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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 2, ln 6, “deriver” appears to be a misspelling of “driver.”
On pg. 14, ln 15-16 the phrase “it is needless of state that data obtained” appears to have a grammatical issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “if the both digital signals” should read “if both digital signals.”
In claim 7, “outputted” should read “output.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the speed of rotation" and “the angle of rotation” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitations should read “a speed of rotation” and “an angle of rotation,” respectively.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the speed of rotation" and “the angle of rotation” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitations should read “a speed of rotation” and “an angle of rotation,” respectively.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the signal,” "the speed of rotation," “the angle of rotation,” and “the instructing value” in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitations should read “a signal,” “a speed of rotation,” “an angle of rotation,” and “an instructing value” respectively.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the process" in ln 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “a process.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the process" in ln 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “a process.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the load" in ln 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it has been assumed the limitation should read “a load.”
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, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Birang US 5846882 A.
PNG
media_image1.png
707
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Birang Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
605
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Birang Figure 3
Regarding claim 1, Birang teaches a polishing apparatus (14) comprising: a polishing table (21) for holding a polishing pad (18); a holder (24) for holding a polishing object (16) to face the polishing pad (18); at least one motor (20) selected from a motor (20) for rotationally driving the polishing table (21), a motor (26) for rotating the holder (24) holding the polishing object (16), and a motor for swinging the holder (24) holding the polishing object (16); one or more drivers (104) configured to supply driving current to the at least one motor (20), and further configured to output a digital signal (output of 130) corresponding to a load on the at least one motor (20); and an end point detector (50) for detecting, based on the digital signal outputted from the driver (output of 130), an end-of-polish point that indicates an end of polishing of the polishing object (18).
Regarding claim 3, Birang teaches the driver (104) is configured to control, based on the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation of the at least one motor, the driving current (col 4, ln 55-59), and the digital signal (output of 130) corresponding to the load on the at least one motor (20) is a digital signal that represents an instructing value used for generating the diving current (output of 130) (col 6, ln 45-49) based on the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation of the at least one motor (20).
Regarding claim 9, Birang teaches a method for detecting an end-of-polish point that indicates an end of polishing in a polishing apparatus (14) (col 2, ln 58-63), wherein the polishing apparatus (14) comprises: a polishing table (21) for holding a polishing pad (18), a holder (24) for holding a polishing object (16) to face the polishing pad (18), at least one motor (20) selected from a motor (20) for rotationally driving the polishing table (21), a motor (26) for rotating the holder (24) holding the polishing object (16), and a motor for swinging the holder (18) holding the polishing object (16), one or more drivers (104), and an end point detector (50), and the method comprises: supplying, by the driver (104), driving current to the at least one motor (20) (col 4, ln 48-52), further outputting, by the driver (104), a digital signal (output of 130) corresponding to the load on the at least one motor (20) (col 6, ln 46-49), and detecting, by the end point detector (50) and based on the digital signal (output of 130) outputted from the driver (104) (col 6, ln 46-49), an end-of-polish point that indicates an end of polishing of the polishing object (col 6, ln 33-37).
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) 2, 4, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang US 5846882 A in view of Bibby et al. WO 0058716 A1 (herein Bibby).
Regarding claim 2, Birang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Birang does not teach the digital signal corresponding to the load on the motor is a signal representing the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation.
PNG
media_image3.png
439
463
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bibby Figure 1
However, in a related device, Bibby teaches a polishing apparatus (abstract) which outputs a digital signal (output of 142) corresponding to the load on at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7) that is a signal representing the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation (pg. 16, ln 26-28) of the at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7). Bibby further teaches that this sensor advantageously works as a secondary sensor feeding into the endpoint detection system (pg. 17, ln 37-38 – pg. 18, ln 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the sensor and digital data of Bibby to the polishing apparatus of Birang to advantageously aid in endpoint detection. 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 4, Birang teaches the digital signal (output of 130) is a digital signal that represents an instructing value used for generating the diving current (output of 130) (col 6, ln 45-49).
Birang does not teach the digital signal comprising a signal corresponding to the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation of the at least one motor.
However, in a related device, Bibby teaches a polishing apparatus (abstract) which outputs a digital signal (output of 142) corresponding to the load on at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7) that is a signal representing the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation (pg. 16, ln 26-28) of the at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7). Bibby further teaches that this sensor advantageously works as a secondary sensor feeding into the endpoint detection system (pg. 17, ln 37-38 – pg. 18, ln 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the sensor and digital data of Bibby to the polishing apparatus of Birang to advantageously aid in endpoint detection and to have the end point detector detect an end point based off of the instructing data of Birang as further informed by the angular data of Bibby. 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 5, the combination of Birang and Bibby teaches the end point detector (50 of Bibby) is configured to judge that the process has reached the end-of-polish point if the both digital signals exhibit respective predetermined change (col 6, ln 33-37 of Birang).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Birang and Bibby teaches an encoder (106 of Birang) used for detecting the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation (col 4, ln 48-52 of Birang) of the at least one motor (20).
Regarding claim 7, Birang teaches the end point detector is configured to detect, based on a digital signal (output of 130) outputted from the drivers (104), the end-of-polish point indicating the end of polishing of the polishing object (16).
Birang does not teach a plurality of signals output from the drivers.
However, in a related device, Bibby teaches a polishing apparatus (abstract) which outputs a digital signal (output of 142) corresponding to the load on at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7) that is a signal representing the speed of rotation or the angle of rotation (pg. 16, ln 26-28) of the at least one motor (pg. 6, ln 7). Bibby further teaches that this sensor advantageously works as a secondary sensor feeding into the endpoint detection system (pg. 17, ln 37-38 – pg. 18, ln 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the sensor and digital data of Bibby to the polishing apparatus of Birang to advantageously aid in endpoint detection. 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, the combination of Birang and Bibby teaches the end point detector (50) is configured to judge that a process has reached the end-of-polish point if the plurality of digital signals outputted from the drivers (104) exhibit respective predetermined change (col 6, ln 33-37 of Birang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding using speed of rotation to inform instruction values Suzuki et al. JP 2019081243 is made of record. Regarding using speed and current to inform end point detection Mizuno et al. US 6340434 B1 is made of record.
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