Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 9/19/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
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:
a moving mechanism configured to move the chuck table in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the moving mechanism is described to be element 15, comprising the structure disclosed in [0021]. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
a raising and lowering mechanism configured to bring the polishing pad into contact with the workpiece in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the raising and lowering mechanism is described to be element 39, comprising the structure described in [0018]. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
a shaping unit configured to shape the polishing pad in claim 1. When looking to the specification, the shaping unit is described to be element 30, comprising the structure disclosed in [0024]. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
a shaping unit… shaping a polishing surface of a polishing pad by the shaping unit in claim 3. When looking to the specification, the shaping unit is described to be element 30, comprising the structure disclosed in [0024]. This limitation shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co., 755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (JP 2016179513A).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a polishing apparatus for polishing a workpiece (see [0034]), the polishing apparatus comprising:
a chuck table configured to hold the workpiece (see chuck table 20, Figure 1; see [0018-0020]);
a polishing unit including a rotatable polishing pad configured to polish the workpiece held by the chuck table (see polishing unit 36 comprising a polishing pad 44, contacting and polishing a workpiece as can be seen in Figures 5 and 6);
a moving mechanism configured to move the chuck table to a loading and unloading region for loading and unloading the workpiece onto and from the chuck table and a polishing region for polishing the workpiece by the polishing unit (see x-axis movement mechanism 8, as well as [0016-0018], see also Figure 2; wherein the chuck table 20 is configured for movement via the x-axis movement mechanism, and thus multiple positions are provided, i.e. the device is capable of performing the claimed function of translating the chuck table between positions, including a position in which the workpiece may be polished);
a raising and lowering mechanism configured to bring the polishing pad into contact with the workpiece held by the chuck table or separate the polishing pad from the workpiece by raising or lowering the polishing unit (see z axis movement mechanism 26, [0023-0027], see also Figures 1 and 6; see also [0038-0040]); and
a shaping unit configured to shape the polishing pad (see dressing board 31, Figure 3; see also [0032]),
the shaping unit being configured to come into contact with a polishing surface of the polishing pad and shape the polishing surface into a desired shape (see Figure 5A; see also [0046-0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Watanabe further discloses wherein
the shaping unit is disposed in such a manner as to be adjacent to the chuck table, and is positioned at a desired position of the polishing surface by the moving mechanism (see [0021]: dressing board 31 is disposed on the upper surface of the support table 18 at a position close to the chuck table, and is movably positioned, see [0018-0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses a polishing method for polishing a workpiece (see [0034]), the polishing method comprising:
a preparing step of preparing a polishing apparatus including a shaping unit (see dressing board 31, Figure 5A; see also [0011-0012]; see also [0036-0040] and Figure 1);
a dimensional data obtaining step of obtaining dimensional data for finishing an upper surface of the workpiece into a desired shape (wherein [0007-0009] disclose measuring a thickness of a workpiece in order to ensure the workpiece is polished to a uniform thickness; see also [0013]; see also [0042-0045] regarding measuring);
a shaping step of shaping a polishing surface of a polishing pad by the shaping unit on a basis of the dimensional data obtained in the dimensional data obtaining step (see [0007]: wherein after measuring, adjusting a shape of the acting surface of the polishing pad, [0009]: wherein the adjusting step of adjusting the shape of the working surface of the polishing pad is performed based on the measurement result of the measuring step of the workpiece; see also [0037-0040]; wherein [0046] discloses that after the measuring step, and adjusting step is carried out to adjust the shape of the active surface of the polishing pad 44 based on the profile of the workpiece; see also [0047]); and
a polishing step of finishing the upper surface of the workpiece into the desired shape by polishing the workpiece while the polishing surface of the polishing pad is held in contact with the workpiece held by a chuck table (see [0040]: after the initialization step, a polishing of the workpiece 11 is carried out; see also that after the adjusting step, the polishing is also carried out, see [0049-0050]; see also chuck table 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinozaki (US 12,257,666), see Figure 3.
Tanemura (JP 2019141949A), see Figures 1 and 3.
Akita (US 10,022,838), see Figure 2.
Hayashi (US 6,379,230), see Figure 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights