Sakata [0050]; which is disclosed as being rotated during use, Sakata [0056]) and a vacuum pump in communication with the suction nozzle (chuck is described as a vacuum chuck, Sakata [0029]; although Sakata does not explicitly teach the presence of a vacuum pump, one of ordinary skill would understand that a vacuum chuck needs to have some source of suction, which they would reasonably infer to be a vacuum pump).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Corlett et al. (US 6379538, "Corlett").
8. Sakata teaches the ingot edge-polishing machine tool according to claim 1, and further teaches that its fluids are output from nozzles positioned above the polishing assembly (114a-b and 116a, see Sakata fig. 2 and [0035]-[0036]) and that those fluids may include a dilute slurry (Sakata [0083]). One of ordinary skill in the art would further be expected to conclude that Sakata implicitly teaches the inclusion of fluid distribution elements (e.g., pipelines and pumps) typically used to supply the disclosed cleaning fluids to the nozzles. But such inferences would not include any sort of recovery or recirculation elements.
Consequently, Sakata does not teach a polishing liquid recovering tank located below the support base; a pump in communication with the polishing liquid recovering tank; and a pipeline in communication with the pump, the pipeline extending to a position above the polishing assembly.
However, Corlett teaches a system for recirculating liquid used in polishing, including
a polishing liquid recovering tank (see Corlett 3:5-30); a pump in communication with the polishing liquid recovering tank; and a pipeline for supplying liquid to the polishing apparatus in communication with the pump (see Corlett 4:5-38).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the tool of Sakata according to the teachings from Corlett regarding liquid recirculation such that it included a polishing liquid recovering tank located below the support base; a pump in communication with the polishing liquid recovering tank; and a pipeline in communication with the pump, the pipeline extending to a position above the polishing assembly, as doing so would allow for reduced costs associated with reduced water use (Corlett 2:25-39)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10 are 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 2 (and claim 3 depending therefrom), claim 2 recites the additional structure of “a fall prevention assembly located beside the support base, wherein when the support base supports the ingot, the ingot is located between the ingot fixing assembly and the fall prevention assembly, and a height of the fall prevention assembly is greater than half of a distance between the support base and the polishing assembly.”
Sakata teaches the presence of notches (602) in the support base (118) that would prevent lateral movement of the ingot (see, e.g. Sakata fig. 6 and [0048]). However, Sakata neither teaches nor suggests that the raised area adjacent the notches has a “height…greater than half of a distance between the support base and the polishing assembly” as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Sakata neither teaches nor suggests that the polishing assembly “comprises a first polishing element and a second polishing element, a roughness of the first polishing element is different from a roughness of the second polishing element” or the presence of a fourth driving assembly that “rotates one of the first polishing element and the second polishing element to a position directly above the support base and rotates the other one away from the position directly above the support base.”
Regarding claim 9 (and claim 10 depending therefrom), Sakata neither teaches not suggests that the case body comprises “a first limiting region threaded hole close to the support base and a second limiting region threaded hole close to the polishing assembly, the first limiting assembly comprises a first limiting element and a second limiting element having different heights, wherein one of the first limiting element and the second limiting element is selectably threadably engaged with the first limiting region threaded hole to limit the position of the support base on the first axis, and the second limiting assembly comprises a third limiting element and a fourth limiting element having different heights, wherein one of the third limiting element and the fourth limiting element is selectably threadably engaged with the second limiting region threaded hole to limit the position of the polishing assembly on the first axis”.
No additional art has been identified that teaches the inventions of claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10, or that would have rendered those inventions obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Consequently, claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10 contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights