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 .
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to China application no. 202210077397.9 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 01/09/2023 which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 07/23/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to China application no. 202210077397.9.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
In claim 1, consider using --the polishing pad--, instead of “the polish pad” to be consistent with the earlier recitations of “polishing pad” and the recitation in the rest of the claims. Also consider using -- comprising steps of:--
In claim 2, consider -- determine whether a number of the grooves with the depths of the grooves less than the predetermined threshold value reaches a set number--
In claim 3, consider -- a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a liquid surface in the grooves acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a fourth information--
In claim 4, consider -- comprise at least one of of:
In claim 5, the applicant may wish to review, for consistency, whether the second information (a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a surface of the liquid on the polishing pad acquired during movement of the optical sensor) is acquired for the second case, in the second case as it appears that the second information is used in the second case in claim 6, where “in the second case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves + (the distance between the optical sensor and the bottom surface of the grooves - the distance between the optical sensor and the liquid surface on the polishing pad) x (liquid refractive index-1)”
In claim 6, consider -- in the second case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves + (the distance measurement between the optical sensor and the bottom surface of the grooves - the distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the liquid on the polishing pad) x (liquid refractive index-1)--
In claim 9, consider -- with grooves on a surface of the polishing pad--
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:
“optical unit” in claim 9, corresponding to optical unit 11;
“control unit” in claim 9, corresponding to control unit 13;
“processing unit” in claim 9, corresponding to processing unit 3;
“cleaning unit” in claim 14, corresponding to the description in [0039],
“warning unit” in claim 15, corresponding to warning unit as described in [0023,0046].
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.
The examiner notes, that with respect to “optical unit”; “control unit” and “processing unit”, the disclosure provides for sufficient structure to support a means-plus-function limitation, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, as provided in MPEP 2181 (“See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1379, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (stating that the “one skilled in the art” analysis should apply in determining whether sufficient structure has been disclosed to support a means-plus-function limitation); Dossel, 115 F.3d at 946–47, 42 USPQ2d at 1885 (“Clearly, a unit which receives digital data, performs complex mathematical computations and outputs the results to a display must be implemented by or on a general or special purpose computer (although it is not clear why the written description does not simply state ‘computer’ or some equivalent phrase).”). In this case, given the disclosed optical unit, while it does not explicitly detail how light is emitted by the optical unit, a POSITA would understand that a lamp or laser would generate the light, and this understanding is supplemented by the description that the optical sensor uses spectral confocal technology. Similarity, for “control unit” and “processing unit” it is understood by a POSITA that processing circuitry or a general or special purpose computer would provide for the necessary structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “cleaning unit” in claim 14 “warning unit” in claim 15 and invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
While the description provides for what a “cleaning unit” does (see [0022,0039]), it is not clear what the cleaning unit actually is (for example cleaning can be accomplished in many ways, with water, brushing, ultrasonic, wiping, cleaning solvents, a combination of different techniques and structure, etc.) and there is no disclosure structure for how the cleaning is accomplished with respect to the transparent protective cover.
The description also does not provide any structure for the claimed “warning unit”, only that it warns or notifies the user in some way ([0023,0046]). It does not indicate if the warning unit, for example, transmits messages over a network, is a lamp, speaker, uses a mechanical flag, or some other way.
Therefore, the claim lacks written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 14 and 15 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 limitations “cleaning unit” in claim 14 “warning unit” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
While the description provides for what a “cleaning unit” does (see [0022,0039]), it is not clear what the cleaning unit actually is (for example cleaning can be accomplished in many ways, with water, brushing, ultrasonic, wiping, cleaning solvents, a combination of different techniques and structure, etc.) and there is no disclosure structure for how the cleaning is accomplished with respect to the transparent protective cover.
The description also does not provide any structure for the claimed “warning unit”, only that it warns or notifies the user in some way ([0023,0046]). It does not indicate if the warning unit, for example, transmits messages over a network, is a lamp, speaker, uses a mechanical flag, or some other way.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a))
Pursuant to MPEP 2106.04(a), the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) further provides that “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.
Claims 1-8 recite limitations that are grouped either as either a mathematical concept, methods of organizing human activity, or as a mental process as identified below (abstract ideals in italics):
Claim 1: A method for online inspection of a surface condition of a polishing pad with grooves on a surface of the polish pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad (additional element), comprising the following steps:
moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad (additional element);
analyzing distribution of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad based on the distance measurement (mental process of evaluation and judgement), and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); and
comparing the depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept), and determining whether the polishing pad needs to be replaced or reworked (mental process of evaluation, judgment and opinion);
Claim 2: wherein comparing the depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value is to determine whether number of the grooves with the depths of the grooves less than the predetermined threshold value reaches a set number (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept), or to determine whether an average value of the depths of the grooves in a specified range is less than the predetermined threshold value (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept).
Claim 3: wherein the distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a first information (further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); or/and a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a surface of the liquid on the polishing pad acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a second information(further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); or/and a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a bottom surface of the grooves acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a third information (further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept);; or/and a distance measurement between optical sensor and a liquid surface in the grooves acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as fourth information (further defines conditions of mental metal process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept);
Claim 4: wherein distribution patterns of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad comprise at least one of the following three cases: in a first case, the liquid is present in the grooves, and overflows to cover the surface of the polishing pad (further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); in a second case, the liquid is present in the grooves, but the grooves are not completely filled (further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); and in a third case, the liquid is not present in the grooves (further defines conditions of the mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept);
Claim 5: wherein the optical sensor (additional element) analyzes the distribution of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad: in the first case, the first information, the second information, the third information and the fourth information are acquired (mental process of evaluation and judgement); in the second case, the first information, the third information and the fourth information are acquired (mental process of evaluation and judgement) and in the third case, the first information and the third information are acquired (mental process of evaluation and judgement).
Claim 6: wherein the depths of the grooves are calculated based on measured depths of the grooves (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept), in the first case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves x liquid refractive index (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); in the second case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves + (the distance between the optical sensor and the bottom surface of the grooves - the distance between the optical sensor and the liquid surface on the polishing pad) x (liquid refractive index-1) (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept); and in the third case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves (mental process of evaluation and judgement, mathematical concept);
Claim 7: wherein the above steps are repeated (the steps identified in claim 1 are grouped as a mental process or mathematical concept), and when the depths of the grooves reach a predetermined condition, a warning for replacing the polishing pad is given (mental process of evaluation and judgement, warning could be output with physical aid of pen/paper).
Claim 8: wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad (additional element)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))
MPEP 2106.04 provides limitations (additional elements) that may integrate an abstract idea into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
and that courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
This judicial exception(s) in claims 1-8 is/are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements either amount merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (or other machinery), or merely using a computer (or other machinery) as a tool to perform an abstract idea, recite insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The identified additional elements are a polishing pad with grooves on a surface of the polish pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad, moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad.
In the case of a polishing pad with grooves on a surface of the polish pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad, this limitation serves to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see example vi. in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As for moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, and wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad, these limitations amount to the use of generic machinery, as provided in MPEP 2106.05(f), to perform an ordinary process of collecting data (the distance measurement). The limitations of moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, and wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad amount to insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering to obtain multiple measurements (see example i. and vi. in MPEP 2106.05(g) where clinical tests are performed or ultrasonic scans are performed (which by it’s nature requires some physical activity to collect)) and also does not meaningfully limit the claim as a tangential element to the intended invention of determining whether replacement of the polishing pad is necessary (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as provided in MPEP 2106.04(d) as an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition implement the judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing does not use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in this case, an improvement is not provided to an optical sensor, or to a polishing pad (for example, by using the determination to automatically replace a polishing pad or stop polishing, rather than simply generate a warning), recites insignificant activity incidental to data gathering, and merely serves to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment with generic, routine, additional elements, rather than a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)
MPEP 2106.05 provides that limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1-8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The identified additional elements are a polishing pad with grooves on a surface of the polish pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad, an optical sensor, moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, and wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad.
In the case of a polishing pad with grooves on a surface of the polish pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad, this limitation serves to indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see example vi. in MPEP 2106.05(h)) and, in this case the field of use or technical environment is simply a routine, well understood CMP apparatus (see instant background in [0002]).
As for an optical sensor, moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, and wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad, these limitations amount to the use of generic machinery, as provided in MPEP 2106.05(f) (an optical sensor, see Cho (KR 101448442 B1) background art, page 3 third paragraph which provides for a conventional optical arrangement directed towards light irradiating unit 50 and receiving unit 60; and Huey (US 20220284561 A1), [0025] where “[c]onventionally, one or more sensors can be incorporated into a polishing apparatus to monitor one or more components in the apparatus by measuring one or more characteristics of an operating component or a substrate”; this support is also found in the provisional application for Huey), to perform an ordinary process of collecting data (the distance measurement). The limitations of moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad, and wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad amount to insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering to obtain multiple measurements (see example i. and vi. in MPEP 2106.05(g) where clinical tests are performed or ultrasonic scans are performed, (which by it’s nature requires some physical activity to collect)) and also does not meaningfully provide significantly more as a tangential element to the intended invention of determining whether replacement of the polishing pad is necessary (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not provide for significantly more through improvements to the functioning of a computer or another technological field, application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or add other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In this case, as previously noted, an improvement is not provided to an optical sensor, or to a polishing pad (for example, by using the determination to automatically replace a polishing pad or stop polishing, rather than simply generate a warning), recites insignificant activity incidental to data gathering, and merely serves to link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment with generic, routine, additional elements, rather than a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
For the reasons provided above, claims 1-8 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and therefore are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20160001065 U).
With respect to claim 1, Cho discloses A method for online inspection of a surface condition of a polishing pad and a liquid on the surface of the polish pad ([0004, 0068-0069, 0071]), comprising the following steps:
moving an optical sensor above the polishing pad to obtain a distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad (optical sensor 34, fig. 9, [0071] obtains distance between sensor and surface; obtains height of polishing pad to calculate roughness, moves as in [0068-0069] through a motion lever);
analyzing distribution of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad based on the distance measurement, and calculating depths of surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas (if there is water on the polishing pad, the water height is corrected as in [0072], if there is no water correction is not done as in [0073]); and
comparing the depths of the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value ([0072] provides that the polishing heights at multiple points are compared to generate a surface roughness, according to which a determination can be made if it is necessary to replace the polishing pad, a determination would be made by comparison with some [predetermined] threshold as there would be some criteria the measurement is compared to and used to determine if replacement is necessary), and determining whether the polishing pad needs to be replaced or reworked ([0072] determination on whether the polishing pad needs to be replaced).
Cho does not explicitly disclose grooves on a surface of the polish pad, and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas and comparing the depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value.
Kim, in the same filed of endeavor, related to polishing teaches of grooves on a surface of the polish pad (grooves 121, on polishing pad 120, fig. 1b which helps slurry flow as in [0030-0031]), and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas and comparing the depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value (measuring grooves with water present or removed as in [0040-0042], including of more than one point as in [0056], which when applied to the teachings of Cho, would result in the use of different formulas for measuring depth when there is water present or not; Kim also teaches of comparison to a threshold in [0079]). Kim teaches that it is important to have grooves on the polishing pad to ensure slurry flow ([0031]), and that it is important to measure groove depth to prevent damage and determine replacement ([0004, 0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Kim, with grooves on the polishing pad, and with the depths of grooves on the polishing pad measured as part of the surface measurement process on the polishing pad in addition to other points on the surface and compared to a threshold, for the purpose of ensuring slurry flow and preventing damage. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have measured grooves with the technique of Cho, accounting for accurate measurement (Cho, [0114]).
With respect to claim 3, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the distance measurement between the optical sensor and the surface of the polishing pad acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a first information (Cho, measures height of polishing pad surface as in [0072]); or/and a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a surface of the liquid on the polishing pad acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a second information (Cho, [0072] also measures height of liquid); or/and a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a bottom surface of the grooves acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as a third information (Kim, [0040] involves measurement of groove depth, which when used with Kim, would be a measurement to the bottom [depth] of the groove) ; or/and a distance measurement between the optical sensor and a liquid surface in grooves acquired during movement of the optical sensor is used as fourth information (the combination of Kim and Cho, would mean that groove [which has liquid/slurry] inside it would have the water height measured so that the depth measurement can be corrected).
With respect to claim 4, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein distribution patterns of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad comprise at least one of the following three cases: in a first case, the liquid is present in the grooves, and overflows to cover the surface of the polishing pad; in a second case, the liquid is present in the grooves, but the grooves are not completely filled (while the prior art disclosures does not specify the height of liquid in the grooves, these two cases are mutually exclusive where there is water in the groove, one of these conditions would exist, both [or either one] are not required); and in a third case, the liquid is not present in the grooves (there can also be liquid not present in the grooves, Cho, [0073], Kim, [0041])
With respect to claim 5, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4 above, and further teaches wherein the optical sensor analyzes the distribution of the liquid on the surface of the polishing pad: in the first case, the first information, the second information, the third information and the fourth information are acquired; in the second case, the first information, the third information and the fourth information are acquired; and in the third case, the first information and the third information are acquired (as both Cho and Kim provide there can also be liquid not present in the grooves, Cho, [0073], Kim, [0041], the third case where the liquid is not present in the grooves would be a case; and both the height of the polishing pad, and both the distance to the surface and depth of the groove are acquired in the case of a dry polishing pad, and examiner notes that for contingent limitations as in MPEP 2111.04, the first two cases are not required to occur in the method claim, and thus the limitations are not required, as it is not required for liquid to be present at every point on the polishing pad surface).
With respect to claim 6, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches wherein the depths of the grooves are calculated based on measured depths of the grooves, in the first case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves x liquid refractive index; in the second case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves + (the distance between the optical sensor and the bottom surface of the grooves - the distance between the optical sensor and the liquid surface on the polishing pad) x (liquid refractive index-1); and in the third case, the depths of the grooves = the measured depths of the grooves (in the third case the measured depths are unadjusted by the water, Cho, [0073], as mentioned above in the rejection claim 5, it is not required for all 3 cases to be present to meet the method claim, and in this case the claim recites the use of “in” to further define the three cases).
With respect to claim 7, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the above steps are repeated (Cho, measurement at multiple points, [0069, 0072], indicating a repeat of multiple points); however, does not teach when the depths of the grooves reach a predetermined condition, a warning for replacing the polishing pad is given.
Kim further teaches of providing a warning if the grooves are of insufficient depth ([0079]), and that it is important to measure groove depth to prevent damage and determine replacement ([0004, 0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Kim, and provided a warning when the depths of the grooves reach a predetermined condition, which is when replacement would need to occur (when the grooves indicate wear), in order to prevent damage.
With respect to claim 8, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the optical sensor moves above the polishing pad in a direction which is parallel to the polishing pad from a periphery of the polishing pad to a center of the polishing pad (Cho, [0068-0069], the motion lever 321 moves the sensor 34 along and parallel to surface of polishing pad in a direction from periphery towards center).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Kim (KR 20160001065 U), and further in view of Tzeng (US 5934974 A)
With respect to claim 2, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and however does not explicitly teach wherein comparing the depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad with a predetermined threshold value is to determine whether number of the grooves with the depths of the grooves less than the predetermined threshold value reaches a set number, or to determine whether an average value of the depths of the grooves in a specified range is less than the predetermined threshold value. Kim, however teaches of comparison of determine whether depths of the grooves is less than the predetermined threshold value ([0079])
Tzeng, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of averaging measurements of the polishing pad (col 5 line 60-col 6 line 3; examiner notes that it would be “in a specified range” which can include all or some of the measurements collected, in this case the measurements are at a transient of a groove to an upper surface, i.e the point of a height change between surface 312 and groove 314, fig. 3). Tzeng teaches that an average is more statistically accurate and can be stored with less space (col 5 line 60-col 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Tzeng, and have used a determination of whether an average value of the depths of the grooves in a specified range is less than the predetermined threshold value, as Tzeng teaches that averages are more statistically accurate and take up less storage space.
Claim(s) 9-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Power Industry Definitions (page 84, definition of “distributed digital control”) and Kim (KR 20160001065 U).
With respect to claim 9, Cho discloses A system for online inspection of a surface condition of a polishing pad ([0004, 0068-0069, 0071]) comprising:
an optical sensor (optical sensor 34, fig. 9, [0073]), at least comprising an optical unit (at/next to 341, fig. 11, [0071], 112(f) equivalent as a light source) a sensor probe (at 342, fig .11; [0071]) and a control unit (344, and 38, fig. 11, [0071-0072] 112(f) equivalent by acquiring the reflected light and making determination),
the optical unit being used for emitting a light beam to a surface of the polishing pad (at 341, fig. 11, [0071], light of specific wavelength is output then reflected),
the sensor probe being used for focusing the light beam emitted by the optical unit and shining the light beam on the polishing pad, and receiving a reflected light signal and transmitting the reflected light signal to the optical unit (at 342, fig .11; [0071], see beams as lines in fig. 11),
the control unit being used for acquiring distance information between the sensor probe and the surface of the polishing pad (344, and 38, fig. 11, [0071-0072] acquires distance information as and estimates height; 112(f) equivalent by being a controller),
a movable support structure used for driving the optical sensor to move above the polishing pad (support structure 321 [lever] can move, [0068,0069])
however, does not explicitly disclose:
a polishing pad with grooves on the surface of the polish pad;
a processing unit connected with the optical sensor and used for analyzing the distance information between the sensor probe and the surface of the polishing pad and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad according to different modified calculation formulas.
Cho provides that the control unit is used for analyzing the distance information between the sensor probe and the surface of the polishing pad and calculating distances on the surface of the polishing pad according to different modified calculation formulas (if there is water on the polishing pad, the water height is corrected as in [0072], if there is no water correction is not done as in [0073], multiple points are measured on the surface to generate roughness). Cho also discloses a second controller (36, fig. 10, [0067], analogous to a processing unit)
Power Industry Definitions, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of providing multiple controllers to perform different functions, teaches of dividing a controller into multiple control areas, to perform different functions, and teaches that this helps prevent failure of a single controller (page 5, definition of distributed digital control).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho, with the teachings of Power Industry Definitions, and have provided a separate processing unit (separate from the control unit), configured for analyzing the distance information between the sensor probe and the surface of the polishing pad and calculating distances on the surface of the polishing pad according to different modified calculation formulas, for the purpose of dividing the processing to prevent failure.
As for grooves on a surface of the polish pad, and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas, Kim, in the same filed of endeavor, related to polishing teaches of grooves on a surface of the polish pad (grooves 121, on polishing pad 120, fig. 1b which helps slurry flow as in [0030-0031]), and calculating depths of the grooves on the surface of the polishing pad using different modified calculation formulas (measuring grooves with water present or removed as in [0040-0042], including of more than one point as in [0056], which when applied to the teachings of Cho, would result in the use of different formulas for measuring depth when there is water present or not; Kim also teaches of comparison to a threshold in [0079]). Kim teaches that it is important to have grooves on the polishing pad to ensure slurry flow ([0031]), and that it is important to measure groove depth to prevent damage and determine replacement ([0004, 0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Kim, with grooves on the polishing pad, and with the depths of grooves on the polishing pad measured as part of the surface measurement process on the polishing pad in addition to other points on the surface, for the purpose of ensuring slurry flow and preventing damage. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have measured grooves with the technique of Cho, accounting for accurate measurement (Cho, [0114]).
With respect to claim 10, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches wherein the modified calculation formulas correspond to a distribution pattern of a liquid on the surface of the polishing pad, and the distribution patterns comprise the following: in a first case, the liquid is present in the grooves, and overflows to cover the surface of the polishing pad; in a second case, the liquid is present in the grooves, but the grooves are not completely filled (Cho does not explicitly distinguish between two situations where the grooves are overflowing or completely filled, instead Cho simply subtracts the water film height to obtain the height of the surface below, as in [0072] however this formula would still correspond [in a generally broad sense] to either case; the claim does not require separate distinct formulas for both cases, simply that there is more than one formula, and it corresponds to one of the three cases, the examiner notes that the three distribution patterns are not required to be present as part of the claim, only a processing unit with the necessary programming/structure to perform the calculations, as the polishing pad what the system is intended for inspecting and is not explicitly required as part of the claimed structure); and in a third case, the liquid is not present in the grooves (if there no water, the height is not adjusted in Cho, [0073]).
With respect to claim 13, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above and further teaches wherein the movable support structure is a polishing head, or a polishing arm, or a polishing slurry distribution arm, or a dressing head, or a dressing arm, or an independent support structure (independent support structure 321 on moving mechanism 32, [0067-0068])
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Power Industry Definitions (page 84, definition of “distributed digital control”) and Kim (KR 20160001065 U), and as further evidenced by Zhou (CN 210220973 U)
With respect to claim 11, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above and however does not explicitly teach wherein the optical sensor adopts a spectral confocal technology. Cho, in another embodiment, teaches of an optical sensor (54, fig. 13 measuring polishing pad in [0074], where chromatic confocal technology is adapted (use of, and receiving multiple wavelengths on a point through a lens and processed by a spectrometer which senses wavelength intensity as in [0076-0077], the sensor 34, previously referenced uses multiple reflected wavelengths analogously as in [0071,0073], and both sensors are analogous to the instant disclosure of receiving reflected light). Cho teaches that this arrangement provides accurate measurement of a polishing pad ([0114], which saves time).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the first embodiment of Cho (with sensor 34) to incorporate chromatic confocal technology with a spectrometer to sense wavelength intensity (from sensor 54), for the purpose of accurate measurement. As for chromatic confocal technology being spectral confocal Zhou, related to chromatic confocal measurement, evidences that chromatic confocal measurement is also known as spectral confocal measurement (Zhou, page 4 lines 34-42).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Power Industry Definitions (page 84, definition of “distributed digital control”) and Kim (KR 20160001065 U), and further in view of Tan (CN 212379263 U).
With respect to claim 12, Cho, as modified, teaches herein the movable support structure drives the optical sensor to move in a direction which is mostly parallel to the polishing pad, from a periphery to a center of the polishing pad (motion lever 321, [0068-0069], moves from an area that is mostly parallel [“mostly” interpreted consistent with the geometry in the instant figures], from an area at the periphery to center mostly parallel to axis 303 within region U, fig. 9), however does not explicitly disclose a height of the movable support structure is adjustable.
Tan, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of positioning a sensor arm, teaches of an arrangement to make a movable support structure is adjustable height adjustable (though knob 8 on rod 1, the height of camera 11 is adjusted, [0023], camera 11 is mounted on arm 9, [0025], all shown in fig. 1). Tan teaches that this arrangement provides for increased control ([0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho, such that a height of the movable support structure is adjustable, as taught by Tan for the purpose of increased control.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Power Industry Definitions (page 84, definition of “distributed digital control”) and Kim (KR 20160001065 U), and further in view of Wolf (US 7074110 B1) and Bacchus (US 20190106085 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above however does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor probe is covered with a transparent protective layer, and the system further comprises a cleaning unit for cleaning the sensor probe or the transparent protective layer.
Wolf, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing teaches that components of a polishing machine are subject to contamination, and it would be desirable to prevent contamination of such components (col 7 lines 1-5).
Bacchus, reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved of providing sensor cleaning from contamination ([0042]), teaches of a sensor that is covered with a transparent protective layer (sensor 700 with cover 702, fig.7-8, is lens as in [0042] so is transparent), and the system further comprises a cleaning unit for cleaning the sensor probe or the transparent protective layer (actuator 704 generates ultrasonic as in [0042], cleaning unit best understood by examiner in light of 112(a) and 112(b) above as a unit to provide some kind of cleaning). Bacchus teaches that this prevents reduction of effectiveness of the optical sensor ([0002]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho, such that the sensor probe is covered with a transparent protective layer, and the system further comprises a cleaning unit for cleaning the sensor probe or the transparent protective layer, using the teachings of Bacchus, to maintain effectiveness of the sensor. Wolf, as noted above, teaches that CMP components are subject to contamination, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found reason to provide for cleaning of such components.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20170059311 A1) in view of Power Industry Definitions (page 84, definition of “distributed digital control”) and Kim (KR 20160001065 U), and further in view of Tzeng (US 5934974 A)
With respect to claim 15, Cho, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above however does not explicitly teach a warning unit which gives a warning signal when an average value of the depths of the grooves in a specified range is less than a predetermined value or a number of the grooves have the depths of the grooves less than a predetermined threshold value.
Kim further teaches of providing a warning signal, though a warning system if the grooves are of insufficient depth [less than a threshold] ([0079], warning system best understood by examiner in light of 112(a) and 112(b) above as a unit to provide some kind of alarm or warning), and that it is important to measure groove depth to prevent damage and determine replacement ([0004, 0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Kim, and provided a warning system that provides a warning when the depths of the grooves reach a predetermined condition [less than a threshold] which is when replacement would need to occur (when the grooves indicate wear), in order to prevent damage.
Tzeng, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of averaging measurements of the polishing pad (col 5 line 60-col 6 line 3; examiner notes that it would be “in a specified range” which can include all or some of the measurements collected, in this case the measurements are at a transient of a groove to an upper surface, i.e the point of a height change between surface 312 and groove 314, fig. 3). Tzeng teaches that an average is more statistically accurate and can be stored with less space (col 5 line 60-col 6 line 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cho with the teachings of Tzeng, and have used a determination of whether an average value of the depths of the grooves in a specified range is less than the predetermined threshold value, as part of the warning threshold determination of Kim, as Tzeng teaches that averages are more statistically accurate and take up less storage space.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that in terms of advancing prosecution, it would be helpful to define an apparatus claim (rather than a method claim, as an apparatus claim would require structure, including specific controller and processor structure to perform any contingent limitations as in MPEP 2111.04) that defines what different calculations a processor would do under the conditions of the claimed first, second and third cases, as the currently cited prior art does not differentiate between the water levels in the groove being partially filled and overflowing. The examiner also finds the specific formulas in instant claim 6 to be helpful to incorporate into an apparatus claim. The examiner may need further search and consideration, and review of amended claim language.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights