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 CFR 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 June, 2026 has been entered.
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, 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler (6,875,322, previously presented) in view of Sun (US 2004/0072445, previously presented) and Easter (6,368,190).
Regarding claim 1, Kistler teaches A system (Ref. 120, Fig. 3) comprising:
a platen (Ref. 136, Fig. 3) within a chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3), the chamber comprising a sidewall (Fig. 3 shows a sidewall of the chamber to hold slurry);
a polishing head (Ref. 128, Fig. 3);
a first slurry input (Fig. 3 annotated below) attached to the sidewall (Fig. 3), wherein the first slurry input is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 3);
a first slurry output (Fig. 3 annotated below) attached to the sidewall opposite the first slurry input (Fig. 3), wherein both the first slurry input and the first slurry output are located on an opposite side of the platen in a longitudinal direction than the polishing head (Fig. 3) and wherein the first slurry input and the first slurry output are at a same level within the chamber located below an upper surface of the polishing head (Fig. 3 shows the input and outputs are at the same level below the polishing head (128)); and
a liquid (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) within the chamber and covering the polishing head (Fig. 3).
Kistler teaches the slurry line (Ref. 144, Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the chamber inlet port connected to a slurry tank through a first pump. 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 Kistler, 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]).
Kistler as modified teaches the liquid is an electrolyte bath but fails to explicitly teach wherein an abrasive is located throughout the liquid. Easter teaches a CMP polishing apparatus with an electrolyte solution and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Easter teaches an electrolyte liquid with abrasive throughout the liquid ([Col. 5, Lines 56-58]). Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte liquid, as taught by Kistler as modified, to have abrasive throughout the electrolyte liquid, as taught by Easter, to help facilitate leveling process ([Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) within the chamber (Fig. 3 shows a slurry reservoir within the chamber), wherein the platen is immersed within the slurry reservoir (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a restoration system (Ref. 146,148&150, Fig. 3) connected to both the first slurry input and the first slurry output (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Kistler teaches A system (Ref. 120, Fig. 3), comprising:
a chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3);
a first port (See annotated Fig. 3 below) and a second port (See annotated Fig. 3 below) both located at a first level within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 3), wherein the first port is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port located on a sidewall (Fig. 3 shows a sidewall of the chamber to hold slurry and where the first port is located);
and wherein the second port is also located on the sidewall on an opposite side of the chemical mechanical polishing chamber from the first port (Fig. 3);
a platen (Ref. 134, Fig. 3) located at a second level within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 3);
a support structure (Ref. 136, Fig. 3) attached to the platen (Fig. 3), the chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port being level with the support structure (Fig. 3);
a polishing head (Ref. 128, Fig. 3) located at a third level within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 3), the second level being located between the first level and the third level (Fig. 3 annotated below), wherein the second port is located on a first side of the platen (fig. 3 shows the second port is located on a right side of the platen) and the polishing head is located on a second side of the platen opposite the first side (fig. 3 shows the polishing head (128) is located on a right side of the platen, if applicant intends for the polishing head to be entirely on one side such a limitation is not required); and
a reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) covering the polishing head (Fig. 3).
Kistler teaches the slurry line (Ref. 144, Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the first port connected to a slurry tank through a first pump. 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 first 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 Kistler, 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]).
Kistler as modified teaches the liquid is an electrolyte bath but fails to explicitly teach wherein an abrasive reservoir. Easter teaches a CMP polishing apparatus with an electrolyte solution and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Easter teaches an electrolyte liquid with abrasive throughout the liquid ([Col. 5, Lines 56-58]). Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reservoir, as taught by Kistler as modified, to be an abrasive reservoir, as taught by Easter, to help facilitate leveling process ([Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
PNG
media_image2.png
551
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 3) attached to the platen (Fig. 3 the polishing pad would be attached to the platen (134) when in brought into contact with one another).
Regarding Claim 9, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) located within the chemical mechanical polishing chamber (Fig. 3 shows a slurry reservoir within the chamber), wherein each of the first port, the second port, and the polishing pad are immersed within the slurry reservoir (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Kistler further teaches the polishing pad is immersed to a distance (Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach a distance of at least 3 mm and about 7mm. As seen in Fig. 3, the polishing pad is immersed a distance in the liquid and as such the depth of immersion is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the depth of immersion changes the size of the workpiece immersed within the liquid. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kistler device to have a depth of immersion within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kristler by making the distance of immersion to be at least 3mm and about 7mm a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 12, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a filter (Ref. 148, Fig. 3) connected to the second port (Fig. 3); and a restoration system (Ref. 146&150, Fig. 3).
Claims 2-3, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler as modified as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Tolles (2005/0048880, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Kistler 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 Kistler as modified, 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, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 3) located adjacent to the platen (Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of adjacent is near, Fig. 3). 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 Kistler as modified, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added ([0197]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kistler 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 Kistler as modified, 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 ([0197]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a polishing pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 3) over the platen (136, Fig. 3). 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 Kistler as modified, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added ([0197]).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler as modified as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Sato (6,722,962, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 4, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, 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 Kistler as modified, 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, to allow for further range of motion the platan to ensure the substrate is contacted by the polishing pad and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of the platan contacting the polishing head.
Regarding Claim 11, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7, as described above, 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 Kistler as modified, 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, to allow for further range of motion the platan to ensure the substrate is contacted by the polishing pad and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of the platan contacting the polishing head.
Claims 15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler (6,875,322, previously presented) in view of Sun (US 2004/0072445, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 15, Kistler teaches A system (Ref. 120, Fig. 3), comprising:
a chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3) comprising a slurry intake (Fig. 3 annotated below) to introduce slurry to the chamber (Fig. 3) and a slurry output (Fig. 3 annotated below) to remove slurry from the chamber (Fig. 3), and wherein the slurry intake and the slurry output are attached to opposite sides of a sidewall of the chamber (Fig. 3 shows a sidewall of the chamber to hold slurry);
a platen (Ref. 136, Fig. 3) housed within the chamber (Fig. 3);
a polishing pad (Ref. 130, Fig. 3) housed within the chamber (122, Fig. 3), wherein an upper surface of the polishing pad (Fig. 3 top surface) is located above a bottom surface of the chamber (Fig. 3, bottom wall of the chamber (122)) and wherein a delivery orifice of the slurry intake (Fig. 3 below) opens to the platen (Fig. 3 shows the delivery orifice is open to the platen) and is located below the upper surface of the polishing pad (Fig. 3), the delivery orifice being a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 3), and wherein the slurry output is located on an opposite side of the platen in a longitudinal direction than a polishing head (Fig. 3); and
a slurry reservoir (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) located within the chamber (Fig. 3 shows a slurry reservoir within the chamber), the slurry reservoir covering the polishing pad with a solution of abrasives (Fig. 3).
Kistler teaches the slurry line (Ref. 144, Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach the slurry intake connected to a slurry tank through a first pump. 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 slurry intake (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 Kistler, 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]).
PNG
media_image3.png
551
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a filter (Ref. 148, Fig. 3) connected to an output of the chamber (fig. 3); and a restoration system (Ref. 146&150, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 21, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and Kistler further teaches a polishing head (Ref. 128, Fig. 3) located over the slurry reservoir (Fig. 3 shows the polishing head is over at least the bottom portion of the reservoir, if applicant intended for the polishing head to be out and above the slurry reservoir such a limitation is not required).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler as modified as applied to claims 15 above, and further in view of Tolles (2005/0048880, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 16, Kistler 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 Kistler as modified, 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, Kistler 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 Kistler as modified, to provide further functionality of sensing if the slurry level becomes too low additional slurry can be added.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kistler as modified as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sato (6,722,962, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 19, Kistler as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and 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 Kistler as modified, 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, to allow for further range of motion the platan to ensure the substrate is contacted by the polishing pad and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of the platan contacting the polishing head.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06 March, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and 15 under 35 USC 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 Kistler and Sun. Kistler teaches a system (Ref. 120, Fig. 3) comprising:
a platen (Ref. 136, Fig. 3) within a chamber (Ref. 122, Fig. 3), the chamber comprising a sidewall (Fig. 3 shows a sidewall of the chamber to hold slurry);
a polishing head (Ref. 128, Fig. 3);
a first slurry input (Fig. 3 annotated above) attached to the sidewall (Fig. 3), wherein the first slurry input is a chemical mechanical polishing chamber inlet port (Fig. 3);
a first slurry output (Fig. 3 annotated below) attached to the sidewall opposite the first slurry input (Fig. 3), wherein both the first slurry input and the first slurry output are located on an opposite side of the platen in a longitudinal direction than the polishing head (Fig. 3) and wherein the first slurry input and the first slurry output are at a same level within the chamber located below an upper surface of the polishing head (Fig. 3 shows the input and outputs are at the same level below the polishing head (128)); and
a liquid (Ref. 124, Fig. 3) within the chamber and covering the polishing head (Fig. 3).
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 Kistler, 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]).
Easter teaches an electrolyte liquid with abrasive throughout the liquid ([Col. 5, Lines 56-58]). Therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrolyte liquid, as taught by Kistler as modified, to have abrasive throughout the electrolyte liquid, as taught by Easter, to help facilitate leveling process ([Col. 5, Lines 61-63]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights