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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the peripheral portion of the first surface of the body part is not labeled. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 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 “the second angle being variable,” in line 10. The scope of the claim is unclear to the examiner. Does the “second angle being variable” mean that the angle is adjustable or that one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range? Examiner will interpret he limitation as one would be able modify the structure to be any angle within variable angle range. Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the second angle is varied from 18 degrees to 30 degrees,” in lines 1-2. The scope of the claim is unclear to the examiner. Is the variation due to its adjustability or the modified construction of structure with the desired angle range? Examiner will interpret the limitation as one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range.
Claims 2-5 are similarly rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the second angle being variable,” in line 10. The scope of the claim is unclear to the examiner. Does the “second angle being variable” mean that the angle is adjustable or that one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range? Examiner will interpret the limitation as one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the second angle is varied from 18 degrees to 30 degrees,” in lines 1-2. The scope of the claim is unclear to the examiner. Is the variation due to its adjustability or that one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range? Examiner will interpret the limitation as one would be able modify the second angle to be any angle within variable angle range of 18 to 30 degrees.
Claims 8-12 are similarly rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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, 3-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (US 6722964 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a wafer edge polishing drum comprising:
A body part (Column 14, lines 47-50, support member 218) having a disc shape (See Fig. 11); and a polishing part (Column 17, lines 35-38, polishing cloth supporting member 218c) extending from a peripheral portion of a first surface of the body part while being inclined with respect to the first surface of the body part (See Annotated Figure 1), wherein the polishing part includes an inner surface surrounding a polishing area adjacent to the first surface of the body part (See Annotated Figure 1), wherein the inner surface of the polishing part (Column 17, lines 35-38, polishing cloth supporting member 218c) comprises a first surface (See Annotated Figure 1) extending from the first surface (See Annotated Figure) of the body part (Column 14, lines 47-50, support member 218) and a second surface (See Annotated Figure) formed so as to be brought into contact with an edge area of a wafer (See Annotated Figure), and wherein the second surface of the polishing part (Column 17, lines 35-38, polishing cloth supporting member 218c) has a second angle with respect to the first surface of the body part , the second angle (See Annotated Figure 2) being variable (The structure is easily reconstruct able such that the angle could be variable).
PNG
media_image1.png
295
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Surfaces of Body Part and Polishing Part
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 1. Kimura further teaches wherein the first surface (See Annotated Figure 1) of the polishing part (Column 17, lines 35-38, polishing cloth supporting member 218c) has a first angle (See Annotated Figure 2) with respect to the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218), and wherein the first angle is larger than the second angle (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: First Angle is Greater than the Second Angle
Regarding claim 4, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 1. Kimura further teaches have a first rotation axis (See Annotated Figure 3) perpendicular to the first surface (See Annotated Figure 3) of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218).
PNG
media_image3.png
259
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: First Rotation Axis is Perpendicular to First Surface of Body Part
Regarding claim 5, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 1. Kimura further teaches the drum comprising a plurality of polishing pads (Figure 11, polishing cloth 222) provided on the second surface (See Annotated Figure 4) of the polishing part (Figure 11, polishing cloth supporting member 218c), wherein the plurality of polishing pads is spaced apart from each other (See Annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
316
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Polishing Cloths Spaced Apart
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing equipment comprising: a wafer edge polishing drum (Column 14, lines 45 – 47, polishing end unit 216) comprising a body part (Column 14, line 47-50, support member 218) having a disc shape and a polishing part (polishing cloth supporting member 218c) extending from a peripheral portion of a first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218) while being inclined with respect to the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218), wherein the polishing part (polishing cloth supporting member 218c) includes an inner surface surrounding a polishing area adjacent to the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218), the inner surface of the polishing part (polishing cloth supporting member 218c) comprises a first surface extending from the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218) and a second surface formed so as to be brought into contact with an edge area of a wafer (Figure 8; Column 14, line 42, Wafer W), the second surface of the polishing part (polishing cloth supporting member 218c) has a second angle with respect to the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218), and the second angle is variable; and a wafer support chuck (Column 14, line 38-45, substrate holder 214) disposed so as to face the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218) of the wafer edge polishing drum (polishing end unit 216) while being spaced apart from the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 6. Kimura further teaches wherein the first surface of the polishing part (polishing cloth supporting member 218c) has a first angle with respect to the first surface of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218), and wherein the first angle is larger than the second angle.
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 6. Kimura further teaches wherein the wafer edge polishing drum has a first rotation axis (See Annotated Figure 3) perpendicular to the first surface (See Annotated Figure 3) of the body part (Figure 11, support member 218).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 6. Kimura further teaches the drum comprising a plurality of polishing pads (Figure 11, polishing cloth 222) provided on the second surface of the polishing part (Figure 11, polishing cloth supporting member 218c), wherein the plurality of polishing pads is spaced apart from each other (See Annotated Figure 4).
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) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 6722964 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing drum according to claim 1.
However, Kimura does not explicitly disclose the angle to be varied from 18 to 30 degrees, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the second angle to be within 18 to 30 degrees would result in a difference in function of the Kimura device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the second angle “may be formed” or “may range” and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second angle as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing equipment according to claim 6.
However, Kimura does not explicitly disclose the angle to be varied from 18 to 30 degrees, as required by the claim.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the second angle to be within 18 to 30 degrees would result in a difference in function of the Kimura device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the device of Kimura would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the second angle “may be formed” or “may range” and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second angle as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 6722964 B2) in view of An Sang (KR 101249856 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches the wafer edge polishing equipment according to claim 6, wherein the wafer edge polishing drum has a first rotation axis and the wafer support chuck has a second rotation axis.
Kimura fails to teach wherein the first rotation axis is tilted with respect to a second rotation axis.
An Sang teaches a wafer edge polishing apparatus (Figure 1) wherein the first rotation axis (See Annotated Figure 5) is tilted with respect to a second rotation axis (See Annotated Figure 5, Paragraph 0026-0027, “The drum (30) is positioned to be tilted by theta relative to the upper surface of the wafer (201) or the chuck pad (4). For example, theta can be 1 or 3 degrees.”).
PNG
media_image5.png
347
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: Tilting of Axes
Kimura and An Sang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of machines or devices designed for grinding edges or bevels on work or for removing burrs of thin brittle parts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Kimura, with the teachings of An Sung. Doing so would have produced a polishing device that allows for the contact area between the polishing pad and edge bevel area to be maximized (Paragraph 0027)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 6722964 B2) in view of An Sang (KR 101249856 B1) and Sudo (KR 20210099521 A).
Regarding claim 12, Kimura, as modified by An Sang, teaches the wafer edge polishing equipment of claim 11.
Kimura fails to teach wherein the second rotation axis is tilted to a predetermined angle with respect to a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the body part.
Sudo teaches a grinding apparatus and grinding method (Figure 2) wherein the rotation axis of the chuck table (Paragraph 0031, chuck table 10) is inclined at a predetermined angle (Paragraph 0008) with respect to the spindle (Paragraph 0054, spindle 60).
Kimura is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of machines or devices designed for grinding edges or bevels on work or for removing burrs, accessories therefor. Sudo is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of machines, devices, or process for grinding or polishing; headstocks; working spindles; features relating thereto. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Kimura, as modified by An Sang, with the teachings of Sudo. This would produce a device that adjusts the tilt of the device to meet the desired wafer thickness uniformity based on data of the momentary thickness variation (Paragraph 0010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 101238839 B1 teaches an apparatus of Polishing a Wafer
JP 2008091665 A teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus for semiconductor device manufacture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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, 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
8/25/2026
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights