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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 05/27/2026, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-4, 10, and 14 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 5-9, 11-13, 15, and 16 are pending and under examination.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad et al. (KR 20080005573A, hereinafter Prasad), in view of Fung et al. (US 2016/0101500, hereinafter Fung ‘500).
Regarding claim 1, Prasad discloses a polishing pad (fig. 2 and Prasad English translation, p. 5:5-7, polishing pad 10) comprising:
a polishing layer having a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (fig. 2, a polishing layer 12 has a top surface [corresponds to the recited first major surface] and a bottom surface [corresponds to the recited second major surface]); and
a subpad having less than 20 volume % of voids based on the total volume of the subpad (Prasad English translation, p. 4:22-29, layers of the polishing pad, including the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad], can have a void volume of less than 10%. The less than 10% of the void volume is included in the recited less than 20% volume % of voids), having a first major surface and a second major surface opposite the first major surface (fig. 2, a bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] has a top surface [corresponds to the recited first major surface] and a bottom surface [corresponds to the recited second major surface]),
wherein the subpad is coupled directly to the polishing layer without an additional layer (Prasad English translation, p. 5:7-10 and fig. 2, in one embodiment, the polishing layer 12 is coupled directly to the bottom layer 14 without an adhesive layer); and
wherein the subpad is optically transparent, meaning that at least 80% of light between 400 nm and 750 nm is transmitted through the subpad (Prasad English translation, p. 4:30-39, one or all layers of the polishing pad may be light transmissive. Thus, the subpad may be optically transparent. The optical transmittance can be at least 30% wavelengths of light between 200 nm and 10,000 nm. The at least 30% means equal to or more than 30% (effectively 30-100%). The increased light transmittance will provide more accurate readings from the sensors, thus teaching that the percent amount of light transmittance is a result effective variable. The disclosed specific example of wavelengths of light between 200 nm and 1,000 nm of Prasad overlap the claimed wavelengths between 400 nm and 750 nm. Since the claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’s range, a prima facie case of obviousness exits. MPEP 2144.05),
wherein the polishing pad does not include an aperture for an end point detection window (Prasad English translation, p. 6:43-7:3 and fig. 6, in another embodiment, a polishing layer may include a light transmissive region 32 comprising a first transmissive layer 34 and a second transmissive layer 36. The light transmissive region 32 is optically transparent when used with an endpoint detection system. Thus, the polishing layer without an aperture is used for the endpoint detection), but does not disclose explicitly at least 50% of the first major surface of the polishing layer, based on the total surface area of the first major surface of the polishing layer, is optically transparent; and at least 50% of the first major surface of the subpad overlays an optically transparent region of the polishing layer such that the polishing pad is optically transparent through the overlaid region in a direction normal to the working surface.
However, Prasad teaches one or all layers of the polishing pad may be light transmissive. Therefore, the polishing layer 12 and the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] may be optically transparent (Prasad English translation, p. 4:30-32 and fig. 2). Prasad also teaches that in another embodiment, there can be a portion of the polishing layer 12 (first transmission region 34) and a portion of the bottom layer 14 (second transmissive region 36) can be optically transparent (Prasad English translation, p. 6:43-7:3 and fig. 6) without describing exactly how much portions are optically transparent. The arrangement allows the polishing pad is optically transparent through the overlaid region in a direction normal to the working surface.
Specification of the instant application presents the optically transparent first major surface of the polishing layer can be at least 10%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, or at least 99% of the surface area (p. 6:23-27), and at least 10%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 99%, or at least 100% of the optically transparent region of the subpad may overlay an optically transparent region of the polishing pad (p. 9:14-17). The ranges can be from about 10% to about 100%. Therefore, it appears there is no particularity regarding how much areas of the first major surfaces of the polishing layer and the subpad need to be optically transparent. The percentage of the optically transparent region in the polishing pad would affect accuracy of an end point detection during a polishing operation.
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 polishing layer and the subpad of Prasad to provide at least 50% of the first major surface of the polishing layer to be optically transparent and at least 50% of the first major surface of the subpad to overlay the optically transparent region of the polishing layer. The percentage of the optically transparent region in the polishing pad would affect accuracy of an end point detection during a polishing operation so that appropriate optically transparent surface area percentage can be determined in order to accurately detect an end point of the polishing operation. 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. (MPEP 2144.05(II))
Prasad does not disclose the subpad comprises an oligomeric acrylate or methacrylate resin.
Fung ‘500 teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, the subpad comprises an oligomeric acrylate or methacrylate resin (¶ 0035 and fig. 2, a polishing pad 250 comprises a polishing region 270 [corresponds to the recited polishing layer] and a base region 260 [corresponds to the recited subpad]. The polishing pad 250 can be formed of acrylate oligomers. The base region 260 and the polishing region 270 can be formed of the same material).
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 Prasad to provide the subpad comprising oligomeric acrylate as taught by Fung ‘500 in order to provide mechanical properties suitable for effective polishing of a substrate as discussed in paragraph 35 of Fung.
Regarding claim 9, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in claim 1, wherein the subpad comprises cavities or voids (Prasad English translation, p. 4:22-29, layers of the polishing pad, including the bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad], can have voids).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kobayashi et al. (WO 2006095643A1, hereinafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 5, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a Young's Modulus of between 4000 kPa and 100 kPa.
Kobayashi teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) field of endeavor, the subpad has a Young's Modulus of between 4000 kPa and 100 kPa (fig. 1(A) and Kobayashi English translation, ¶ 0028, elastic modulus of backing 12 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of polishing pad 10 can be greater than 300 psi. 300 psi is 2068 kPa. See the screen capture below).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the subpad having the claimed Young’s Modulus as taught by Kobayashi in order to maintain flatness and uniformity so that a polishing layer can perform a polishing operation adequately (Kobayashi English translation, ¶ 0030).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fung et al. (CN 108369904A, hereinafter Fung ‘904).
Regarding claim 6, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a Shore A hardness of between 5 and 70.
Fung ‘904 teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, he subpad has a Shore A hardness of between 5 and 70 (fig. 5 and Fung ‘904 English translation, p. 10:17-24, back support layer 506 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad 500 may have less than 80 Shore A durometer hardness value).
In applying the range less than 80 (effectively 0-80) Shore A hardness taught by Fung, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to try the values across that range, including the recited 5-70 Shore A. 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 polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the subpad having the claimed hardness as taught by Fung in order to achieve the desired compressibility for the polishing pad for its optimal polishing operation (Fung ‘904 English translation, p. 10:21-24).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lehuu et al. (WO 2015153597A1, cited on 08/23/2021 IDS, hereinafter Lehuu).
Regarding claim 7, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad is elastically deformable.
Lehuu teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the subpad is elastically deformable (fig. 10A and p. 33:26-28, polishing pad 50 comprises a polishing layer 10 and a subpad 30; p. 34:3-4, the subpad 30 may be a single layer of a relatively compressible material, e.g., an elastomeric foam).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the elastically deformable subpad as taught by Lehuu so that the subpad can provide flexibility to the polishing layer to be able to increase a contact area between the polishing layer and a substrate during a polishing operation. It helps achieving a good polishing rate.
Regarding claim 15, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches that the polishing layer comprises pores and asperities (Prasad English translation, abstract, a skilled artisan would understand that the porous subpad 14 would comprises pores and asperities).
Assuming arguendo, that the subpad would not comprises pores and asperities, Lehuu teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the polishing layer comprises pores and asperities (abstract and p. 8:13-15, working surface (corresponds to the recited polishing layer) of a polishing pad comprises asperities and pores).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the polishing layer comprising pores and asperities as taught by Lehuu in order to achieve the desired topography in the pad surface. Well-engineered topography of the polishing pad produces a high polishing rate and does not require pad conditioning so that the polishing pad has less stops for conditioning out of the polishing operation (Lehuu, p. 8:13-23).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kato et al. (CN 101678527A, hereinafter Kato).
Regarding claim 8, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a relaxation modulus of less than 40%.
Specification of the instant application discloses the relaxation modulus represents a time-dependent measure of viscoelastic property (p. 10:27-28).
Kato teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor the subpad has the time-dependent viscoelasticity (Kato English translation, p. 15:1-4, a backing layer [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad has dynamic compression viscoelasticity).
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 subpad of Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the subpad having the time-dependent viscoelasticity as taught by Kato. The viscoelasticity provides a cushion for the polishing pad allows excellent flatness of a polishing surface and evenness of the film thickness after polishing (Kato English translation, abstract).
Although Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 and Kato still does not disclose the relaxation modulus of the subpad is less than 40%, Kato discloses cushioning helps achieving the excellent flatness of a polished surface, evenness of the film thickness after polishing, and a high polishing rate, thus teaching that the amount of cushioning (equivalent to relaxation modulus) is a result effective variable. 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 subpad of Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 and Kato to provide the relaxation modulus to be less than 40% in order to achieve the effects stated above. 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Myers et al. (US 2006/0286906, hereinafter Myers).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad has a compressibility at 25% deflection of between 25 and 1000 kPa.
Myers teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the subpad has a compressibility at 25% deflection of between 25 and 1000 kPa (fig. 1, Myers discloses a polishing pad comprising a polishing layer 40 and a subpad 70; para. 0017, compressibility of the polishing pad under a load of about 32 kPa will be within the range of about 10-30%. Although Myers does not disclose the compressibility of the subpad only, it teaches the compressibility of the polishing pad including the subpad).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the polishing pad having the claimed compressibility as taught by Myers. The desired compressibility would provide deformable polishing pad having suitable resilience (Myers ¶ 0018). This polishing pad would make a large area of surface contact with a substrate for obtaining a good polishing rate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hideyuki et al. (JP 6425973B2, hereinafter Hideyuki).
Regarding claim 12, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the subpad comprises a polymer (Prasad English translation, p. 13:22-27, bottom layer 14 [corresponds to the recited subpad] of a polishing pad is a thermoplastic elastomer including polyurethane), but does not disclose the polymer has a glass transition below room temperature.
Hideyuki teaches, in a polymer material production field of endeavor and capable of solving problem, the polymer has a glass transition below room temperature (Hideyuki English translation, p. 4:24-26, thermoplastic polyurethane-based elastomers have glass transition temperature below room temperature (e.g., 20oC or less)).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the subpad comprising a polymer having the claimed glass transition temperature as taught by Hideyuki. An apparatus made from polymer having the glass transition temperature below room temperature shows excellent impact absorption, flexibility, and shape conformity (Hideyuki English translation, p. 4:24-28). These properties can help the polishing pad to achieve optimal polishing rate because it can make a large contact surface area with a substrate during polishing, and to achieve the durability to last for a long period of polishing operations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Laliberte (US 2,701,191, cited on 08/23/2021 IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the subpad comprises a polymer and a plasticizer.
Laliberte teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the subpad comprises a polymer and a plasticizer (col. 11:41-55, in forming a backing layer [corresponds to the recited subpad], a cement can be used. The cement would be a suitable compounded rubber base [which is polymer] having added plasticizers, agents, and solvents).
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 Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the subpad comprising a polymer and a plasticizer as taught by Laliberte so that the subpad forms a strong bond with a polishing layer to be used for a stable polishing operation (Laliberte, col. 11:41-55).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prasad in view of Fung ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sotozaki et al. (US 2018/0290263, hereinafter Sotozaki).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly a method of polishing a substrate, the method comprising: providing the polishing pad; providing a substrate; contacting the first major surface of the polishing pad with the substrate; moving the polishing pad and the substrate relative to one another while maintaining contact between the first major surface of the polishing pad and the substrate.
Sotozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a method of polishing a substrate comprising: providing the polishing pad; providing a substrate; contacting the first major surface of the polishing pad with the substrate; moving the polishing pad and the substrate relative to one another while maintaining contact between the first major surface of the polishing pad and the substrate (¶ 0028, a top ring 30/carrier head holds a substrate and rotates. A polishing pad 100 is rotated. The substrate is pressed against the polishing surface 102 of the polishing pad, and maintains contact with the polishing pad during the polishing operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the polishing pad of Prasad as modified by Fung ‘500 to provide the method of polishing a substrate as taught by Sotozaki. The substrate polishing method ensures consistent polishing of substrates in order to produce a high number of high-quality wafers ready for next processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 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 Fung ‘500.
Amended claim 1 recites the subpad comprises an oligomeric acrylate or methacrylate resin. Previously the claim recited the subpad comprises an acrylate or methacrylate resin, and Esteban was cited to teach the claim limitations. However, Esteban does not teach the acrylate or methacrylate resin is an oligomer.
Fung ‘500, however, teaches a polishing layer and a subpad of a polishing pad can be formed of acrylate oligomers.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Prasad does not teach the aperture-free optical architecture. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts the Prasad’s teaching that one or all layers may be light transmissive (Prasad English translation, p. 4:30-32) does not teach the claimed polishing pad architecture, and Prasad discloses a window portion for an endpoint detection.
However, the instant application claims the optically transparent polishing pad, and Prasad also teaches the optically transparent polishing pad comprising optically transparent polishing layer and subpad. Additionally, fig. 6 of Prasad presents another embodiment that discloses the optically transparent polishing pad free of aperture.
Applicant also argues Prasad does not teach the optical transmittance of at least 80% of light between 400 nm and 750 nm. However, Prasad teaches the optical transmittance can be at least 10-30% wavelengths of light between 200 nm and 10,000 nm (Prasad English translation, p. 4:37-39, 5:15-18). Although Applicant asserts this is materially different, but the Prasad’s optical transmittance overlaps with the recited transmittance.
Applicant argues the rejection based on the result-effective variable rationale regarding the percentage of the optically transparent region is incorrect. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification of the instant application presents the optically transparent first major surface of the polishing layer can be at least 10%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, or at least 99% of the surface area (p. 6:23-27), and at least 10%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 99%, or at least 100% of the optically transparent region of the subpad may overlay an optically transparent region of the polishing pad (p. 9:14-17). The ranges of optically transparent regions can be from about 10% to about 100%. But specification does not provide reason for the various percentages. Therefore, it appears there is no particularity regarding how much areas of the first major surfaces of the polishing layer and the subpad need to be optically transparent. It appears the percentage of the optically transparent region in the polishing pad can be determined depending on arbitrary situation of the polishing operation. Because Prasad discloses the general condition of the polishing pad, determining an appropriate percentage of the optically transparent region would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
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 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights