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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/31/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should read as “wherein the second stopper has a groove that is engaged with the middle portion between the first end and the second end of [[the]] each rod”
Claim 7 should read as “wherein the first end of [[the]] each rod is mounted to a periphery of a bottom face of the polishing solution supply device”
Claim 8 should read as “wherein [[the]] each rod has a rod end at the first end, and the first spherical joint is provided in the rod end”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 lifting mechanism configured to lift up and lower the arm” in claim 1. Where in the instant case, the lifting mechanism is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0035] and fig 27 to include the following: lifting mechanism (80) includes a lift cylinder (81) fixed to a frame (85) and ball spline (83).
“an engagement portion fixed to the arm and engaged with the first stopper when the arm is lifted up relative to the polishing solution supply device” in claim 1. Where in the instant case, the engagement portion is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0138] to include the following: arm-side stopper (450)
“a turning mechanism configured to turn the arm” in claim 10. Where in the instant case, the turning mechanism is interpreted per the applicant’s disclosure in pp [0036] to include the following: turning mechanism (90) includes a motor (93)
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 § 112
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 1-20 are 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 1, the limitation “two rods wherein each of the rods has a first end and a second end and the first end of each rod is mounted to the polishing solution supply device via a first spherical joint” is indefinite because it is unclear on if there are multiple first spherical joints, one for each first end of each rod, or if there is a single first spherical joint that mounts to both first ends of each rod. Whereas the office reads the limitation and finds the limitation unclear because as the limitation reads, there is only one first spherical joint recited (i.e. a first spherical joint), but the phrasing seems to indicate that this first joint is tied to each first end of each rod, making it sound as if there are multiple first spherical joints.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Ko et al (US Patent No. 5, 938,507) teaches an apparatus for polishing configured to polish an object by using a polishing pad having a polishing surface [Ko, fig 13, 120 is a polishing surface], the apparatus comprising:
a polishing solution supply device [Ko, fig 13, 260];
an arm configured to be horizontally movable relative to the polishing surface [Ko, fig 17, 470];
a lifting mechanism configured to lift up and lower the arm [Ko, col 13, lines 36-65, air cylinder];
a following mechanism linked with the arm and with the polishing solution supply device and configured to cause the polishing solution supply device to follow the polishing surface of the polishing pad [Ko, fig 17 and col 13, lines 36-65, teaching that 480 and 485 form two bars or rods that each has a first end and a second end mounted to 260]. However, Ko does not disclose the use to spherical joints or the suspending mechanism.
Wang et al (WO 2010/019264) teaches an apparatus for polishing configured to polish an object by using a polishing pad having a polishing surface, the apparatus comprising:
a polishing solution supply device [Wang, fig 7, 202];
an arm configured to be horizontally movable relative to the polishing surface [Wang, fig 7, 184a, which has a horizontal movement component];
a lifting mechanism configured to lift up and lower the arm [Wang, fig 7, 186a];
a following mechanism linked with the arm and with the polishing solution supply device and configured to cause the polishing solution supply device to follow the polishing surface of the polishing pad [Wang, fig 7, 186b, 184b, 186c, and 184c]; and wherein
the following mechanism comprises:
two rods [Wang, fig 7, 184b and 184c] and two spherical joints [Wang, fig 7, 186b and 186c]. However, Wang teaches the rods and spherical joints are joined in series and not in a parallel arrangement of “the first end of each rod is mounted to the polishing solution device].
Leighton et al (US Patent No. 8,523,639) teaches an adjustable slurry arm comprising a polishing solution supply device [Leighton, fig 3B, 224], an arm configured to the horizontally movable relative to the polishing surface [Leighton, fig 3A, 208], a lifting mechanism [Leighton, fig 2B, 210], and a following mechanism [Leighton, fig 3B, 204]. However, Leighton does not teach the following mechanism comprises two rods wherein each of the rods has a first end and a second end and the first end of each rod is mounted to the polishing solution supply device.
The prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “two second spherical joints fixed to the arm between the two rods and configured to slidably receive the second ends of the respective rods” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claim(s) 2-20 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights