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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-13, 16-17, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 5478435, previously cited) in view of Watanabe (JP 2007-035973, previously cited) and further in view of Noji (US 6059920, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: a platen (12) to support a polishing pad (13) having a polishing surface (top surface shown in fig 2); a source (26, 28) of heated fluid (col 4, lines 48-55), a first passage coupled to the source of heated fluid (see annotated fig below) and configured to receive heated fluid from the source (as described col 5, lines 16-24); a reservoir (21) to hold a polishing liquid (col 4, lines 12-14); a second passage coupled to the reservoir (see annotated fig below) and configured to receive the polishing liquid from the reservoir; a dispenser having a dispenser arm (labeled 35 in fig 2 containing first and second passages and mixing chamber) extending over the platen (fig 2) with one or more apertures (19) suspended over the platen to direct the polishing liquid onto the polishing surface, wherein the source of heated fluid is configured to deliver heated fluid into the polishing liquid to heat the polishing liquid after the polishing liquid leaves the reservoir and before the polishing liquid is dispensed onto the polishing surface (as shown in fig 2; fluids mix at chamber 34 within dispenser 35 after being dispensed from reservoirs 21, 26), wherein the first passage and the second passage extend through the dispenser arm (35) and meet at a mixing chamber (labeled 34 in fig 2) disposed at an end of the dispenser arm (at right end as viewed in fig 2); one or more valves that control a relative flow rate of heated fluid to the polishing liquid (pumps 22, 27 act as fluid control valves; col 4, lines 14-18, lines 48-52); and a controller (“control system” and “processor”) configured to control the one or more valves such that the heated fluid and the polishing liquid are mixed at a particular flow rate ratio (col 4, lines 39-47) and to control the dispenser such that a substantially liquid (col 5, lines 17-20) mixture of heated fluid and polishing liquid is dispensed onto the polishing pad while the polishing pad polishes a substrate (col 4, lines 44-48; dispensing is controlled during operation of the CMP equipment).
Murphy does not teach the source of heated fluid is a steam generator configured to deliver steam. Watanabe teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system comprising a steam generator (21) configured to deliver steam for mixing with slurry ([0034]-[0037]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a steam generator to dispense steam as the heated fluid source in Murphy, as using steam allows control of both temperature and wetness as taught by Watanabe ([0034], [0040]).
While Murphy does not teach a particular flow rate ratio of steam and polishing liquid being between 1:100 and 1:5, Murphy does describe that the concentration can be controlled as desired (col 4, lines 55-61). When “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05 II A.). As Murphy establishes the relative flow rate of the heated fluid and polishing liquid as results effective variables having a direct effect on temperature and dilution of the slurry (col 4, lines 42-48, lines 59-61), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed flow rate ratio through routine experimentation.
Murphy does not explicitly teach the first and second passage extend over the platen. Noji teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system including first and second passages (34, 37; fig 1) coupled to two sources of fluid (32, 35) to be mixed, wherein the first and second passages extend over the platen (11; shown in fig 1) and meet at a mixing chamber (31; col 5, lines 58-61). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second passages of Murphy to extend over the platen and meet at the mixing chamber, as this arrangement taught by Noji allows the slurry to be mixed without staying in the chamber, aggregating or causing clogs as taught by Noji (col 8, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 2, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Watanabe further teaches the steam (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprises water ([0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as describe above. Murphy further teaches the controller is configured to control a steam valve (27) of the one or more valves located between the steam generator (26) and the dispenser (35) to cause the steam to flow through the steam valve into the dispenser at a first rate, and control a polishing liquid valve (22) of the one or more valves located between the polishing liquid reservoir (26) and the dispenser (35; fig 2) to cause polishing liquid to flow into the dispenser at a second rate (col 4, lines 38-61).
Regarding claim 11, Murphy teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: a platen (12) to support a polishing pad (13) having a polishing surface (top surface shown in fig 2); a dispenser assembly including a reservoir (21) to hold a polishing liquid (col 4, lines 12-14) and a dispenser (35) having one or more apertures (19) suspended over the platen to direct the polishing liquid onto the polishing surface (fig 2); a source (26, 28) of heated fluid (col 4, lines 48-55) coupled to the dispenser assembly (shown in fig 2) and configured to deliver heated fluid into the polishing liquid to heat the polishing liquid before the polishing liquid is dispensed onto the polishing surface (as shown in fig 2; fluids mix at chamber 34 within dispenser 35 after being dispensed from reservoirs 21, 26 and before reaching aperture 19) a first passage coupled to the source of heated fluid (see annotated fig below) and configured to receive heated fluid from the source (as described col 5, lines 16-24); a second passage coupled to the reservoir (see annotated fig below) and configured to receive the polishing liquid from the reservoir, wherein the first passage and the second passage extend through the dispenser (35) and meet at a mixing chamber (labeled 34 in fig 2) disposed at an end of the dispenser (at right end as viewed in fig 2)one or more valves that control a relative flow rate of steam to the polishing liquid (pumps 22, 27 act as fluid control valves; col 4, lines 14-18, lines 48-52); and a controller (“control system” and “processor”) configured to control the one or more valves such that the steam and the polishing liquid are mixed at a particular flow rate ratio (col 4, lines 39-47) and to control the dispenser such that a substantially liquid (col 5, lines 17-20) mixture of steam and polishing liquid is dispensed onto the polishing pad while the polishing pad polishes a substrate (col 4, lines 44-48; dispensing is controlled during operation of the CMP equipment).
Murphy does not teach the source of heated fluid is a steam generator configured to deliver steam. Watanabe teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system comprising a steam generator (21) configured to deliver steam for mixing with slurry ([0034]-[0037]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a steam generator to dispense steam as the heated fluid source in Murphy, as using steam allows control of both temperature and wetness as taught by Watanabe ([0034], [0040]).
While Murphy does not teach a particular flow rate ratio of steam and polishing liquid being between 1:100 and 1:5, Murphy does describe that the concentration can be controlled as desired (col 4, lines 55-61). When “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05 II A.). As Murphy establishes the relative flow rate of the heated fluid and polishing liquid as results effective variables having a direct effect on temperature and dilution of the slurry (col 4, lines 42-48, lines 59-61), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed flow rate ratio through routine experimentation.
Murphy does not explicitly teach the first and second passage extend over the platen. Noji teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system including first and second passages (34, 37; fig 1) coupled to two sources of fluid (32, 35) to be mixed, wherein the first and second passages extend over the platen (11; shown in fig 1) and meet at a mixing chamber (31; col 5, lines 58-61). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second passages of Murphy to extend over the platen and meet at the mixing chamber, as this arrangement taught by Noji allows the slurry to be mixed without staying in the chamber, aggregating or causing clogs as taught by Noji (col 8, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 12, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Murphy further teaches the steam generator (included in place of element 26 as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) is coupled to the dispenser and configured to deliver steam into the polishing liquid after the polishing liquid leaves the reservoir (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Murphy teaches a method of temperature control for a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: flowing polishing liquid from a reservoir (21; col 4, lines 14-16), through a first passage (see annotated fig below), and toward a mixing chamber (labeled 34 in fig 2) disposed at an end of a dispenser (labeled 35 in fig 2; see annotated fig below), the first passage extending in the dispenser and toward a platen (12); flowing a heated fluid generated by a heated fluid generator (elements 26, 28; col 4, lines 48-61), through a second passage which extends in the dispenser toward the platen (see annotated fig below) and toward the mixing chamber (34), wherein the first and second passages meet at an end of the dispenser in the mixing chamber (meet at mixing chamber 34 on right end as viewed in fig 2), heating, in the mixing chamber, the polishing liquid by mixing the polishing liquid with the heated liquid generated by the source (elements 26, 28; col 4, lines 48-61), mixing the heated liquid and the polishing liquid at a particular flow rate ratio (col 4, lines 39-47) to form a substantially liquid (col 5, lines 17-20) mixture; dispensing the substantially liquid mixture onto a polishing pad while the polishing pad polishes a substrate (col 4, lines 44-48; dispensing is controlled during operation of the CMP equipment), wherein the heated liquid source is coupled to the dispenser through the mixing chamber (fig 2; coupled at mixing chamber 34).
Murphy does not teach the source of heated fluid is a steam generator configured to deliver steam. Watanabe teaches a chemical mechanical polishing method comprising using a steam generator (21) configured to deliver steam for mixing with slurry ([0034]-[0037]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a steam generator to dispense steam as the heated fluid source in Murphy, as using steam allows control of both temperature and wetness as taught by Watanabe ([0034], [0040]).
While Murphy does not teach a particular flow rate ratio of steam and polishing liquid being between 1:100 and 1:5, Murphy does describe that the concentration can be controlled as desired (col 4, lines 55-61). When “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05 II A.). As Murphy establishes the relative flow rate of the heated fluid and polishing liquid as results effective variables having a direct effect on temperature and dilution of the slurry (col 4, lines 42-48, lines 59-61), it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed flow rate ratio through routine experimentation.
Murphy does not explicitly teach the first and second passage extend over the platen. Noji teaches a chemical mechanical polishing method, which uses a system including first and second passages (34, 37; fig 1) coupled to two sources of fluid (32, 35) to be mixed, wherein the first and second passages extend over the platen (11; shown in fig 1) and meet at a mixing chamber (31; col 5, lines 58-61). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second passages of Murphy to extend over the platen and meet at the mixing chamber, as this arrangement taught by Noji allows the slurry to be mixed without staying in the chamber, aggregating or causing clogs as taught by Noji (col 8, lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 16, Murphy, as modified by Watanabe, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Watanabe further teaches causing the steam generator (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) to heat the steam to 40 to 120 °C prior to being injected into the polishing liquid ([0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Watanabe further teaches the steam (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprises water ([0033-0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Murphy further teaches mixing in the polishing liquid with the steam in the mixing chamber (34; as shown in fig 2).
Regarding claim 21, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Watanabe further teaches the steam (included as described in the rejection of claim 13 above) comprises dry steam ([0040]).
Regarding claim 22, Murphy, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Murphy further teaches, a temperature control system comprising a cooling arm (43; fig 3; as described in col 5 lines 40-43, this arm is added to the embodiment of fig 2) wherein the cooling arm comprises one or more nozzles (45) suspended from the cooling arm (fig 3; suspended out from arm 43), wherein each nozzle is configured to spray a liquid coolant medium (as broadly claimed, as the nozzle is capable of spraying liquid from source 40, it is capable of spraying a coolant medium. Furthermore, as broadly claimed, the liquid dispensed by the nozzle 45 may be considered coolant depending on the ambient temperature; note that the claim does not actively recite a connection to a coolant medium).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Watanabe, and Noji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu (US 2010/0279435, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Murphy, as modified by Watanabe, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Watanabe further teaches causing the steam generator (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) to heat the steam to 40 to 120 °C ([0040]). Murphy in view of Watanabe does not explicitly teach the controller coupled to a power source for the steam generator, although a power source would be necessary for providing the heating taught by Murphy and Watanabe. Additionally, Xu teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system comprising a controller coupled to a power source for generating heat ([0028]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the controller of Murphy to a power source for the steam generator, as this allows control of the temperature as taught by Xu ([0028]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 Sep 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach dispensing a substantially liquid mixture onto the polishing pad. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Murphy’s dispensed mixture is entirely liquid (col 5, lines 17-20). When replacing the heated fluid of Murphy with the steam of Watanabe, the polishing liquid is still liquid. Applicant argues that “Murphy does not disclose that controlling the flow rate of the slurry and diluting agent is important to dispense a substantially-liquid mixture of steam and polishing liquid.” However, the entire purpose of the dispenser of Murphy is to dispense liquid onto the pad for polishing. The dispenser of Murphy, whether using the entirely liquid mixture of Murphy or modified to include steam mixed with polishing liquid as taught by Watanabe, is designed in order to achieve the purpose of dispensing liquid slurry onto the polishing pad. The recitation of a “substantially-liquid mixture” does not differentiate from the prior art. Applicant further argues that Watanabe does not dispense its steam and polishing liquid mixture onto the pad during polishing. However, as detailed above, Murphy teaches supplying a mixture of fluids onto the pad during polishing. Watanabe is provided only to teach that steam can be used as a heated fluid mixed with polishing fluid. Applicant argues that Watanabe is limited to dispensing fluid during conditioning rather than polishing. However, Watanabe also discloses dispensing the slurry mixed with steam uniformly across the polishing pad to prepare the polishing pad and provide uniform polishing characteristics ([0046]). Thus, the dispenser of Watanabe is not purely limited to a conditioning process and is directly involved with dispensing fluid for polishing, similar to the dispenser of Murphy, which dispenses the slurry during polishing.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 112a and 112b.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723