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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase (that could be implied) “A semiconductor processing device according to the disclosure is”. Examiner suggests amending the first sentence to read, “A semiconductor processing device including a first rod-shaped member…” Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 2 and 7-12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the second member is not fixed to the first member by a screw.” Although the specification uses similar language (Spec. ¶¶ 0049, 0057, 0068), this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. This limitation suggests that the second member is not attached to, not connected to, or not in contact with the first member via a screw (this interpretation would conflict with parent claim 1). However, as shown in the drawings (e.g., Spec. Fig. 6A), it is clear, however, that the second member 360 is attached to, connected to, and in contact with the first member 400 via a screw 610 (having screw threads). Thus, does this limitation mean that there is no attachment between the first and second members by way of a screw; or does this mean that the connection using the screw is not entirely fixed and/or interposed by another component (e.g., Spec. Fig. 6A shows elastic member 620 interposed between the screw 610 and second member 360, where the elastic member 620 with screw 610 provides a fixed connection when the device is not moving and a semi-fixed connection when the device is vibrating); or does this mean something else? Applicant provides a definition in Spec. ¶ 0049, “It is noted that in the disclosure, ‘member A is fixed to member B by a screw’ means that member A is fixed to member B by rotating a fastening member having screws and tightening the fastening member having screws.” However, this definition is unhelpful because it does not directly state what “not fixed” means, and also it appears to contradict what is shown in Fig. 6A as explained above. As an example, if second member 360 is held against first member 400 (including elements 410 and 420) as shown while screw 610 is inserted and fastened down (even if no threads exist on the second member 360), this would appear to meet the definition “that member A is fixed to member B by rotating a fastening member having screws and tightening the fastening member having screws”, even though Applicant states in the same paragraph (Spec. ¶ 0049) that the “first cover 320 is not fixed to the fixed member 400 by a screw”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the second member is not fixed to the first member by a screw.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear whether the term “a screw” refers to the “first rod-shaped member” (see e.g., Spec. ¶ 0049, Fig. 6A) recited in parent claim 1 or to another screw. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a first cushion member contacting the wall and pressing the main body in a second direction opposite to the first direction” (lines 5-6). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the first cushion member is part of the second member, therefore it is unclear how a component of the second member could be “pressing” the main body (which is also a component of the second member) in any direction, let alone in the second direction. Examiner notes that this limitation appears to concern the cushioning member 348 and main body 324 of Spec. Fig. 6D, where when assembled with the base 265, the wall 264 of the base presses against the cushioning member 348 and main body 324 in the second direction (D2 as shown), assuming that element 410 does not move. Based on the example in Spec. Fig. 6D, it is more proper to say that when assembled, the wall is the element that is doing the pressing against the cushioning member. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a second cushion member positioned between the main body and the first member and pressing the main body in the first direction” (lines 7-8). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the second cushion member is part of the second member, therefore it is unclear how a component of the second member could be “pressing” the main body (which is also a component of the second member) in any direction, let alone in the first direction. Examiner notes that this limitation appears to concern the cushioning member 350 and main body 324 of Spec. Fig. 6D, where when assembled with the base 265 and member 410, the cushioning member 350 causes an expanding force between member 410 and the main body 324, pressing main body 324 in the first direction (D1 as shown), assuming that element 410 does not move. Based on the example in Spec. Fig. 6D, it is more proper to say that the cushioning member expands when assembled between the first member and the main body of the second member, forcing the first member apart from the main body. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a lower side cushion member contacting the base and supporting the main body from below.” (lines 5-6). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the lower side cushion member is part of the second member, therefore it is unclear how a component of the second member could be “supporting” the main body (which is also a component of the second member) from below. Examiner notes that this limitation appears to concern the cushioning member 352 and main body 324 of Spec. Figs. 6D, 7, where when assembled with the base 265, the cushioning member 352 is interposed between the base 265 and the main body 324. Based on the example in Spec. Figs. 6D, 7, it is more accurate to say that when assembled, the base supports the cushioning member, and/or that the base supports the main body via the cushioning member. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 9 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the rotary joint has a connection port on a side surface to which a piping is connected, and supports a shaft configured to be rotatable about a rotating shaft extending in a vertical direction” (lines 3-4). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear whether the term “a shaft” and “a rotating shaft” refer to the same shaft or different shafts. Examiner notes that the disclosed invention does not appear to disclose a shaft that rotates about a second rotating shaft, and a § 112(a) rejection may be appropriate depending on how Applicant decides to amend this claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 11-12 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “minute gap” (line 7). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “minute” means in this context as the phrase is subjective. The specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of this limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Kobayashi in view of Challis
Claims 1-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230294238 A1 (“Okada”) in view of US 20160061561 A1 (“Challis”).
Okada pertains to a semiconductor polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11) and is in the same field of endeavor. Challis pertains to an assembly for a firearm (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6C) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it relates to fastener assemblies with vibration damping elements for reducing shock and vibrations transmitted between different structural elements.
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses a semiconductor processing device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0048, semiconductor polishing device 100), comprising:
a first rod-shaped member (Fig. 3, left fastener 18 (“first rod-shaped member”));
a first member to which the first rod-shaped member is fixed (Fig. 3, fastener 18 is fixed to first member 6);
a second member in which a first hole is formed (Fig. 3, second member 16 has a first hole for left fastener 18);
and a first elastic member (Fig. 3; ¶ 0045, elastic member 20),
wherein the first rod-shaped member is inserted into the first hole, and the first elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the first rod-shaped member… (Fig. 3, fastener 18 is inserted into the first hole of second member 16 and elastic member 20 surrounds an outer circumferential surface of fastener 18).
Examiner notes that the “is” limitations, including “is fixed” (line 3), “is formed” (line 4), and “is inserted” (line 6), are not interpreted as method steps.
Okada does not explicitly disclose:
wherein…the first elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the first rod-shaped member inside the first hole.
However, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious this claim.
Challis discloses:
a first member to which the first rod-shaped member is fixed (Figs. 4A-B, fastener 204 (“first rod-shaped member”) is fixed to first member 208 (via bushing 100));
wherein the first rod-shaped member is inserted into the first hole, and the first elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the first rod-shaped member inside the first hole (Figs. 4A-B, fastener 204 is inserted into the first hole 216 (including portion of hole near element 234) of second member 200 and elastic member 240 and/or 228 surrounds an outer circumferential surface of fastener 204).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Challis with Okada by substituting the connection assembly of Okada to that taught by Challis, including the use of bushing 100 and the placement of an elastic member in the first hole of the second member. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would have been obvious to try, where Okada and Challis teach two different known connection assemblies, where a first member is connected to a second member, where vibrations from the first member are dampened by the elastic member, with the goal of isolating the second member from these vibrations (Okada ¶¶ 0043-0045, 0053; Challis ¶¶ 0008, 0036). Challis further teaches that its connection assembly “improves rigidity” of the assembly while minimizing shock (Challis ¶ 0036). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have tried these known methods of isolating vibrations in the connection assembly of Okada Fig. 3, and selected the one (e.g., the Challis assembly) that provides the best results for the operating conditions (e.g., provides the highest anti-vibration properties while maintaining the highest rigidity during an actual semiconductor polishing process) so that the acoustic sensor 8 of Okada, which is mounted to the second member 16, would provide the most accurate acoustic readings of vibrations from the polishing pad 10 (and not sense any interfering vibrations from the first member 6) (Okada ¶¶ 0043-0045, 005).
Regarding claim 2, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1. Challis further discloses wherein the second member is not fixed to the first member by a screw (Figs. 4A-B, second member 200 does not have any threads and screw 204 (the same “first rod-shaped member” 204) does not thread into second member 200, and instead only semi-fixes second member 200 to first member 208 (e.g., second member 200 is capable of moving (e.g., in the lateral direction perpendicular to the axis of screw 204) relative to screw 204 and first member 208; see § 112(b) rejections; see Spec. ¶ 0049, Fig. 6A).
Examiner notes that the “is not fixed” limitation is not interpreted as a method step.
The obviousness rationale for claim 2 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1. Okada further discloses a vibration source for vibrating the first member (Figs. 1-4; ¶ 0053, rotating wafer holder 32, rotating support 2, and the polishing table 6 (“first member”) itself, when in operation to polish wafer W, are vibration sources that vibrates the first member 6).
Regarding claim 4, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1. Okada further discloses:
a second rod-shaped member fixed to the first member and extending parallel to the first rod-shaped member (Fig. 3, right fastener 18 (“second rod-shaped member”) is fixed to first member 6 and extends parallel to the left fastener 18 (“first rod-shaped member”));
and a second elastic member (Fig. 3; ¶ 0045, right elastic member 20),
wherein a second hole is formed in the second member (Fig. 3, second member 16 has a second hole for right fastener 18),
the second rod-shaped member is inserted into the second hole, and the second elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the second rod-shaped member… (Fig. 3, fastener 18 is inserted into the second hole of second member 16 and elastic member 20 surrounds an outer circumferential surface of fastener 18).
Examiner notes that the “is” limitations, including “is formed” (line 5) and “is inserted” (line 6), are not interpreted as method steps.
Okada does not explicitly disclose:
wherein…the second elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of the second rod-shaped member inside the second hole.
However, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious this claim.
Challis discloses an elastic member is configured to surround an outer circumferential surface of a rod-shaped member inside a hole (Figs. 4A-B, fastener 204 is inserted into the first hole 216 (including portion of hole near element 234) of second member 200 and elastic member 240 and/or 228 surrounds an outer circumferential surface of fastener 204)
As discussed in claim 1, Okada/Challis combination substitutes the connection assembly of Okada (left connection assembly of Okada Fig. 3) to that taught by Challis. The same substitution for this second connection assembly (the right connection assembly of Okada Fig. 3) would have been obvious for the same reasons discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 4. Okada does not explicitly discloses wherein the first rod-shaped member and the second rod-shaped member extend in a horizontal direction, and the second rod-shaped member is positioned vertically below the first rod-shaped member. However, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious this claim.
As written, claim 5 is very broad in that it does not specify the horizontal and vertical directions with respect to any other object. Further, the limitation of claim 5 is not specified as observed during any particular operation or condition. The Okada/Challis combination makes obvious this claim because Okada shows a first and second rod-shaped member 18 that extend in parallel, where (for example), when the Okada device is being transported or serviced and laying on one side (instead of standing upright as in normal operation (see Okada Fig. 1)), then the first and second rod-shaped member 18 would extend horizontally relative to the ground, where one of the first and second rod-shaped member 18 is positioned vertically below the other.
Regarding claim 6, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1.
Okada discloses a wall restricting, by contacting the second member, movement of the second member in a first direction, which is a direction in which the first rod-shaped member extends and a direction in which the second member moves away from the first member (Fig. 3, wall of the head of fastener 18 that contacts the second member 16 performs the recited function (the “first direction” is downward in Fig. 3)).
Challis discloses a wall restricting, by contacting the second member, movement of the second member in a first direction, which is a direction in which the first rod-shaped member extends and a direction in which the second member moves away from the first member (Figs. 4A-B, wall of the head of fastener 204 that contacts the second member 200 performs the recited function (the “first direction” is upward along the fastener 204’s axis in Fig. 4A)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 6 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1. Okada further discloses:
a polishing device (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0048, semiconductor polishing device 100),
the polishing device comprising:
a polishing table configured to attachably mount a polishing pad for polishing a substrate (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0048), polishing table 6 with mounted polishing pad 10 for polishing a substrate W),
and a top ring for holding the substrate and polishing the substrate while pressing the substrate against the polishing pad (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0020-0048, top ring 32 for holding substrate W and polishing the substrate W by pressing it against the polishing pad 10 during operation).
Kobayashi in view of Challis and Meloni
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230294238 A1 (“Okada”) in view of US 20160061561 A1 (“Challis”) and US 6273792 B1 (“Meloni”).
Okada pertains to a semiconductor polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11). Meloni pertains to a semiconductor polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Challis pertains to an assembly for a firearm (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6C) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it relates to fastener assemblies with vibration damping elements for reducing shock and vibrations transmitted between different structural elements.
Regarding claim 13, the Okada/Challis combination makes obvious the semiconductor processing device of claim 1. Okada and Challis do not explicitly disclose wherein the second member comprises a resin member. However, the Okada/Challis/Meloni combination makes obvious this claim.
Meloni discloses the use of resin for mounting a sensor (Fig. 5; 6:32-41, “sensor 240 is embodied in a plastic package with built-in mounting fixtures”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Meloni with the Okada/Challis combination and make the second member 16 from a resin (i.e., made of plastic) instead of metal (Okada ¶ 0042) because resin/plastic is a common material that could be molded into complex shapes (see Okada Fig. 3) and is suited for the particular application, being sufficiently strong, lightweight, waterproof, and able to transmit vibrations. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 198-99 (CCPA 1960) (“the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”); MPEP § 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 7 in the recited combination as claimed, in particular the limitations:
wherein in the semiconductor processing device, the second member comprises: a main body; a first cushion member contacting the wall and pressing the main body in a second direction opposite to the first direction; and a second cushion member positioned between the main body and the first member and pressing the main body in the first direction.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 8 in the recited combination as claimed, in particular the limitations: a base located at a lower portion of the second member, wherein the second member comprises: a main body; and a lower side cushion member contacting the base and supporting the main body from below.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 10 in the recited combination as claimed, in particular the limitations: the rotary joint has a connection port on a side surface to which a piping is connected, and supports a shaft configured to be rotatable about a rotating shaft extending in a vertical direction, a lower end of the second member is positioned below the connection port, and the second member is a cover that surrounds at least a part around the rotating shaft.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 14 in the recited combination as claimed, in particular the limitations: wherein…the first member comprises: a frame, and a plate nut fixing the first rod-shaped member to the frame.
Claim 9 is allowable for depending from claim 8, and claims 11-12 are allowable for depending from claim 10 (subject to addressing the § 112(b) rejections where appropriate).
Examiner notes that the “is” limitations, including “is formed” (claim 9), “is connected” (claim 10, line 3), are not interpreted as method steps.
Examiner also notes that in claim 11, the “end face” (lines 6, 7, 8) refers to “an end face” (line 5) and not to the “an opposing end face” (line 6).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected. Claim 14 is objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to semiconductor manufacturing device and/or connection assemblies, including ones with vibration damping elements, similar to the Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: October 1, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights