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
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.
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek (6,203,412, previously presented) in view of Sun (US 2004/0072445, previously presented), Lindquist (US 6,413,403, previously presented), Kistler (6,875,322), and Adams (5,664,990, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Quek teaches A system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a platen (Ref. 12, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 29]) within a chamber (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 30]), the chamber comprising a sidewall (Fig. 1 shows a sidewall of the chamber to hold slurry);
a polishing head (Ref. 25, Fig. 1);
a first slurry input (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43]), wherein the first slurry input is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 1) through a first pump (Ref. 30, Fig. 1); and
a first slurry output (Ref. 28, left side, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43], Fig. 1 shows the inlet and output on the left side of the platen opposite to the polishing head (25)).
Quek teaches a slurry line connected to an inlet port and first pump (30, fig. 1), but fails to explicitly teach the chamber inlet port connected to a slurry tank. Sun teaches a CMP device that delivers slurry to a platen and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Sun teaches an inlet port (Ref. 170, Fig. 1) connected to a slurry tank (Ref. 133, Fig. 1, [0052]) through a first pump (Ref. 142, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inlet port and slurry line, as taught Quek, to have a slurry tank connected to an inlet port, as taught by Sun, to further hold any excess dirty slurry before filtration to remove agglomerated material and have the pump effectively transfer slurry from the tank to the inlet ([0052]).
Quek as modified further fails to explicitly teach wherein both the first slurry output and the first slurry input are located on opposite side of the platen in a longitudinal direction than the polishing head. Lindquist teaches a CMP polishing device with a fluid delivery system and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Lindquist teaches wherein both a first slurry input (Ref. 408&410, Fig. 4a) and the first slurry output (Ref.412, Fig. 4A) are located on an opposite side of a platen (Ref. 420, Fig. 4A) in a longitudinal direction (Examiner interprets the longitudinal direction as a vertical direction) than the polishing head (Ref. 440, Fig. 4a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first slurry input and the slurry output, as taught by Quek as modified, to be located on opposite side of the platen in a longitudinal direction than the polishing head, as taught by Lindquist, to reduce the length of travel of the fluid thereby allowing the fluid to be supplied at greater pressure and flow rates to the surface of the platan ([Col 2, Line 63-67]).
Quek as modified further fails to explicitly teach the first slurry input attached to the sidewall and the slurry reservoir covering the polishing pad with a liquid. Kistler teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Kistler teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) located within the chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3) with a sidewall (Fig. 3), the slurry reservoir covering a polishing pad (Ref. 30, Fig. 3) and a slurry input attached to the sidewall (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first slurry input, as taught by Quek as modified, to be on the sidewall of the chamber, as taught by Kistler, by rearrangement of parts since such a modification would result in the predictable outcome of delivering a slurry to the chamber. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slurry reservoir, as taught by Quek as modified, to covering a polishing pad, as taught by Kistler, to minimize shear stresses at the surface of the substrate during polishing and to allow polishing of more fragile porous substrates ([Col. 3, Lines 55-58]).
Quek as modified further teaches wherein the slurry is used to polish the substrate ([Col. 2, Line 9-15] recites the slurry is used to polish the wafer) but fails to explicitly teach an abrasive located throughout the liquid. Adams teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Adams further teaches a system (Fig. 2) with a chamber (Ref. 35, Fig. 2), a first slurry input (Ref. 33, Fig. 2), a first slurry output (Ref. 41, Fig. 2), a liquid (Ref. 31, Fig. 2) within the chamber, wherein an abrasive is located throughout the liquid (Fig. 1, [Col. 1, lines 49-58] describes having a slurry with abrasives). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liquid slurry, as taught by Quek as modified, to have abrasives located throughout the liquid, as taught by Adams, to help polish and planarize a substrate ([Col. 1, Lines 49-50]).
Regarding Claim 5, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Quek further teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 26, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 40]) within the chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the platen is immersed within the slurry reservoir (Fig. 1 shows the platen immersed within the slurry reservoir).
Regarding Claim 6, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Quek further teaches a restoration system (Ref. 32&30, Fig. 1) connected to both the first slurry input/output and the second slurry input/output (Fig. 1).
Claims 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek (6,203,412, previously presented) in view of Watanabe (6,086,454, previously presented), Kistler (6,875,322), and Adams (5,664,990, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 7, Quek teaches A system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 30]);
a first port (Ref. 28, left side, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43]) and a second port (Ref. 28, right side, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43]) both located at a first level (Fig. 1) within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 1 shows both the ports in within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber in a radial direction);
a platen (Ref. 12, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 29]) located at a second level (Fig. 1) within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 1); and
a polishing head (Ref. 18, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 33]) located at a third level (Fig. 1) within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 1), the second level being located between the first level and the third level (Fig. 1), and
an liquid reservoir (Ref. 26, Fig. 1) covering the polishing head (Fig. 1).
Quek fails to explicitly teach wherein the first port is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port. Watanabe teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Watanabe teaches a chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Ref. 22c, Fig. 4) with a first port (Ref. 22c1, Fig. 4) and a second port (Ref. 22c2, Fig. 4) at the same level wherein the first port is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 4, Ref. 24a). Watanabe teaches the input port is to provide different chemicals to assist in the polishing ([Col. 5, Line 40-46]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first port, as taught by Quek, to be an inlet port, as taught by Watanabe, by a simple substitution of a known element to produce the same result of moving slurry into a CMP chamber and to allow different chemicals to be refilled and assist in polishing and prevent any spill or splash of chemical thereby reducing waste.
Quek teaches the platan is rotatable (Ref. 15, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a support structure attached to the platen, the chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port being level with the support structure. Watanabe further teaches a support structure (Fig. 2 annotated below) attached to the platen (Ref. 3B), the port (Ref. 3E, Fig. 2) being level with the support structure (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the platan, with the support structure, as taught by Watanabe, as a simple substitution of a known element to produce the predictable result of rotating the platen ([Abstract & Col. 3, Line 16]).
Quek as modified further fails to explicitly teach the reservoir covering the polishing head. Kistler teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Kistler teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) located within the chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3), the slurry reservoir covering a polishing head (Ref. 30, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slurry reservoir, as taught by Quek as modified, to covering a polishing pad, as taught by Kistler, to minimize shear stresses at the surface of the substrate during polishing and to allow polishing of more fragile porous substrates ([Col. 3, Lines 55-58]).
Quek as modified further teaches wherein the slurry is used to polish the substrate ([Col. 2, Line 9-15] recites the slurry is used to polish the wafer) but fails to explicitly teach an abrasive reservoir. Adams teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Adams further teaches a system (Fig. 2) with a chamber (Ref. 35, Fig. 2), a first slurry input (Ref. 33, Fig. 2), a first slurry output (Ref. 41, Fig. 2), a liquid (Ref. 31, Fig. 2) within the chamber, wherein an abrasive is located throughout the liquid in a reservoir (Fig. 1, [Col. 1, lines 49-58] describes having a slurry with abrasives). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liquid slurry, as taught by Quek as modified, to have abrasives located throughout the liquid, as taught by Adams, to help polish and planarize a substrate ([Col. 1, Lines 49-50]).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Quek further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 32]) attached to the platen (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 32-33]).
Regarding Claim 9, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Quek further teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 26, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 40]) located within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 1), wherein each of the first port, the second port, and the polishing pad are immersed within the slurry reservoir (Fig. 1; inherently capable of covering the polishing pad due to fluid level and/or flow rate from outlet 22).
Regarding Claim 10, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and teaches the polishing pad is surrounded by a slurry reservoir and has a slurry supply line dispensing slurry onto the polishing pad [Col. 2, Line 34-35]) and teaches the depth of the slurry to be greater than 1mm ([Col. 2, Line 44-46]). Therefore, based on the teachings of Quek it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the polishing pad is immersed to a distance of at least 3 mm and about 7 mm based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles, to best suit the intended function to ensure the proper polishing of the substrate. Further, similar to claims 9 and 18 discussed above, the depth of immersion of the pad would be dependent upon the level of the fluid within the reservoir, flow rate from nozzle 22 and/or the thickness of the polishing pad, which is known to vary in the art, wherein it would have been obvious that the fluid would be capable of being filled to a level that would immerse the polishing pad to a depth within the claimed range of about 3-7mm.
Regarding Claim 12, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further teaches a filter (Ref. 32, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 54]) connected to the second port (fig. 1); and a restoration system (Ref. 32&30, Fig. 1).
Claims 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek (6,203,412, previously presented) in view of Watanabe (6,086,454, previously presented), Kistler (6,875,322) and Adams (5,664,990, previously presented)..
Regarding Claim 15, Quek teaches A system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (Ref. 14, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 30]) comprising a slurry port (Ref. 28, left side, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43]);
a platen (Ref. 12, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 29]) housed within the chamber (Fig. 1); and
a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 32]) housed within the chamber (Fig. 1),
wherein an upper surface of the polishing pad (See annotated Fig. 1 below) is located above a bottom surface of the chamber (Fig. 1 annotated below) and wherein a delivery orifice of the slurry port (Ref. 24, Fig. 1) opens to the platen (Fig. 1), the delivery orifice being a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 1); and
a slurry reservoir (Ref. 26, Fig. 1) located within the chamber (14, Fig. 1), the slurry reservoir covering the polishing pad ([Col. 2, Line 40-49] describes the slurry reservoir flushing over the top of the polishing pad and collecting in the chamber surrounding the polishing pad and would be capable of covering the polishing pad due to fluid level and/or flow rate from outlet 22).
Quek fails to explicitly teach a delivery orifice of the slurry intake is located below the upper surface of the polishing pad. Watanabe teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Watanabe teaches a chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Ref. 22c, Fig. 4) with a slurry input (Ref. 22c1, Fig. 4) at the bottom of the polishing chamber (Fig. 4). Watanabe teaches the input port is to provide different chemicals to assist in the polishing ([Col. 5, Line 40-46]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the delivery orifice, as taught by Quek, to be located at the bottom of the chamber below the upper surface of the polishing pad, as taught by Watanabe, by a simple substitution of a known element to produce the same result of moving slurry into a CMP chamber to allow different chemicals to be refilled and assist in polishing and to reduce loss of slurry by preventing any spill or splash of chemicals outside of the intended area.
Quek as modified further fails to explicitly teach the slurry reservoir covering the polishing pad. Kistler teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Kistler teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) located within the chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3), the slurry reservoir covering a polishing pad (Ref. 30, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slurry reservoir, as taught by Quek as modified, to covering a polishing pad, as taught by Kistler, to minimize shear stresses at the surface of the substrate during polishing and to allow polishing of more fragile porous substrates ([Col. 3, Lines 55-58]).
Quek as modified further teaches wherein the slurry is used to polish the substrate ([Col. 2, Line 9-15] recites the slurry is used to polish the wafer) but fails to explicitly teach a solution with abrasive. Adams teaches a CMP device with slurry and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor. Adams further teaches a system (Fig. 2) with a chamber (Ref. 35, Fig. 2), a first slurry input (Ref. 33, Fig. 2), a first slurry output (Ref. 41, Fig. 2), a liquid (Ref. 31, Fig. 2) within the chamber, and a solution with abrasive (Fig. 1, [Col. 1, lines 49-58] describes having a slurry with abrasives). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liquid slurry, as taught by Quek as modified, to have abrasives located throughout the liquid, as taught by Adams, to help polish and planarize a substrate ([Col. 1, Lines 49-50]).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Quek teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches Quek a filter (Ref. 32, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 54]) connected to an output of the chamber (Ref. 28, right side, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 43]); and a restoration system (Ref. 32&30, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Quek teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches a polishing head (Ref. 25, Fig. 1) located over the slurry reservoir (Fig. 1 shows the head over the reservoir).
Claims 2-3, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek as modified as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Tolles (2005/0048880, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Quek teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a level sensor located within the chamber. Tolles teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tolles further teaches a fluid level sensor (Ref. 5130, Fig. 20, [0197]) located within the chamber (Fig. 20 shows the level sensor tip at least partially within the chamber). Tolles teaches a benefit thereof to sense if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added ([0197]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber, as taught by Quek, with a level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added.
Regarding Claim 3, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Quek further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 32]) located adjacent to the platen (Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of adjacent is near, Fig. 1). Tolles teaches the level sensor extending downward over the edge of the chamber and would be partially above the polishing pad (Fig. 20, [0197]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to be located at least partially above a polishing pad, as taught by Quek.
Regarding Claim 13, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a level sensor located within the chamber. Tolles teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tolles further teaches a level sensor (Ref. 5130, Fig. 20, [0197]) located within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 20 shows the level sensor tip at least partially within the chamber). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber, as taught by Quek, with a level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added.
Regarding Claim 14, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Quek further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Line 32]) over the platen (Fig. 1). Tolles teaches the level sensor extending downward over the edge of the chamber and would be partially above the polishing pad (Fig. 20, [0197]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to be located at least partially above a polishing pad, as taught by Quek.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek as modified as applied to claims 15 above, and further in view of Tolles (2005/0048880, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 16, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a level sensor located within the chamber. Tolles teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tolles further teaches a level sensor (Ref. 5130, Fig. 20, [0197]) located within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 20 shows the level sensor tip at least partially within the chamber). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the chamber, as taught by Quek, with a level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added.
Regarding Claim 17, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Tolles further teaches the level sensor extending downward over the edge of the chamber and would be partially above the polishing pad (Fig. 20, [0197]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the level sensor, as taught by Tolles, to be located at least partially above a polishing pad, as taught by Quek.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek as modified as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Sato (6,722,962, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 4, Quek teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and teaches the platen is rotatable (Ref. 15, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a motor to physically move the platen from the bottom of the chamber to a second distance away from the bottom of the chamber. Sato teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sato teaches the concept of the platen with a polishing pad that is rotated and lowered ([Col. 32, Line 51-60], Fig. 5) via a motor (Ref. 74, fig. 1, [Col. 8, Line 49-62]) to contact a wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platan, as taught by Quek, to have a motor to physically move the platen from the bottom of the chamber to a second distance away from the bottom of the chamber, as taught by Sato, as a simple substitution of a known element to physically move the platen and ensure the wafer is contacted by the polishing pad but not over polished.
Regarding Claim 11, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and teaches the platen is rotatable (Ref. 15, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a motor connected to the platen to move the platen relative to a bottom surface of the chemical mechanical polishing chamber. Sato teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sato teaches the concept of the platen with a polishing pad that is rotated and lowered ([Col. 32, Line 51-60], Fig. 5) via a motor (Ref. 74, fig. 1, [Col. 8, Line 49-62]) to contact a wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platan, as taught by Quek, to have a motor connected to the platen to move the platen relative to a bottom surface of the chemical mechanical polishing chamber, as taught by Sato, as a simple substitution of a known element to physically move the platen and ensure the wafer is not over polished.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quek as modified as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sato (6,722,962, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 19, Quek as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and teaches the platen is rotatable (Ref. 15, Fig. 1) but fails to explicitly teach a motor located to move the polishing pad in a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a rotational motion of the polishing pad. Sato teaches a system for CMP polisher with a reservoir of slurry and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sato teaches the concept of the platen with a polishing pad that is rotated and lowered ([Col. 32, Line 51-60], Fig. 5) via a motor (Ref. 74, fig. 1, [Col. 8, Line 49-62]) to contact a wafer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the platan, as taught by Quek, to have a motor located to move the polishing pad in a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a rotational motion of the polishing pad, as taught by Sato, as a simple substitution of a known element to physically move the platen and ensure the wafer is not over polished.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 November, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, applicant has amended the claims thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the art. Examiner has applied Adam and Kistler to the 35 USC 103 rejection above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant’s arguments in regards to that it would not have been obvious to teach Kistler with abrasives in the slurry has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Kistler to merely teach that slurry can cover the full polishing head but does not teach the replacement of the slurry of the prior art. Examiner notes the base reference of Quek teaches wherein the slurry is used to polish the substrate ([Col. 2, Line 9-15] recites the slurry is used to polish the wafer). Adams has been applied to the 35 USC 103 rejections above to teach a liquid solution with abrasive (Fig. 1, [Col. 1, lines 49-58] describes having a slurry with abrasives). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the liquid slurry, as taught by Quek as modified, to have abrasives located throughout the liquid, as taught by Adams, to help polish and planarize a substrate ([Col. 1, Lines 49-50]).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723