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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “wherein the first to third polishing modules have the same size, and the first to third control modules have the same size” is indefinite. The term “the same size” is ambiguous as “size” can mean, in addition to all dimensions, a single dimension. For example, a shoe can be a size ‘12’ but differ in shape and width from other shoes. It is the same “size” in one respect, but not others. Therefore, it is ambiguous as to whether this would be the “same size” as the others. Applicant should clarify what dimensions are meant by size in the claims, such as “same width,” “same length,” “same height,” “same shape,” etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US-2007/0139857).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Watanabe (US-2007/0139857) discloses a substrate polishing apparatus comprising:
a first polishing module (first polishing unit 13);
a second polishing module (second polishing unit 14); and
a third polishing module (third polishing unit 15);
wherein the first polishing module, the second polishing module, and the third polishing module are configured to polish different regions of a substrate (“first to third polishing units (machining units) 13 to 15 for polished the semiconductor wafer W”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0023] (“The first polishing unit 13 includes a chucking unit 21, which holds a semiconductor wafer W and is capable of chucking the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W, and a polishing unit body 22 (FIG. 8B) for polishing a notch WN created in the semiconductor wafer W.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0026] (“The second polishing unit 14 is disposed to be adjacent the first polishing unit 13, and serves for polishing the outer surface W1 of the semiconductor wafer W (see FIG. 6).”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0029] (“The third polishing unit 15 is employed for bevel polishing a corner of the surface of the edge portion of the semiconductor wafer W to form a beveled surface W2 shown in FIG. 6.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0030].
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Watanabe discloses the substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first polishing module (13), the second polishing module (14), and the third polishing module (15) are aligned in a straight line when viewed from above the substrate polishing apparatus (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-2007/0139857) in view of Kamimura (US-2017/0239784).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Watanabe discloses the substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first polishing module (first polishing unit 13) is one of a notch polishing module configured to polish a notch of the substrate, a bevel polishing module configured to polish a bevel portion of the substrate, and a back-surface polishing module configured to polish a back surface of the substrate (“The first polishing unit 13 includes a chucking unit 21, which holds a semiconductor wafer W and is capable of chucking the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W, and a polishing unit body 22 (FIG. 8B) for polishing a notch WN created in the semiconductor wafer W.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0026],
the second polishing module (second polishing unit 14) is one of the notch polishing module, the bevel polishing module, and the back-surface polishing module, and
the third polishing module (third polishing unit 15) is a remaining one of the notch polishing module, the bevel polishing module, and the back-surface polishing module (“The third polishing unit 15 is employed for bevel polishing a corner of the surface of the edge portion of the semiconductor wafer W to form a beveled surface W2 shown in FIG. 6.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0030].
Watanabe fails to disclose a polishing module comprising the back-surface polishing module. However, Kamimura (US-2017/0239784) teaches a polishing module (polishing head 34) being a back-surface polishing module (Fig. 3) (“When the polishing tool is properly placed in contact with the surface (e.g., a front surface, a back surface, or a bevel portion) of a substrate, such as a wafer, a frictional force is generated between the polishing tool and the substrate as the polishing tool moves along the surface of the substrate.”) [Kamimura; paragraph 0027] (“Embodiments, which will be described below, are directed to a polishing apparatus and a polishing method for polishing a back surface of a wafer”) [Kamimura; paragraph 0047] (Fig. 3). Since Kamimura is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a polishing module, or add an additional polishing module, to be a back-surface polishing module as taught by Kamimura in order to remove material from the back surface of the wafer [Kamimura; paragraph 0003].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Watanabe discloses the substrate polishing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first polishing module is one of a device-surface polishing module configured to polish a device surface of the substrate, a bevel polishing module configured to polish a bevel portion of the substrate, and a back-surface polishing module configured to polish a back surface of the substrate (“The first polishing unit 13 includes a chucking unit 21, which holds a semiconductor wafer W and is capable of chucking the back surface of the semiconductor wafer W, and a polishing unit body 22 (FIG. 8B) for polishing a notch WN created in the semiconductor wafer W.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0026],
the second polishing module (second polishing unit 14) is other one of the device-surface polishing module, the bevel polishing module, and the back-surface polishing module, and
the third polishing module is a remaining one of the device-surface polishing module, the bevel polishing module, and the back-surface polishing module (“The third polishing unit 15 is employed for bevel polishing a corner of the surface of the edge portion of the semiconductor wafer W to form a beveled surface W2 shown in FIG. 6.”) [Watanabe; paragraph 0030].
Watanabe fails to disclose a polishing module comprising the back-surface polishing module. However, Kamimura (US-2017/0239784) teaches a polishing module (polishing head 34) being a back-surface polishing module (Fig. 3) (“When the polishing tool is properly placed in contact with the surface (e.g., a front surface, a back surface, or a bevel portion) of a substrate, such as a wafer, a frictional force is generated between the polishing tool and the substrate as the polishing tool moves along the surface of the substrate.”) [Kamimura; paragraph 0027] (“Embodiments, which will be described below, are directed to a polishing apparatus and a polishing method for polishing a back surface of a wafer”) [Kamimura; paragraph 0047] (Fig. 3). Since Kamimura is in the same field of endeavor, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a polishing module, or add an additional polishing module, to be a back-surface polishing module as taught by Kamimura in order to remove material from the back surface of the wafer [Kamimura; paragraph 0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the first to third polishing modules and the first to third control modules are detachably arranged in the housing.”
Claim 6, and those depending therefrom including claims 8 and 9, 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the first to third polishing modules and the first to third control modules are detachably arranged in the housing.”
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The claim depends from allowed claim 6.
Claim 10 is 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “wherein the first control module includes a first wire connector which can be electrically coupled to the management controller and the first polishing module,
the second control module includes a second wire connector which can be electrically coupled to the management controller and the second polishing module, and
the third control module includes a third wire connector which can be electrically coupled to the management controller and the third polishing module.”
Claim 11 is 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:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “the management controller is configured to control operations of the first to fourth polishing modules and the first to fourth control modules, the management controller being configured to create a process flow which is performed using the fourth polishing module and without using the first polishing module when the abnormality detecting system detects an abnormality in the first polishing module.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2015/0258653, US-20120252320, US-20100022166, US-20090142992, US-20080293329, US-20170259395, and WO2023112548A1 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights