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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CRF 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 03/16/2026, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 19 have been amended, claims 14, 17, and 18 are cancelled, and new claims 26-28 are added. Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, and 21 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22-28 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first top pad having clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad having clamp holders as recited in claim 1 and 9, and the second microchannel being misaligned with all of the first sub grooves as recited in claims 9 and 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
However, in response to the drawing objection made in the final rejection office action dated on 01/15/2026 regarding the second microchannels being misaligned with the sub grooves, Applicant indicates figures 4A-4C illustrate the features. Therefore, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites, inter alia, “the second microchannel … being misaligned with all of the first sub grooves” in lines 20-21, and claim 16 recites, inter alia, “the second microchannel being misaligned with all of the first sub grooves” in lines 19-20, and “polishing the wafer to remove second particles having a second average particles size smaller than a first average particle size of the first particles” in lines 48-19. Fig. 4C shows some of the microchannels are misaligned with the sub grooves, but specification of the instant application is silent regarding the microchannel being misaligned with all of the first sub grooves. Regarding the particle size, specification of the instant application states the removed particles may vary greatly in size and material composition (¶ 0016), but does not state removing first and second particles having different average particle sizes. As set forth above, these limitations are not supported in the originally filed specification. Therefore, the recitation is considered to be New Matter.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 24, and 26 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 9.
Claims 19, 20, 27, and 28 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency from claim 16.
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 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, and 26-28 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.
In claim 6, the phrase “wherein and the second pattern the third pattern comprises spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the second top pad” renders the claim vague and indefinite. The second pattern belongs to the first sub pad, therefore, the second pattern cannot extend to an outer edge of the second top pad. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted the phrase reads “wherein
In claim 9, lines 25-26, the phrase “wherein the radial pattern of the sub grooves is different from the spiral pattern of the first top grooves” renders the claim vague. Does it simply state that the radial pattern and the spiral pattern are different patterns? It is not clear what the recited phrase intends to claim. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted the first top grooves and the sub grooves have different patterns.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 24, and 26 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
In claim 16, lines 48-19, the phrase “polishing the wafer to remove second particles having a second average particles size smaller than a first average particle size of the first particles” renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is not clear how different polishing pads distinguish different average particle size to remove the particles selectively. Specification of the instant application states, in ¶ 0016, the removed particles may vary greatly in size, thus there may be first, second, or third type of removed particles having different sizes. But neither claim nor specification explains how different polishing pad removes particles having different average particles sizes. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted each type of polishing pad can remove particles differently.
Claims 19, 20, 27, and 28 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
In claim 27, the phrase “wherein attaching the second top pad to the second sub pad to form the second polishing pad comprises attaching the second top pad to the first sub pad to form the second polishing pad” renders the claim vague and indefinite because the claim presents two different methods to form the recited second polishing pad. It is impossible to form the second polishing pad by attaching the second top pad to the second sub pad and the first sub pad simultaneously. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted the second polishing pad is formed by attaching the second top pad to the first sub pad.
Claim 28 inherits the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338), in view of Mukai et al. (US 2017/0312886, hereinafter Mukai), Uzoh et al. (US 6413388, Uzoh), Bajaj et al. (KR 20170070210A, hereinafter Bajaj), Wylie et al. (TW I279287B, hereinafter Wylie), Huang et al. (US 2008/0125022, hereinafter Huang), and Kim et al. (KR 101986826B1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchner discloses a polishing pad system (see figs. 3A and 3B), the polishing pad system comprising:
a first top pad (chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) pad 350 or wafer-facing pad layer thereof), the first top pad comprising:
first top grooves (slurry distribution grooves 356 and slurry drain grooves 360) along a top surface (polishing surface 358) of the first top pad; and
microchannels (col. 6:13-20, slurry drain holes 354; note the width value of 0.8 mm, i.e., 800 microns) extending from the first top grooves to a bottom surface (bottom 364) of the first top pad (col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362; see also similarly configured drain holes 308 in Figure 3A);
a first sub pad below and contacting the first top pad (col. 6:22-29 and fig. 3A, where a pad backing 304 is disclosed as being used with fig. 3B’s pad), the first sub pad comprising first sub grooves along a top surface of the first sub pad (col. 6:22-29, where the pad backing is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad).
Kirchner discloses that a similar pad 300 can be bonded to its corresponding pad backing 304 by a suitable adhesive and it is known in the art to replace pads when worn or broken; however, there is no clear description as to the character or nature of this adhesive, i.e., whether it would permit interchangeable pads. Thus, Kirchner is silent as to: the first top pad being detachably attached to the first sub pad to form a first polishing pad; a second top pad, the second top pad comprising second top grooves along a top surface of the second top pad, the second top pad being temporarily attachable to the first sub pad to form a second polishing pad; a second sub pad, the second sub pad comprising second sub grooves along a top surface of the second sub pad, the second top pad being temporarily attachable to the second sub pad to form a third polishing pad.
In an analogous art, Mukai at [0054] discloses a polishing pad that uses a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Because another abrasive layer also can be detached, it is temporarily attachable to the first sub pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kirchner’s adhesive to specifically be a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer in view of the teachings in Mukai so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Due to this modification, the adhesive between the pad and backing of Kirchner is now specific to a detachable adhesive such that the first pad is detachably attached to the first sub pad to form a first polishing pad. Further, the modification results in the ability to replace the first top pad and the first sub pad, when worn or broken, with another/new pad such that this new pad is a second top pad and the second sub pad of the same character and nature (i.e., one with top surface grooves) of the first top and sub pads. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (of which Applicant’s specification is devoid), and thus it would have been obvious further in view of Mukai’s teachings to provide an identical second top and sub pads predictably for replacement purposes when the first top and sub pads have become worn or broken.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai does not disclose explicitly a lowest depth of the first sub grooves from the top surface of the first sub pad is greater than the lowest depth of the first top grooves from the top surface of the first top pad, wherein the first sub grooves are wider than the first top grooves.
However, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited first top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited first sub grooves] may have about 0.2 to 2 mm depth and 0.2 to 8 mm width. Or they can be of any size and arranged in any desired pattern which achieve the objectives of improving control of slurry flow on a pad surface (col. 6:6-21). The slurry drain grooves may have greater width and depth than the slurry distribution grooves within the recited ranges. For example, the slurry drain groove may have 2 mm depth and width while the slurry distribution groove may have 0.2 mm depth and width. Thus, it is possible to make the sub grooves to be wider and deeper than the first top grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pads of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to make the sub grooves to have wider and deeper grooves than the top grooves and one polishing pad to have wider and deeper grooves than another polishing pad in order to control the slurry flow rate for achieving effective polishing outcome (Kirchner col. 6:6-12).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai does not disclose explicitly the microchannels extend from a lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad.
Uzoh teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the microchannels extend from a lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad (col. 14:51-52, a polishing pad may include both through channels and grooves; col. 15:12-14 and fig. 7a, the channel 772 is disposed at a lowest depth of the top groove 770 of a pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad system of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to provide the microchannels at the lowest depth of the top grooves as taught by Uzoh in order to provide optimal fluid dynamics for electrolyte solution to flow (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh does not disclose the microchannels having a conical shape.
Bajaj teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the microchannels having a conical shape (fig. 22 and Bajaj English translation, p. 27:31-36, a polishing pad 2200 includes holes 2232 [correspond to the recited microchannels]. The holes may have a cone shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh to provide the conical shaped microchannels as taught by Bajaj in order to help improving polishing uniformity (Bajaj English translation, p. 3:35-36).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj does not disclose the conical shape has a largest circular cross-section of the conical shape being at the lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad, a smallest circular cross-section of the conical shape being at the bottom surface of the first top pad.
Wylie teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the conical shape has a largest circular cross-section of the conical shape being at the lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad, a smallest circular cross-section of the conical shape being at the bottom surface of the first top pad (fig. 3 and Wylie English translation, p. 6:11-22 and 8:40-43, a polishing pad 104 has microholes. For example, an aperture 152, 156 comprises a frustoconical cross-sectional shape wherein the largest circular cross-section being at the top surface of the pad and a smallest circular cross-section being at the bottom surface of the pad).
Specification ¶ 0040 and fig. 12B of the instant application disclose the microchannel having a conical shape. However, the conical shape is one of various microchannel configurations without preference or distinctive reasons for having a particular configuration. In addition, specification discloses the microchannels serve as conduits to improve movement of the slurry and the removed particles. Therefore, the bottom end of the conical microchannel must be open and it makes the cross-sectional shape of the microchannel to be frustoconical, and Wylie discloses the frustoconical microchannel 152, 156 as one of various microchannel configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to be disposed such that the largest cross-section at the top and the smallest cross-section at the bottom of the pad as taught by Wylie in order to provide fluid communication path for slurry to flow for improved polishing quality.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, and Wylie does not disclose the first top pad is attached to the first sub pad via clamps, wherein the first top pad has clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad has clamp holders.
Huang teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top pad is attached to the first sub pad via clamps, wherein the first top pad has clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad has clamp holders (fig. 2 and ¶ 0022, a polishing apparatus provides a clamping element 110, 120 to hold a polishing pad together. The clamping element surrounds the polishing pad along an outer edge. The clamping element comprises an upper clamper 121 and a lower clamper 122 wherein a shaft-like clamp extends from the lower clamper 122 and the upper clamper 121 has an aperture for receiving the shaft-like clamp. The clamping element of Huang is not for attaching a top pad and a sub pad but for attaching the polishing pad to a polishing head, but it can be applied to the top and sub pads of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to attach the polishing pads together. Examiner notes that specification of the instant application presents the use of clamps is an alternative method to attach the pads instead of using adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad system of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, and Wylie to provide the clamps as taught by Huang. The use of clamps allows polishing pads to be replaced in a short time so that it can improve yield rate of the semiconductor manufacturing (Huang ¶ 0007).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, and Huang does not disclose the first top grooves have a first pattern comprising radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the first top pad, wherein the central circular region of the first pattern is free of the first top grooves.
Kim teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top grooves have a first pattern comprising radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the first top pad, wherein the central circular region of the first pattern is free of the first top grooves (fig. 1 and Kim English translation, p. 3:6-11, a polishing surface of a polishing layer 100 includes grooves 120 in a form of radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the pad, wherein the central circular region is free of grooves 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first top grooves of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, and Huang to provide the first pattern comprising radial lines as taught by Kim in order to flow the slurry so that the polishing efficiency improves (Kim English translation, p. 2:17-26).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the first sub grooves have a second pattern different from the first pattern (Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the first top grooves 356 have a pattern and the sub grooves 325 have a different pattern; col. 6:6-12, the drain grooves may be arranged in any desired pattern to improve control of slurry flow).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim does not disclose explicitly a coverage of the first sub grooves over the top surface of the first sub pad is greater than a coverage of the first top grooves over the top surface of the first top pad
However, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited first top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited first sub grooves] may be of any size and number. Therefore, the top grooves may have required size and number to cover the top groove, and the sub grooves may have required size and number to have a greater coverage of the sub pad than the coverage of the top pad grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad and sub pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to provide the grooves to have the recited coverages in order to improve the slurry flow on a CMP pad surface (Kirchner col. 6:6-12). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 2, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the second top grooves have a third pattern, and wherein the second sub grooves have a fourth pattern (Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B and col. 6:6-12, the first top grooves 356 have a pattern and the sub grooves 325 have another pattern, and the drain grooves may be arranged in any desired pattern to improve control of slurry flow. Claim does not claim the third and the fourth patterns are different from the first and second patterns respectively. As discussed in claim 1, the second top pad has the identical features of the first top pad, and the second sub pad has the identical features of the first sub pad, therefore, the second top pad has grooves with a third pattern, and the second sub pad has grooves with a fourth pattern).
Regarding claim 3, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the first pattern is the same as the third pattern (As discussed in rejection of claim 1, Kirchner as modified by Mukai teaches detaching the first top pad and attaching the second top pad wherein the second top pad’s features are identical to the first top pad’s features. Therefore, the recited first pattern is the same as the recited third pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to duplicate to make the identical second top pad. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). It allows replacing the top pad when the pad becomes worn or broken.
Regarding claim 5, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the first pattern and the fourth pattern comprise radial lines (Kirchner col. 6:6-11 and 6:22-29, Kirchner teaches the top grooves and sub grooves, and the grooves can be arranged in a desired pattern; Kim fig. 1, the grooves can have a pattern comprising radial lines. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the second sub pad can be duplicated (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Then by combining Kim with Kirchner, the first pattern of the first top pad and the fourth pattern of the second sub pad can have the grooves in a form of radial lines).
Regarding claim 22, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first polishing pad is configured for an initial polishing of a wafer, and wherein the second polishing pad is configured for a remaining polishing of the wafer (Mukai ¶ 0054, the abrasive material 1 [equivalent to the first top pad of the first polishing pad] can be detached from the support [equivalent to the sub pad] and replaced with another [equivalent to the second top pad]. The first abrasive material of Mukai can be used for an initial polishing of a wafer, and the second abrasive material can be used for a remaining polishing of the wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to use different polishing pads to perform an initial polishing and a remaining polishing of a wafer. As polishing proceeds abrasiveness of a polishing pad decreases which results in a lower polishing rate, therefore, replacing a first polishing pad with a second polishing pad ensures the effective polishing rate throughout the polishing operation.
Regarding claim 23, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the microchannels being slanted to have an angle less than perpendicular with respect to the top surface of the first top pad, the angle extending downward and outward from a center of the top surface of the top pad (Uzoh, figs. 7e, 7f and col. 15:6-19, a polishing pad has grooves on a surface of the polishing pad and channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] through the polishing pad (fig. 7a). Figs. 7e and 7f show the channels are slanted and extending downward. They can be disposed outward from a center of the top pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to provide the slanted microchannels as taught by Uzoh in order to improve the control of slurry flow on the pad surface.
Regarding claim 25, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly a coverage of the first sub grooves over the top surface of the first sub pad is greater than a coverage of the first top grooves over the top surface of the first top pad.
However, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited sub grooves] may be of any size and number. Therefore, the sub grooves may have required size and number to have a greater coverage of the sub pad than the coverage of the top pad grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first top pad and first sub pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to provide the grooves to have the recited coverages in order to improve the slurry flow on a CMP pad surface (Kirchner col. 6:6-12).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0336236, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 4, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 3, but does not disclose the second pattern comprises concentric circles.
Kirchner teaches the first sub pad comprises grooves (col. 6:22-29), but does not disclose the grooves are formed in concentric circles.
Chen teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the second pattern comprises concentric circles (¶ 0031, a polishing surface may have concentric grooves. Kirchner teaches the grooves can be arranged in any desired pattern (col. 6:6-11). Therefore, the first sub pad can have grooves in concentric circles as taught by Chen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to provide sub pad having concentric grooves as taught by Chen in order to achieve effective polishing operation in consideration of mechanism among substrate, polishing liquid, and polishing surface (Chen ¶ 0032).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Itai et al. (US 8980749, hereinafter Itai).
Regarding claim 6, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim teaches the polishing pad system as in the rejection of claim 5, but does not disclose the third pattern comprises spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the second top pad.
Itai teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the third pattern comprises spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the second top pad (fig. 2, a polishing layer 300 can have grooves in a form of spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge. By combining with Kirchner, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the second top pad can be duplicated and the top grooves can be arranged in a desired pattern. Therefore, the recited third pattern can be spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the second top pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, Wylie, Huang, and Kim to provide the spiral grooves as taught by Itai in order to create dynamic contact between a polishing surface and a wafer (Itai col. 6:46-49).
Claims 9, 11, 12, 15, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338), in view of Mukai et al. (US 2017/0312886, hereinafter Mukai), Uzoh et al. (US 6413388, Uzoh), Huang et al. (US 2008/0125022, hereinafter Huang), Itai et al. (US 8980749, hereinafter Itai), and Kim et al. (KR 101986826B1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Kirchner discloses a chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP) system, the CMP system comprising:
a platen (fig. 2A, platen 208);
a first polishing pad disposed over the platen (fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to the platen 208), the first polishing pad comprising:
a first top pad (fig. 3B, CMP pad 350 or wafer-facing pad layer thereof), the first top pad comprising:
first top grooves (fig. 3B, slurry distribution grooves 356 and slurry drain grooves 360); and
microchannels comprising first microchannels and second microchannels (fig. 3B, slurry drain holes 354. Some of the slurry drain holes can be designated as the first microchannels and another slurry drain holes can be designated as the second microchannels); and
a sub pad (fig. 3A, pad backing 304) below the first top pad, the sub pad comprising sub grooves (fig. 3A, drain grooves 325) (col. 6:22-29, a pad backing 304 is disclosed as being used with fig. 3B’s pad, where the pad backing is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad);
the first microchannels extending from the first top grooves to the sub grooves and being aligned with the sub grooves (fig. 3A-3B and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 308 [correspond to the recited microchannels] on the slurry drain grooves 360 extend to the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]. The slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] align with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350; annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below also shows the microchannels being aligned with the pad backing slurry drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]), the second microchannels extending from the first top grooves to the sub pad (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below, microchannels 354 from the slurry drain groove 360 [correspond to the recited top groove] extend to the sub pad),
a dispenser disposed above the first polishing pad, the dispenser configured to dispense a slurry (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, a conduit 206 [corresponds to the recited dispenser] is disposed above the polishing pad 220, and applies slurry to the polishing surface of the polishing pad); and
a head disposed above the first polishing pad, the head being laterally displaced from the dispenser (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, a carrier 202 [corresponds to the recited head] is disposed above the polishing pad 220 and laterally from the conduit 206),
wherein the first microchannels being aligned with the sub grooves (fig. 3B and col. 5:41-52, the slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] align with the slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited first top grooves] near a top surface of the top pad and align with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350; annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below also shows the microchannels being aligned with the pad backing slurry drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]).
But Kirchner does not disclose the first top pad and the sub pad being detachably attached to one another, a second top pad, the second top pad configured to be detachably attachable to the sub pad to form a second polishing pad, the second top pad comprising second top grooves; the first polishing pad configured to remove a first portion of excess metal from over an interconnect, and the second polishing pad configured to remove a remaining portion of the excess metal from over the interconnect.
Note that the second pad's features are identical to the first pad's features, other than the first top grooves being wider and deeper than the second top grooves. In the analogous art, Mukai at [0054] discloses a polishing pad that uses a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Therefore, Mukai teaches the first top pad and the sub pad being detachably attached to one another (because the abrasive layer can be detached from a sub pad), a second top pad, the second top pad configured to be attachable to the sub pad to form a second polishing pad, the second top pad comprising second top grooves (as discussed above for the first polishing pad, the second polishing pad has the identical features of the first polishing pad, other than the first top grooves being wider and deeper than the second top grooves); the first polishing pad configured to remove a first portion of excess metal from over an interconnect, and the second polishing pad configured to remove a remaining portion of the excess metal from over the interconnect (because the abrasive material 1 [equivalent to the first top pad of the first polishing pad] can be detached from the support [equivalent to the sub pad] and replaced with another [equivalent to the second top pad]. The first abrasive material of Mukai can be used for an initial polishing of a wafer, and the second abrasive material can be used for a remaining polishing of the wafer. Specification of the instant application discloses, in ¶ 0002, an interconnect is a metal portion of a wafer). In addition, because an abrasive layer can be detached, the first and second top pads are temporarily attachable to the sub pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kirchner’s adhesive to specifically be a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer in view of the teachings in Mukai so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Due to this modification, the adhesive between the pad and backing of Kirchner is now specific to a detachable adhesive such that the first pad is interchangeably attached to the sub pad to form a first polishing pad. Further, the modification results in the ability to replace the first top pad, when worn or broken, with another/new pad such that this new pad is a second top pad of the same character and nature (i.e., one with top surface grooves) of the first top pad. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (of which Applicant’s specification is devoid), and thus it would have been obvious further in view of Mukai’s teachings to provide an identical second top pad predictably for replacement purposes when the first top pad has become worn or broken without having to replace the entire pad construct (including the sub pad/backing).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to use different polishing pads to perform an initial polishing and a remaining polishing of a wafer. As polishing proceeds abrasiveness of a polishing pad decreases which results in a lower polishing rate, therefore, replacing a first polishing pad with a second polishing pad ensures the effective polishing rate throughout the polishing operation.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai does not disclose explicitly the sub grooves being wider and deeper than the first top grooves, and the first top grooves being wider and deeper than the second top grooves. However, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited sub grooves] may have about 0.2 to 2 mm depth and 0.2 to 8 mm width. Or they can be of any size and arranged in any desired pattern which achieve the objectives of improving control of slurry flow on a pad surface (col. 6:6-21). The slurry drain grooves may have greater width and depth than the slurry distribution grooves within the recited ranges. For example, the slurry drain groove may have 2 mm depth and width while the slurry distribution groove may have 0.2 mm depth and width. Thus, it is possible to make the sub grooves to be wider and deeper than the first top grooves. In addition, any polishing pad can be the first polishing pad or the second polishing pad as discussed in claim 1, it is possible to make one polishing pad to have wider and deeper grooves than another polishing pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pads of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to make the sub grooves to have wider and deeper grooves than the top grooves and one polishing pad to have wider and deeper grooves than another polishing pad in order to control the slurry flow rate for achieving effective polishing outcome (Kirchner col. 6:6-12).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai also does not disclose a first coverage of the first top grooves along an upper surface of the first top pad ranging from 1% to 20%; and a second coverage of the sub grooves along an upper surface of the sub pad being greater than the first coverage.
As discussed similarly above, however, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited sub grooves] may be of any size and number. Therefore, the top grooves may have required size and number to cover 1 to 20% of the top groove, and the sub grooves may have required size and number to have a greater coverage of the sub pad than the coverage of the top pad grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad and sub pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to provide the grooves to have the recited coverages in order to improve the slurry flow on a CMP pad surface (Kirchner col. 6:6-12). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai still does not disclose the first microchannels and the second microchannels have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape with a larger base adjacent to the first top grooves and a smaller base adjacent to a lower surface of the first top pad, and a first diameter of the microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of the microchannels at the sub grooves.
Uzoh teaches, in the analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the first microchannels and the second microchannels have a trapezoidal cross-sectional shape with a larger base adjacent to the first top grooves and a smaller base adjacent to a lower surface of the first top pad (See fig. 7C depicting microchannels with trapezoidal shape with larger base adjacent the top surface and smaller base closer to bottom surface, i.e. adjacent the sub grooves), and a first diameter of the microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of the microchannels at the sub grooves (col. 14:51-52, a polishing pad may include both through channels and grooves; fig. 7c, the channel may have a greater diameter at top surface of the pad and smaller diameter at bottom surface of the pad. Therefore, Uzoh teaches the first diameter of the microchannel can be greater than the second diameter of the microchannel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to provide the microchannels having the recited trapezoidal shape and diameters as taught by Uzoh in order to provide optimal fluid dynamics for electrolyte solution to flow (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh does not disclose the first top pad and the sub pad being detachably attached to one another via clamps, wherein the first top pad has clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad has clamp holders.
Huang teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top pad and the sub pad being detachably attached to one another via clamps, wherein the first top pad has clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad has clamp holders (fig. 2 and ¶ 0022, a polishing apparatus provides a clamping element 110, 120 to hold a polishing pad together. The clamping element surrounds the polishing pad along an outer edge. The clamping element comprises an upper clamper 121 and a lower clamper 122 wherein a shaft-like clamp extends from the lower clamper 122 and the upper clamper 121 has an aperture for receiving the shaft-like clamp. The clamping element of Huang is not for attaching a top pad and a sub pad but for attaching the polishing pad to a polishing head, but it can be applied to the top and sub pads of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to attach the polishing pads together. Examiner notes that specification of the instant application presents the use of clamps is an alternative method to attach the pads instead of using adhesive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad system of Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh to provide the clamps as taught by Huang. The use of clamps allows polishing pads to be replaced in a short time so that it can improve yield rate of the semiconductor manufacturing (Huang ¶ 0007).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Huang does not disclose the first top grooves arranged in a spiral pattern extending from a center region to an outer edge of the first top pad.
Itai teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top grooves arranged in a spiral pattern extending from a center region to an outer edge of the first top pad (fig. 2, a polishing layer 300 can have grooves in a form of spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Huang to provide the spiral grooves as taught by Itai in order to create dynamic contact between a polishing surface and a wafer (Itai col. 6:46-49).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, and Itai does not disclose the sub grooves arranged in a radial pattern extending from a center region to an outer edge of the sub pad.
Kim teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the sub grooves arranged in a radial pattern extending from a center region to an outer edge of the sub pad (fig. 1 and Kim English translation, p. 3:6-11, a polishing surface of a polishing layer 100 includes grooves 120 in a form of radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the pad, wherein the central circular region is free of grooves 110. By combining with Kirchner, Kirchner teaches the top grooves and sub grooves, and the grooves can be arranged in a desired pattern (col. 6:6-11 and 6:22-29). Thus, the sub grooves can have the recited radial pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first top grooves of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, and Itai to provide the sub grooves comprising radial lines as taught by Kim in order to flow the slurry so that the polishing efficiency improves (Kim English translation, p. 2:17-26).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the radial pattern of the sub grooves is different from the spiral pattern of the first top grooves (the radial pattern and the spiral pattern are different patterns; Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the first top grooves 356 have a circular pattern and the sub grooves 325 have another pattern. The top grooves and the sub grooves can have different patterns. See 112(b) rejection).
Finally, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim does not disclose the second microchannel being misaligned with all of the sub grooves.
Examiner notes that specification and figures of the instant application do not present explicitly the microchannel being misaligned with all of the sub grooves. However, Kirchner teaches, in fig. 3A, some of the microchannels can be misaligned with the sub grooves. Because Kirchner teaches the microchannels being misaligned with the sub grooves, those microchannels aligned with the sub grooves can be shifted to be misaligned with the sub grooves in order to control the slurry flow. It has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
1157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kirchner Fig. 3A
Regarding claim 11, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the CMP system as in the rejection of claim 9, wherein the first microchannels align with the first top grooves at first locations near a top surface of the first top pad, and the first microchannels align with the sub grooves at second locations near a bottom surface of the first top pad (Kirchner fig. 3B and col. 5:41-52, the slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] align with the slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited first top grooves] near a top surface of the top pad [corresponds to the recited first locations] and align with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350 [corresponds to the recited second locations]; annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above also shows the microchannels being aligned with the pad backing slurry drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]).
Regarding claim 12, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the CMP system as in the rejection of claim 9, wherein in a top-down view the first top grooves comprise a first pattern, the sub grooves comprise a second pattern, and the first microchannels comprise a third pattern, and wherein the third pattern aligns with the first pattern and the second pattern (Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the first top grooves 356 have a circular pattern and the sub grooves 325 have another pattern. The slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] are represented by O’s in fig. 3B, but they are evenly distributed on the surface of the top pad and form a pattern. Examiner notes claim does not define what the firs, second, and third patterns are. Regardless of the patterns, the slurry drain holes 354 (308 in fig. 3A) align with the first top grooves 356 and the sub grooves 325).
Regarding claim 15, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the CMP system as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein the first pattern comprises one or more spirals extending from a center region to an outer edge of the first top pad (Itai, fig. 2, a polishing layer 300 can have grooves in a form of spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge), and wherein the second pattern comprises perpendicular grid lines (Mukai fig. 1A and ¶ 0048, the abrasive layer 20 is divided by grooves 23. The grooves 23 arranged in perpendicular grid line shape. As discussed in claim 1, Kirchner teaches the first top grooves 356 have a pattern and the sub grooves 325 have a different pattern (figs. 3A and 3B), and the drain grooves may be arranged in any desired pattern to improve control of slurry flow (col. 6:6-12). By combining with Kirchner, the sub grooves can have the grid pattern as taught by Mukai).
Regarding claim 26, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the CMP system as in the rejection of claim 11, wherein the microchannels are slanted to have an angle less than normal to the upper surface of the first top pad such that in a top-down plan view the first locations are not aligned with the second locations (Uzoh, figs. 7e, 7f and col. 15:6-19, a polishing pad has grooves on a surface of the polishing pad and channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] through the polishing pad (fig. 7a). Figs. 7e and 7f show the channels are slanted and extending downward. Thus, the recited first locations near the top surface of the fist top pad and the recited second locations near a bottom surface of the first top pad are not aligned. By combining Kirchner, the microchannels of Kirchner can be slanted).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim to provide the slanted microchannels as taught by Uzoh in order to improve the control of slurry flow on the pad surface.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim, as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Chen.
Regarding claim 24, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim teaches the CMP system as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose explicitly a pattern of the first top grooves of the first top pad is different from a pattern of the second top grooves of the second top pad.
Chen teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a pattern of the first top grooves of the first top pad is different from a pattern of the second top grooves of the second top pad (figs. 2 ,4 and ¶ 0031, a polishing surface may have concentric grooves, spiral grooves, radial grooves, cross-hatching, or any geometric pattern. As discussed in claim 1, any polishing pad can be the first polishing pad or the second polishing pad, therefore, any different grooves can be the first top grooves and the second top grooves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Huang, Itai, and Kim to provide the top pads having different groove patterns as taught by Chen in order to achieve effective polishing operation in consideration of mechanism among substrate, polishing liquid, and polishing surface (Chen ¶ 0032).
Claims 16, 19, 20, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338), in view of Kelber (US 3,447,267), Mukai et al. (US 2017/0312886, hereinafter Mukai), Chiou et al. (US 2006/0079154, hereinafter Chiou), Wylie et al. (TW I279287B, hereinafter Wylie), Ko et al. (US 2014/0209239, hereinafter Ko), Itai et al. (US 8980749, hereinafter Itai), and Kim et al. (KR 101986826B1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 16, Kirchner discloses a method, comprising:
attaching a first top pad to a first sub pad to form a first polishing pad (fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, a pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad] is attached to a pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited sub pad]. Therefore, there is a method of attaching the top pad to the sub pad to form a polishing pad), the first polishing pad comprising:
first top grooves on the first top pad (fig. 3B, slurry distribution grooves 356 and slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the top grooves] are disposed on the polishing surface 358 of the polishing pad);
first sub grooves on the first sub pad (fig. 3A and col. 6:22-29, where the pad backing [corresponds to the recited first sub pad] is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited first sub grooves] in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad); and
a first microchannel extending through the first top pad (col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 [corresponds to the microchannel] are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362; see also similarly configured drain holes 308 in annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above);
a second microchannel extending through the first top pad from a second of the first top grooves to the first sub pad, the second microchannel being misaligned with the first sub grooves (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, one drain holes 308 [corresponds to the recited microchannel] on the slurry drain grooves 360 extends through the polishing pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad] to the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the sub pad]. Some drain holes are misaligned with the pad backing slurry drain groove 325 [corresponds to the recited sub groove]);
attaching the first polishing pad to a platen (see fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to a platen 208. Therefore, there is a step of attaching the polishing pad to the platen);
dispensing a first slurry over the first polishing pad (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, slurry is applied to the pad 220);
rotating the first polishing pad (col. 3:10-12, the pad rotates during polishing), wherein some of the first slurry: first, runs along the first top groove; second, runs through the first microchannel; third, runs along the first sub groove; and fourth, runs off an outer edge of the first polishing pad (col. 5:1-21 and 5:53-6:5, slurry runs through the slurry distribution grooves 356 [corresponds to the recited top groove]. The slurry is removed from the surface of the top pad via the drain holes 354 [corresponds to the microchannel]. The slurry drain grooves 325 [corresponds to the recited sub groove] allows the slurry to flow towards an edge 368 of the polishing pad and off); and
rotating a wafer disposed above the first polishing pad; lowering the wafer to contact the first slurry; polishing the wafer to remove first particles from the wafer; raising the wafer away from the first polishing pad (Kirchner, fig. 2A and col. 2:55-67, A wafer polishing operation includes applying slurry to the surface of the polishing pad, rotating the wafer 220, and moving a carrier 202 which holds the wafer 220 toward the polishing pad 220. The listed actions are done before completing the polishing operation and before detaching the polishing pad from the platen. Then the wafer 220 containing carrier 202 is raised from the polishing pad 220), but does not disclose explicitly the method includes pausing rotation of the wafer and the first polishing pad.
Kelber teaches, in an analogous polishing field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the polishing method includes pausing rotation of the wafer and the first polishing pad (col. 2:69-3:10, after grinding, a rotation of a male mandrel 10 [equivalent to the platen] is stopped and attached grinding pads are changed. Therefore, Kelber teaches the polishing operation includes pausing rotation of the devices to replace the polishing pad. The previously used grinding pad is detached from the device to be replaced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Kirchner to provide the method of pausing rotation of the polishing pad as taught by Kelber in order to remove the worn-out grinding pad safely from the device.
Although Kirchner as modified by Kelber does not disclose explicitly the method of detaching the first polishing pad from the platen and detaching the first top pad from the first sub pad, Kirchner teaches the method of attaching the first polishing pad to the platen and attaching the first top pad to the first sub pad as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kirchner to detach the first polishing pad from the platen and detach the first top pad from the fist sub pad in order to perform service or replacement of the top pad.
Kirchner as modified by Kelber still does not disclose the method of attaching a second top pad to a second sub pad to form a second polishing pad.
Mukai teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the method of attaching a second top pad to a second sub pad to form a second polishing pad (¶ 0054, the abrasive material 1 can be detached from the support [equivalent to the sub pad] and the abrasive material and the support can be replaced. In other words, the second top pad is attached to the second sub pad to form a second polishing pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Kelber to provide the second polishing pad as taught by Mukai in order to replace a worn out first polishing pad so that effective polishing rate is maintained throughout the polishing operation.
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, and Mukai further teaches attaching the second polishing pad to the platen (Kirchner, fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to a platen 208. As discussed similarly in claim 1, the second pad's features are identical to the first pad's features. Therefore, Kirchner teaches a step of attaching the second polishing pad to the platen, and the same method can be applied to the second polishing pad as explained below);
dispensing a second slurry over the second polishing pad; rotating the second polishing pad; lowering the wafer to contact the second slurry; and polishing the wafer to remove second particles having a second average particle size smaller than a first average particle size of the first particles (Kirchner, fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to a platen 208; col. 1:24-33, 2:55-3:12, Kirchner teaches the wafer polishing operation, for removing material from the wafer surface, incudes lowering the carrier to the polishing pad, applying slurry to the surface of the polishing pad, rotating the polishing pad by rotating the platen, and rotating the wafer 220; Mukai ¶ 0054 a second abrasive material [equivalent to the top pad of the second polishing pad] is replaced with a first abrasive material in the middle of the polishing operation. Therefore, Kirchner and Mukai teach the recited method after attaching the second polishing pad to the platen. As discussed in 112(b) rejection above, the different polishing pad can remove different particles, therefore, the second polishing pad can remove the recited second particles), but does not disclose the second slurry having a different composition than the first slurry.
Chiou teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the second slurry having a different composition than the first slurry (abstract and ¶ 0035, polishing of a wafer is performed on a first platen and then on a second platen wherein slurry used on the second platen is different from slurry used on the first platen. Chiou teaches different slurries can be used for different polishing settings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad system of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, and Mukai to provide the different slurries as taught by Chiou in order to produce optimal polishing outcome for different polishing settings.
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, and Chiou does not disclose explicitly the first sub groove being deeper and wider than the first top groove. However, Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited sub grooves] may have about 0.2 to 2 mm depth and 0.2 to 8 mm width. Or they can be of any size and arranged in any desired pattern which achieve the objectives of improving control of slurry flow on a pad surface (col. 6:6-21). Because the slurry drain grooves may have greater width and depth than the slurry distribution grooves within the recited ranges. For example, the slurry drain groove may have 2 mm depth and width while the slurry distribution groove may have 0.2 mm depth and width. Thus, it is possible to make the first sub groove to be deeper and wider than the first top groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pads of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, and Chiou to make the first sub groove to have deeper and wider groove than the first top groove in order to control the slurry flow rate for achieving effective polishing outcome (Kirchner col. 6:6-12).
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, and Chiou also does not disclose in a side view cross-section the first microchannel comprising opposing sidewalls extending from a first groove of the first top grooves to a second groove of the first sub grooves, the opposing sidewalls being non-parallel to one another.
Wylie teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, in a side view cross-section the first microchannel comprising opposing sidewalls extending from a first groove of the first top grooves to a second groove of the first sub grooves, the opposing sidewalls being non-parallel to one another (fig. 3 and Wylie English translation, p. 6:11-22 and 8:40-43, a polishing pad 104 has microholes. For example, an aperture 152, 156 comprises a trapezoidal shape, wherein opposing sidewalls are non-parallel to one another; Kirchner fig. 3A-3B and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, Kirchner teaches the microchannel extending from the top groove to the sub groove, thus the microholes of Wylie can extend from the first groove of the first top grooves to a second groove of the first sub grooves by combining with Kirchner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannel of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, and Chiou to provide the microchannel as recited as taught by Wylie in order to provide fluid communication path for slurry to flow for improved polishing quality.
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, and Wylie does not disclose the first top pad and the first sub pad being are attached with a clamp.
Ko teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the first top pad and the first sub pad are attached with a clamp (¶ 0050, a pad holder 434 holds a pad 444 by using a clamp. Although Ko does not disclose the top pad and the sub pad being attached, Ko teaches the clamp can be utilized to attach the polishing pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad system of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, and Wylie to provide the clamp as taught by Ko so that the polishing pad can be replaced periodically as the pad becomes worn (Ko ¶ 0050). Examiner notes that specification of the instant application discloses the top pad and the sub pad can be attached by an adhesive (¶ 0021) which is the same attachment method of Mukai as discussed above. The attachment by the clamps is an alternative method, and Ko teaches this attachment method.
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, and Ko does not disclose the first top grooves having a first pattern comprising spirals extending from a first circular central region to a first outer edge of the first top pad, the first circular central region being free of the spirals.
Itai teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top grooves having a first pattern comprising spirals extending from a first circular central region to a first outer edge of the first top pad, the first circular central region being free of the spirals (fig. 2, a polishing layer 300 can have grooves in a form of spirals extending from a central circular region to an outer edge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, and Ko to provide the spiral grooves as taught by Itai in order to create dynamic contact between a polishing surface and a wafer (Itai col. 6:46-49).
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, and Itai does not disclose the first sub grooves having a second pattern comprising radial lines extending from a second circular central region to a second outer edge of the first sub pad, the second circular central region being free of the radial lines.
Kim teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first sub grooves having a second pattern comprising radial lines extending from a second circular central region to a second outer edge of the first sub pad, the second circular central region being free of the radial lines (fig. 1 and Kim English translation, p. 3:6-11, a polishing surface of a polishing layer 100 includes grooves 120 in a form of radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the pad, wherein the central circular region is free of grooves 110. Kirchner teaches the first top grooves 356 have a pattern and the sub grooves 325 have a different pattern, and the drain grooves may be arranged in any desired pattern to improve control of slurry flow (figs. 3A and 3B and col. 6:6-12). Therefore, by combining with Kirchner, the first sub grooves can have the pattern comprising radial lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first top grooves of Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, and Itai to provide the groove pattern comprising radial lines as taught by Kim in order to flow the slurry so that the polishing efficiency improves (Kim English translation, p. 2:17-26).
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim does not disclose the second microchannel being misaligned with all of the first sub grooves.
Examiner notes that specification and figures of the instant application do not present explicitly the microchannel being misaligned with all of the sub grooves. However, Kirchner teaches, in fig. 3A, some of the microchannels can be misaligned with the sub grooves. Because Kirchner teaches the microchannels being misaligned with the sub grooves, those microchannels aligned with the sub grooves can be shifted to be misaligned with the sub grooves in order to control the slurry flow. It has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim also does not disclose during the polishing, the first particles are drawn toward the first polishing pad due to gravity based on the higher specific gravity of the first particles compared to the first slurry, and wherein the first particles flow downward through the first microchannel from the first top grooves to the first sub grooves.
However, the recited claim limitation is an intended use. Because Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim teaches the recited first polishing pad, the first slurry, the first microchannel, the first top grooves, and the first sub grooves, the first particles can be drawn to the first polishing pad and flown downward through the first microchannel.
Regarding claim 19, Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the second polishing pad comprises: a second top groove on the second top pad; a third microchannel extending through the second top pad; and a second sub groove on the second sub pad (Mukai ¶ 0054, Mukai teaches a second polishing pad can be used by replacing a first polishing pad in the middle of the polishing operation wherein the second polishing pad can be identical to the first polishing pad as discussed in claim 1 above; Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the slurry distribution grooves 356 [correspond to the recited second top groove] are disposed on the polishing surface 358 of the top pad 350; Kirchner col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the third microchannel] are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362 by extending through the top pad, and the drain grooves 325 [corresponds to the recited second sub groove] are disposed on the second sub pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner to provide the second polishing pad as taught by Mukai in order to replace a worn out first polishing pad so that effective polishing rate is maintained throughout the polishing operation.
Regarding claim 20, Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 19, wherein during the polishing the wafer to remove the second particles, some of the second particles: first, run along the second top groove; second, run through the second microchannel; third, run along the second sub groove; and fourth, run off an outer edge of the second polishing pad (Mukai ¶ 0054, Mukai teaches a second polishing pad can be used by replacing a first polishing pad in the middle of the polishing operation wherein the second polishing pad can be identical to the first polishing pad as discussed in claim 1 above; Kirchner, col. 1:24-32, removed material from the wafer surface due to polishing is loaded to the slurry; Kirchner, col. 5:1-21 and 5:53-6:5, suspended particle containing slurry runs through the slurry distribution grooves 356 [corresponds to the recited top groove]. The slurry is removed from the surface of the top pad via the drain holes 354 [corresponds to the microchannel]. The slurry drain grooves 325 [corresponds to the recited sub groove] allows the slurry to flow towards an edge 368 of the polishing pad and off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Kirchner to provide the method of removing second particles as taught by Mukai. Replacing a worn out first polishing pad and polishing with a second polishing pad ensures the effective polishing rate is maintained throughout the polishing operation.
Regarding claim 27, Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein attaching the second top pad to the second sub pad to form the second polishing pad comprises attaching the second top pad to the first sub pad to form the second polishing pad (Mukai at [0054] discloses a polishing pad that uses a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Because another abrasive layer also can be detached, it is temporarily attachable to the first sub pad. Therefore, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Kirchner as modified by Mukai teaches the second top pad being temporarily attachable to the first sub pad to form the second polishing pad. See 112(b) rejection).
Regarding claim 28, Kirchner as modified by Kelber, Mukai, Chiou, Wylie, Ko, Itai, and Kim teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 27, wherein after polishing the wafer to remove the second particles: forming a third polishing pad comprising a third top pad and a third sub pad; and polishing the wafer with the third polishing pad to remove third particles (as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 27, Kirchner as modified by Mukai teaches the second top pad being temporarily attachable to the second sub pad, therefore, a third top pad can be temporarily attachable to a third sub pad to form the recited third polishing pad. Removing the second particles by the second polishing pad and removing the third particles by the third polishing pad are intended use. Because Kirchner and Mukai teach forming the second polishing pad and the third polishing pad, they can remove the second particles and the third particles respectively. Examiner notes that claim does not define what the second and third particles are. They can be the same particles).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kirchner does not disclose or teach the differing dimensions of grooves between the top pad and sub pad. Applicant asserts the cited prior arts do not teach the claim limitations, for example, “a lowest depth of the first sub grooves … is greater than the lowest depth of the first top grooves … wherein the first sub grooves are wider than the first top grooves”, “a first diameter of the microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of the microchannels at the sub grooves, the sub grooves being wider and deeper than the first top grooves”, and “the first sub grooves being deeper and wider than the first top grooves”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification of the instant application do not describe the particular dimensions as recited in claims 1, 9, and 16. Instead, specification states “the desired top pad 160 may have wider or deeper top grooves 165 and/or wider microchannels 175 and sub grooves 185 to ensure the removed particles have sufficient space in the conduit system to be effectively removed from the CMP system 100” (¶ 0022). The same paragraph also states “In another embodiment, … the top grooves 165 may be narrower or shallower and the microchannels 175 and the sub grooves 185 may be narrower”. The top grooves may be wider, deeper, narrower, or shallower than the sub grooves. Then, the sub grooves may be narrower, shallower, wider, or deeper than the top grooves, respectively. In other words, the same grooves may be in any dimension or pattern. On the other hand, specification does not state regarding the wider microchannels.
Applicant argues Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and the recited specific embodiments are particular and non-obvious. As Examiner mentioned above, specification does not present the particular dimensions of a first top pad, a first sub pad, a second top pad, a second sub pad, a first microchannel, and a second microchannel. It only presents possible dimensions in order to ensure the removed particles can be effectively removed from the CMP system. Kirchner teaches the same rationale. The grooves and microchannels may be any size and number and arranged in any desired pattern to achieve slurry flow control and drainage in the CMP system (col. 6:6-12).
Applicant asserts Examiner replies on impermissible hindsight to maintain rejections.
However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145(X)(A).
Here, specification of the instant application does not present why the particularly recited dimensions are necessary, but specification and claims imply there can be various combination of dimensions are possible. And the number of combinations would be enormous, and it is not reasonable to ask the prior art must disclose every single possible combination. Kirchner teaches such dimension combination is achievable.
Applicant argues Kirchner does not teach the amended claim limitations of claims 9 and 16 that the second microchannel(s) being misaligned with all of the (first) sub grooves. Examiner notes that specification of the instant application is silent regarding the microchannel being misaligned with the sub grooves. But fig. 4C shows some, not all, of the microchannels are misaligned with the sub grooves.
Because Kirchner teaches the microchannels being misaligned with the sub grooves as shown in fig. 3A, those microchannels aligned with the sub grooves can be shifted to be misaligned with the sub grooves in order to control the slurry flow. It has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Examiner notes that this misalignment feature is claimed without disclosure in the specification because the instant invention allows combinations of various features without specifying why the specific feature/dimension is necessary.
Applicant argues the cited prior arts do not teach the amended claim limitations of claim 16 that the first particles are drawn toward the first polishing pad due to its high specific gravity. However, this is an intended use. If the particles having high specific gravity are drawn toward the first polishing pad, the particles removed by the polishing pad of Kirchner and Mukai would be drawn to the polishing pad the same way.
Applicant also argues the cited prior arts do not teach the amended claim limitations of claim 16 that the polishing removes second particles having a second average particle size smaller than a first average particle size of the first particles.
This is another intended use of the polishing pad, and specification of the instant application does not explain how the polishing pad removes the particles based on the average particle size. Specification only states the removes particles may vary greatly in size (¶ 0016). Because Kirchner and Mukai teaches the recited polishing pad, it would remove the particles as recited.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang, Kim, and Itai.
Applicant argues Ko does not teach the amended claim limitations that the pads are attached via clamps wherein the first top pad has clamps along a lower outer edge and the first sub pad has clamp holders. Examiner acknowledges that Ko simply teaches a pad can be attached by clamps. However, Huang teaches a polishing pad can be attached to a polishing apparatus by utilizing clamps surrounding the pad wherein one clamp comprises a shaft and the other clamp comprises a shaft receiver which works as the recited clamp holder. The clamps of Huang can be applied to attach the top and sub pads.
Applicant further argues Kirchner and Mukai do not teach the amended claim limitations regarding the clamp because they teach use of adhesive to attach the pads. However, specification of the instant application presents the top and sub pads are attached with an adhesive, screws, or other means. In addition to or instead of the adhesive, the pads can be attached with the clamps (¶ 0021).
Applicant also asserts there is no reason to combine Ko with Kirchner and Mukai because it would compromise their systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mukai teaches the top pad is interchangeable and the pads of Kirchner or Mukai attached by the adhesive can be modified to be attached by clamps instead of the adhesive as taught by Huang. That is the same as the teaching of instant application that the pads can be attached by clamps instead of or in addition to the adhesives.
Regarding the argument that Ko’s clamp do not attach the top pad and the sub pad, Ko teaches (Huang also teaches), a polishing pad can be attached to a polishing apparatus via the clamp, therefore, the teaching can be applied so that the top pad can be attached to the sub pad via the clamp.
There is no impermissible hindsight in combining Ko with Kirchner and Mukai because Ko clearly teaches an attachment method of the polishing pad to be used for polishing of a substrate.
Regarding the amended claim limitations of grooves arranged in a spiral pattern extending from a center region to an outer edge of the pad, Itai discloses the recited groove pattern (see Itai fig. 2).
Regarding the amended claim limitation of grooves comprising radial lines extending from a central circular region to an outer edge of the pad wherein the central region of the pattern is free of the grooves, Kim discloses the recited groove pattern (see Kim fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights