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 Objections
In claim 1, consider --an intersection point where a discharge central axis as a central axis of a fan shape of the discharged from the at least one cleaning nozzle intersects with the bottom surface of the dresser is positioned closer to the at least one cleaning nozzle than [[the]] a center line of the bottom surface of the dresser, and the center line is perpendicular to the discharge central axis, in a plan view--;
--the at least one cleaning nozzle discharges the cleaning solution such that a part of the cleaning solution discharged from the at least one cleaning nozzle and brought into contact with the bottom surface of the dresser moves and passes through [[the]] a center of the bottom surface of the dresser--
In claim 3, consider --the plurality of cleaning nozzles discharge the cleaning solution such that when the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts the bottom surface of the dresser, [[the]] a pressure applied to the bottom surface from the cleaning solution is partially increased--.
In claim 4, consider -- the plurality of cleaning nozzles are arranged such that the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts an entirety of the bottom surface of the entirety of the bottom surface-- (claim 1 already requires that the dresser rotates so the differing language is not required and creates inconsistencies)
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: “dresser rotation mechanism” in claim 1; corresponding to dresser rotation mechanism 32, with a given example as a motor;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20220033621 A - references in translation are to publication 2/2 beginning on page 19) in view of Shiratani (US 20100273401 A1)
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses: A polishing apparatus ([0014]) comprising:
a polishing table configured to hold a polishing pad for polishing a substrate (polishing table 20 with pad 30, fig. 1; [0021-0022]);
a top ring configured to hold the substrate (top ring is wafer holder 40, with wafer w; there is a ring around the wafer w as shown in fig. 1; [0024]);
a dresser configured to dress the polishing pad (dresser 100, fig. 1; [0026]), the dresser being movable between a dressing position in which the dresser is positioned above the polishing pad and a standby position in which the dresser is not positioned above the polishing pad (the dresser movable between a portion above a polishing pad as shown in the solid lines of fig. 1, and a standby position at disk storage unit above 182, fig. 1; [0049-0050;0058]) ;
at least one cleaning nozzle configured to discharge a cleaning solution from below the dresser to a bottom surface of the dresser to clean the bottom surface when the dresser is in the standby position (cleaning nozzles 182a, figs. 1, 4; [0050], see spray on bottom surface in fig. 4); and
a dresser rotation mechanism configured to rotate the dresser during cleaning of the dresser with the cleaning solution (driving source [a motor] inside housing 146, fig. 2 as in [0037]; dresser rotates as figs. 1 and 4 around 160; the driving source is 112(f) equivalent as a motor) , wherein
the at least one cleaning nozzle discharges the cleaning solution in a fan shape (see discharge of nozzle 182a in fig. 4 which is a “fan shape”) and in a direction away from the polishing pad (the right most two nozzles 182a, in fig. 4 is facing a direction away from the polishing pad, spraying left and upwards; the left two nozzles can also be said to be aimed, at least partially upward, which is away from the polishing pad, if a broader interpretation is taken),
an intersection point where a discharge central axis as a central axis of a fan shape of the discharged cleaning solution intersects with the bottom surface of the dresser is positioned closer to the at least one cleaning nozzle than the center line of the bottom surface of the dresser (see the right nozzle in fig. 4 which is closer to the nozzle than a center line; the same could apply to the left nozzle, the nozzles are aimed with a center at a location between the center line of the bottom surface and the periphery of the dresser), and the center line is perpendicular to the discharge central axis, in a plan view (from a top down view, because the nozzles are also angled at least partially horizontally [i.e. not purely vertical] and the center line is purely vertical, there is a perpendicular crossing, from that perspective) however does not explicitly disclose:
the at least one cleaning nozzle discharges the cleaning solution such that a part of the cleaning solution discharged from the cleaning nozzle and brought into contact with the bottom surface of the dresser moves and passes through the center of the bottom surface of the dresser.
Shiratani, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of an arrangement where the entire surface of the dresser is washed (example in fig. 6 [which may teach that the nozzles 6 or it’s outlet 6a described in [0056]] spray away from the polishing pad, if a broader interpretation is used]; particular the portion that is not within the area of the polishing pad, [0075-0077], resulting in at least some cleaning solution being sprayed to pass through the center; the dresser also rotates so it cases some cleaning solution to move; [0052] also provides that the nozzle angle can be set). Shiratani teaches that reduces influence of the cleaning to polishing ([0078]), and that it is important to wet the dresser to surpass the occurrence of scratches from fixed or falling matter ([0013]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spraying of Lee, such that, as taught by Shiratani, the entire bottom surface of the conditioner is cleaned by rotation, to result in the effect that a part of the cleaning solution discharged from the cleaning nozzle and brought into contact with the bottom surface of the dresser moves and passes through the center of the bottom surface of the dresser, to prevent scratches from fixed or falling matter.
With respect to claim 2, Lee, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches the at least one cleaning nozzle includes a plurality of cleaning nozzles (Lee multiple cleaning nozzles 182a, figs. 1, 4; [0050]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20220033621 A - references in translation are to publication 2/2 beginning on page 19) in view of Shiratani (US 20100273401 A1) and further in view of Togawa (US 6319105 B1)
With respect to claim 3, Lee, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches the plurality of cleaning nozzles discharge the cleaning solution such that when the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts the bottom surface of the dresser (see Lee, fig. 4, the spray from nozzles 182a, contacts the bottom of the dresser), the pressure applied to the bottom surface from the cleaning solution is partially increased (it is understood that when the spray contacts the bottom surface, it encounters the solid bottom surface and it’s pressure at that point is increased/applied as opposed moving through the air).
Alternatively, regarding the pressure applied to the bottom surface from the cleaning solution is partially increased when the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts the bottom surface of the dresser, Togawa, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of varying the amount of pressure during cleaning of a dresser (col 4 lines 34-45, referring to nozzles 42, 44, fig. 1 which cleans dresser 24 described in col 4 lines 24-34). Togawa describes that sometimes differing pressures are required to clean the tool (col 4 lines 6-65), and that is important to completely clean the tool (col 4 lines 45-60).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spraying of Lee, such that, the plurality of cleaning nozzles discharge the cleaning solution such that when the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts the bottom surface of the dresser, the pressure applied to the bottom surface from the cleaning solution is partially increased, using the teaching of Togawa of varying pressure, for complete cleanliness.
With respect to claim 4, Lee, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches the plurality of cleaning nozzles are arranged such that the cleaning solution discharged from the plurality of cleaning nozzles contacts an entire surface of the bottom surface of the rotating dresser (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, rotation/aiming of the dresser enables the spray to contact the entire bottom surface of the dresser to prevent scratches), or contacts a portion of the bottom surface of the rotating dresser and subsequently moves over the entire surface of the bottom surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu (US 20230390895 A1) provides for a nozzle that is aimed away from the polishing pad to clean a dresser (fig .4):
PNG
media_image1.png
422
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anderson (US 4789104 A) relates to a flat fan nozzle, and Boers (US 5052624 A) relates to a cone nozzle.
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