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 (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification (26 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1, the preamble “a non-contact pad cleaning apparatus for cleaning a polishing surface of a polishing pad in a non-contact manner” is unclear. The claim body does not define how the “non-contact be. Reading Applicant specification, the fluid/gas nozzles are not contacting the polishing pad, however, the fluid/gas is contacting the polishing pad for cleaning a surface of the polishing pad. Therefore, it is unclear what the “non-contact” means in this preamble. Claim 15 has the same issue.
The scope of claim 2 “wherein the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles are inclined in the same direction as the rotation direction of the polishing pad” is unclear and confusing because the outlet ports appear linear structures. It is unclear how a linear structure is inclined in the same direction of the rotation direction.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Double Patenting
Examiner notes that as currently claims are written, the scope is broad and it is possibly be rejected nonprovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claim of copending Application No. 19/421444. However, the double patenting rejection could be rejected or considered depending on how the claims of pending application are amended to overcome the issues under 112 and the art rejections.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tetsuya (WO 2022259833 A1 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Tetsuya shows a “non-contact” pad cleaning apparatus for cleaning a polishing surface of a polishing pad in a non-contact manner (see all nozzles 52a-52b, Figure 5A, NOT contact the polishing pad 100), the polishing pad being used for polishing a workpiece (WF, Figure 1), comprising:
a turntable (20, Figure 1) configured to rotate the polishing pad;
a plurality of two-fluid nozzles (52A, 52b, Figure 5A) disposed above the polishing pad; and
a liquid supply line (55, Figure 5A) and a gas supply line (57, Para. 35) coupled to the plurality of two-fluid nozzles (see the discussion of a flow path 52d, Translation, pages 6-7),
wherein the plurality of two-fluid nozzles are arranged along a radial direction of the polishing pad (see Figures 1, 5A), the plurality of two-fluid nozzles have outlet ports which are inclined obliquely with respect to a reference line extending in the radial direction of the polishing pad when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad (see the holes 52b, Figure 7A, 7B).
Regarding Claim 3, Tetsuya shows that the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles are located on the reference line when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad (see the discussion in claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Tetsuya shows that a fine- bubble generator coupled to the liquid supply line (as this is written, it is unclear what the fine-bubble generator be, therefore, the liquid source 55 and a gas supply source 57 of Tetsuya can be created a fine- bubble generator or fine mist or jets).
Regarding Claim 8, Tetsuya shows that the plurality of two- fluid nozzles include a center-side two-fluid nozzle located at a center side of the polishing pad and a periphery-side two-fluid nozzle located at a periphery side of the polishing pad, and a distance of an outlet port of the periphery-side two-fluid nozzle from the polishing surface is smaller than a distance of an outlet port of the center-side two-fluid nozzle from the polishing surface (see Figure 5B of Tetsuya).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Tetsuya shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 1 and 6 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya in view of Sotozaki (US 2020/0039029).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Tetsuya shows all of the limitations as stated above, however, it is unclear whether the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles are inclined in the same direction as the rotation direction of a polishing pad when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad.
Sotozaki shows outlet ports of plurality of two-fluid nozzles (62) are inclined in the same direction as the rotation direction of a polishing pad (102, Figure 5 and Para. 83) when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad (also, see nozzles 321, Figure 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the holes of Tetsuya to have nozzles inclined in the same direction as the rotation direction of a polishing pad when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad, as taught by Sotozaki, in order to improve spreading fluid in a fan shape to the surface of the polishing pad (see Paras. 84 and 134 of Sotozaki) and provide an optimum flow rate is blown against the polishing surface of the polishing pad from the nozzles (Para. 82 of Sotozaki) .
Regarding claims 4-5, the modified cleaning apparatus of Tetsuya shows that inclination angles of the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles with respect to the reference line when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad increase according to a distance of each two-fluid nozzle from a center of the polishing pad (this can be done by a design choice since the nozzle 62, Figure 6 of Sotozaki can be adjusted as discussed in Para. 84 to meet the entry angle from 30-50 degrees) and a distances of the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles from the reference line when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the polishing surface of the polishing pad increase according to the distance of each two- fluid nozzle from the center of the polishing pad, and the distances of the outlet ports of the plurality of two-fluid nozzles from the reference line are distances from the reference line toward a downstream side in a rotation direction of the polishing pad (see the discussion above; the nozzle 60 is adjustable from 30-50 degrees and the height Hn also adjustable).
Regarding claim 9, the modified cleaning apparatus of Tetsuya shows the plurality of two- fluid nozzles include a center-side two-fluid nozzle located at a center side of the polishing pad and a periphery-side two-fluid nozzle located at a periphery side of the polishing pad, and a distance of an outlet port of the periphery-side two-fluid nozzle from the polishing surface is larger than a distance of an outlet port of the center-side two-fluid nozzle from the polishing surface (see the discussion above; the nozzle 60 is adjustable from 30-50 degrees and the height Hn also adjustable).
Regards to claims 4-5, 9, since the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the claimed positions of the nozzles is relative with the polishing pad. Reading Applicant’s specification, it appears that there are different embodiments or nozzle arrangements, but none of discussion that specific positions is an invention concept.
Further, it is well known to have the nozzles in any arrangements in the apparatus. Since claim has not recited that having any specific location of the nozzles solve any stated problem or is a criticality for any particular purpose and it appears that the arrangements of nozzles (art) would perform equally well while being on the claimed arrangements, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, as per MPEP 2144.04(VI)C, this constitutes a rearrangement of parts that does not modify the operation of the device. therefore, rearranging the nozzles within the cleaning apparatus to a location or the claimed positions has no effect on how the apparatus performs, and thus this is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 6-7, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tetsuya in view of Pollard (US 2022/0282807A).
Regarding claims 6-7, Tetsuya shows all of the limitations as stated above except that a liquid heating device coupled to the liquid supply line and configured to heat liquid flowing through the liquid supply line.
Pollard shows a cleaning system (Figure 2) having a liquid heating device (104, 142, Para. 35) coupled to the liquid supply line and configured to heat liquid flowing through the liquid supply line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the liquid supply of Tetsuya to have a liquid heating device coupled to the liquid supply line and configured to heat liquid flowing through the liquid supply line, as taught by Pollard, in order to generate a heat steam for efficiency cleaning (Para. 35 of Pollard).
Doing so, it can be created a steam or a fine- bubble generator coupled to the liquid supply line.
Regarding Claims 16-17, the modified apparatus of Tetsuya shows all of the limitations as stated in claims 6-7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 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: Claims 10-14 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach and suggest that the liquid supply line has a plurality of branch liquid lines coupled to the plurality of two-fluid nozzles, respectively,the non-contact pad cleaning apparatus further comprises a plurality of liquid flow-rate control valves coupled to the plurality of branch liquid lines, respectively, and an operation controller configured to independently control operations of the plurality of liquid flow-rate control valves, the plurality of two-fluid nozzles include a center-side two-fluid nozzle located at a center side of the polishing pad and a periphery-side two-fluid nozzle located at a periphery side of the polishing pad, and the operation controller is configured to control the operations of the plurality of liquid flow- rate control valves such that a flow rate of liquid supplied to the periphery-side two-fluid nozzle is higher than a flow rate of liquid supplied to the center-side two-fluid nozzle as set forth in claim 10 and Claims 11-14 have a similar scope or concept of claim 10 that are considered as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights