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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-17, and 19-22 are pending
Claims 1, 11, and 20-21 have been amended
Claims 2, 8-10, and 18 are have been cancelled
Continued Examination
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has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to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 11/21/2025 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059380), Doan et al. (US 20020034928), Watanabe et al. (US 20070139857), Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625), Hayashi et al. (US 20020033230), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180315622), with Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Torii et al. (US 20170330783) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 1:
Yamaguchi teaches a substrate processing module, comprising: a rotatable vacuum table (buff table 400) disposed in a processing area of the substrate processing module, the rotatable vacuum table comprising a chuck plate (buff table 400) and a carrier film (stage film 1-450) disposed on a top surface of the chuck plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the stage film 1-450 is disposed on the top surface of buff table 400); a pad conditioning station (conditioner 800) disposed proximate to the rotatable vacuum table; the pad conditioning station having a brush (the conditioner 800 comprises a dresser 820, which may be formed of a brush dresser); a pad carrier positioning arm (buff arm 600); the pad carrier positioning arm having a buffing pad support surface (buff head 500) at a distal end thereof and the pad carrier assembly having a head motor configured to rotate the buffing pad support surface (the buff arm 1-600 can rotate the buff head 1-500 about a rotation axis B; a motor to rotate the buff head 500 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 1-4 & 0250-0255, 0267, 0531].
The Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a spray nozzle proximate the brush.
However, the Fig. 59A embodiment of Yamaguchi teaches a spray nozzle (jet nozzles 6-830) proximate the brush (dresser 6-820) [Fig. 59A & 0542, 0546].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conditioning station of the Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi to have nozzles, as in the embodiment of Fig. 59A, to decrease the time required for conditioning [Yamaguchi - 0021, 0548-0549].
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a plurality of radial channels, each extending radially outward from the central bore to a plurality of ports formed on the top surface.
Doan teaches a plurality of radial channels (radially extending arms 123), each extending radially outward from the central bore (central passage 155) to a plurality of ports (vacuum apertures 122) formed on the top surface [Fig. 2 & 0023- 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chuck plate of Yamaguchi to have radial channels, as in Doan, since the polishing pad arrangement of Doan may be easily removed when desired [Doan - 0032]. Furthermore, the radial channel arrangement of Doan provides liquid separation/trapping and draining capabilities [Doan - 0026]
Modified Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the carrier film having a supporting surface configured to support a substrate thereon and that comprises an array of concentric channels.
Watanabe teaches a plurality of radial channels (trenched portion 211b), each extending radially outward from the central bore (through-hole 212a), the carrier film having a supporting surface (surface of chucking page 212 configured to support a substrate thereon and that comprises an array of concentric channels (arc-shaped trenches 212b) [Fig. 3 & 0026-0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carrier film of Modified Yamaguchi to have concentric channels, as in Watanabe, since the arrangement of the chucking pad of Watanabe allows for a wafer to be cleaned without the use of a water bath [Watanabe - 0050]. Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625) also disclose that concentric grooves can help aid a polishing process [Bothra - Col. 2 lines 8-11; Kajiwara - Fig. 13A & Col. 13 lines 23-37, Col. 14 lines 28-32]. Torii et al. (US 20170330783) also discloses that having concentric channels may be beneficial to prevent wafer surface damage, and Torii also discloses that concentric channels are a known configuration in the art [Torii - 0005].
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan and Watanabe) does not specifically disclose each concentric channel of the array of concentric channels is an opening in the carrief film that is in registration with a corresponding one of the plurality of radial channels disposed there beneath, and has a width of individual ones of the array of concentric channels of 10 mm or less and a spacing between adjacent concentric channels of the array of concentric channels of 50 mm or less.
Although Kajiwara does not specifically disclose "each concentric channel of the array of concentric channels is an opening in the carrier film that is in registration with a corresponding one of the plurality of radial channels disposed there beneath, a width of individual ones of the array of concentric channels of 10 mm or less, and a spacing between adjacent concentric channels of the array of concentric channels of 50 mm or less," Kajiwara does disclose that groove width, groove depth, and the spacing between grooves are result effective variables. Regarding groove spacing, Kajiwara discloses that groove density (and therefore the spacing between grooves) in a particular region affects removal rate in that particular region [Kajiwara - Col. 12 lines 42-49, Col. 12 lines 62-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2]. Regarding groove width, Kajiwara discloses that the width of a groove affects removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 27-33]. Regarding groove depth, Kajiwara discloses that groove depth can be adjusted to change removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 10-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an optimum groove/channel density and distribution, as well as a groove width and depth in order to obtain a desired wafer profile and removal rate. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that a substantially deep groove would create an opening, which make the grooves be in registration/communication with any underlying structures.
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, and Kajiwara) a pad carrier positioning arm coupled to a pad carrier assembly.
Hayashi teaches a pad carrier positioning arm (horizontal arm 16) coupled to a pad carrier assembly (attitude maintaining means 50) [Fig. 1 & 0030, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing module of Modified Yamaguchi to have a pad carrier assembly, as in Hayashi, to improve throughput, durability, and to reduce maintenance costs [Hayashi - 0009, 0016].
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, Kajiwara, and Hayashi) does not specifically disclose an actuator disposed between the pad carrier assembly and a proximal end of the pad carrier positioning arm.
Kobayashi teaches an actuator (actuator 77) disposed between a first structure (polishing head 66) and a proximal end of a second structure (head arm 65) [Fig. 5 & 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first structure (pad carrier assembly) and second structure (pad carrier positioning arm) with the arrangement of the first structure, second structure, and actuator of Kobayashi, to allow for direct rotation control [Kobayashi - 0047].
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to position the pad carrier assembly over a first position disposed over the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table and over a second position disposed over the pad conditioning station, and configured to position the pad carrier assembly over a first position disposed over the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table and over a second position disposed over the pad conditioning station,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the actuator 77 of Kobayashi allows for the rotation of pivot shaft 76 to thereby move the second polishing head 66 between a polishing position which is above the wafer W and a standby position which is outside of the wafer W [Kobayashi - Fig. 5 & 0047]. As such, this arrangement is capable of rotating a pad carrier assembly to another surface. It is further noted that the array of channels of the instant application prevent deformation due to their widths/spacing [IA - 0058]. Since the widths/spacing of the channels of Kajiwara can be optimized, the combination of references would be capable of preventing deformation and slippage.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan and Watanabe) does not specifically disclose wherein a grip area provided to by the array of channels is between about 5% and about 30% of a surface area of a to-be-processed substrate disposed thereon, the grip area comprising an effective area occupied by the array of channels in the supporting surface of the vacuum table.
Although Kajiwara does not specifically disclose "wherein a grip area provided to by the array of concentric channels is between about 5% and about 30% of a surface area of a to-be-processed substrate disposed thereon, the grip area comprising an effective area occupied by the array of concentric channels in the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table," Kajiwara does disclose that groove width and the spacing between grooves are result effective variables. Regarding groove spacing, Kajiwara discloses that groove density (and therefore the spacing between grooves) in a particular region affects removal rate in that particular region [Kajiwara - Col. 12 lines 42-49, Col. 12 lines 62-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2]. Regarding groove width, Kajiwara discloses that the width of a groove affects removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 27-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an optimum groove/channel density and distribution, as well as a groove width in order to obtain a desired wafer profile and removal rate. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 5:
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table is substantially horizontal. (as evidenced by Figs. 1-3, the upper surface of buff table 400 is horizontal) [Figs. 1-3 & 0173, 0201].
Regarding Claim 6:
Yamaguchi teaches an annular substrate lift mechanism disposed radially outward of the rotatable vacuum table. (as evidenced by Fig. 3, buff table 400 comprises lift pins 480 radially outward of it) [Fig. 1-3 & 0250-0252].
Regarding Claim 7:
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the annular substrate lift mechanism comprises a plurality of substrate contact points disposed proximate to a circumferential edge of the rotatable vacuum table (as evidenced by Fig. 3, there are multiple lift pins around buff table 400) [Fig. 3 & 0254],
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the annular substrate lift mechanism is configured so that one of the plurality of substrate contact points contacts a substrate before other ones of the plurality of substrate contact points when lifting the substrate from the supporting surface of the vacuum table,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It’s also noted that there are a plurality of lift pins and as such can be moved differently relative to other lift pins [Yamaguchi - 0254].
Regarding Claim 21:
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a rotatable brush shaft configured to support the brush and wherein: the spray nozzle is disposed within the rotational brush shaft to convey conditioning fluid to an interface between the brush and the buffing pad during pad conditioning.
However, the Fig. 59B embodiment of Yamaguchi teaches a rotatable brush shaft (the inner shaft of base plate 6-810; the base plate 6-810 is rotatable) configured to support the brush (as evidenced by Fig. 59B, the base plate 6-810 supports dresser 6-820) and wherein: the spray nozzle is disposed within the rotational brush shaft (as evidenced by Fig. 59B, the jet nozzle 6-830 is disposed within the base plate 6-810 and proximate the upper end of base plate 6-810) to convey conditioning fluid to an interface between the brush and the buffing pad during pad conditioning (jet nozzle 6-830 is fluidly connected to water jacket 6-811which in turn communicates with each of the pure water supply source 6-714) [Fig. 57, 59A, 59B & 0542, 0547]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conditioning station of the Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi to have nozzles, as in the embodiment of Fig. 59A and 59B, to decrease the time required for conditioning [Yamaguchi - 0021, 0548-0549].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059380), Doan et al. (US 20020034928), Watanabe et al. (US 20070139857), Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625), Hayashi et al. (US 20020033230), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180315622), with Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Torii et al. (US 20170330783) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 21 above, and further in view of in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059376).
The limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 21 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 4:
Yamaguchi ‘380 does not specifically disclose wherein the pad carrier assembly is sized to support a buffing pad having a diameter of about 67 mm or more.
Yamaguchi '376 establishes pad carrier size is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting diameter can be used to control wafer processing speed [Yamaguchi ‘376 - 0301]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum pad carrier assembly size in order to obtain a desired wafer processing speed. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059380), Doan et al. (US 20020034928), Watanabe et al. (US 20070139857), Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625), Akazawa et al. (US 20170072531), Hayashi et al. (US 20020033230), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180315622), with Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Torii et al. (US 20170330783) as evidentiary references.
Regarding Claim 11:
Yamaguchi teaches a modular substrate processing system (CMP apparatus 3-1000), comprising: a substrate processing module (buff process module 300A), comprising: a rotatable vacuum table (buff table 400) disposed in a processing area (processing area of buff process module 300A); a first substrate handler (swing transporter 3-12); the rotatable vacuum table comprising a chuck plate (buff table 400) and a carrier film (stage film 1-450) disposed on a top surface of the chuck plate (as evidenced by Fig. 3, the stage film 1-450 is disposed on the top surface of buff table 400), a second substrate handler (first conveyer robot 3-209); a pad conditioning station (conditioner 800) disposed proximate to the rotatable vacuum table; a pad carrier positioning arm (buff arm 600); the pad conditioning station having a brush (the conditioner 800 comprises a dresser 820, which may be formed of a brush dresser); the pad carrier positioning arm having a buffing pad support surface (buff head 500) at a distal end thereof and the pad carrier assembly having a head motor configured to rotate the buffing pad support surface (the buff arm 1-600 can rotate the buff head 1-500 about a rotation axis B; a motor to rotate the buff head 500 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 1-4 & 0250-0255, 0267, 0531].
The Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a spray nozzle proximate the brush.
However, the Fig. 59A embodiment of Yamaguchi teaches and a spray nozzle (jet nozzles 6-830) proximate the brush (dresser 6-820) [Fig. 59A & 0542, 0546].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conditioning station of the Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi to have nozzles, as in the embodiment of Fig. 59A, to decrease the time required for conditioning [Yamaguchi - 0021, 0548-0549].
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose a plurality of radial channels, each extending radially outward from the central bore to a plurality of ports formed on the top surface.
Doan teaches a plurality of radial channels (radially extending arms 123), each extending radially outward from the central bore (central passage 155) to a plurality of ports (vacuum apertures 122) formed on the top surface [Fig. 2 & 0023- 0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the chuck plate of Yamaguchi to have radial channels, as in Doan, since the polishing pad arrangement of Doan may be easily removed when desired [Doan - 0032]. Furthermore, the radial channel arrangement of Doan provides liquid separation/trapping and draining capabilities [Doan - 0026]
Modified Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose the carrier film having a supporting surface configured to support a substrate thereon and that comprises an array of concentric channels.
Watanabe teaches a plurality of radial channels (trenched portion 211b), each extendinq radially outward from the central bore (through-hole 212a), the carrier film having a supporting surface (surface of chucking page 212 configured to support a substrate thereon and that comprises an array of concentric channels (arc-shaped trenches 212b) [Fig. 3 & 0026-0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the carrier film of Modified Yamaguchi to have concentric channels, as in Watanabe, since the arrangement of the chucking pad of Watanabe allows for a wafer to be cleaned without the use of a water bath [Watanabe - 0050]. Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625) also disclose that concentric grooves can help aid a polishing process [Bothra - Col. 2 lines 8-11; Kajiwara - Fig. 13A & Col. 13 lines 23-37, Col. 14 lines 28-32]. Torii et al. (US 20170330783) also discloses that having concentric channels may be beneficial to prevent wafer surface damage, and Torii also discloses that concentric channels are a known configuration in the art [Torii - 0005].
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan and Watanabe) does not specifically disclose each concentric channel of the array of concentric channels is an opening in the carrier film that is in registration with a corresponding one of the plurality of radial channels disposed there beneath, and has a width of individual ones of the array of concentric channels of 10 mm or less and a spacing between adjacent concentric channels of the array of concentric channels of 50 mm or less.
Although Kajiwara does not specifically disclose "each concentric channel of the array of concentric channels is an opening in the carrier film that is in registration with a corresponding one of the plurality of radial channels disposed there beneath, a width of individual ones of the array of concentric channels of 10 mm or less, and a spacing between adjacent concentric channels of the array of concentric channels of 50 mm or less," Kajiwara does disclose that groove width, groove depth, and the spacing between grooves are result effective variables. Regarding groove spacing, Kajiwara discloses that groove density (and therefore the spacing between grooves) in a particular region affects removal rate in that particular region [Kajiwara - Col. 12 lines 42-49, Col. 12 lines 62-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2]. Regarding groove width, Kajiwara discloses that the width of a groove affects removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 27-33]. Regarding groove depth, Kajiwara discloses that groove depth can be adjusted to change removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 10-27]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an optimum groove/channel density and distribution, as well as a groove width and depth in order to obtain a desired wafer profile and removal rate. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that a substantially deep groove would create an opening, which make the grooves be in registration/communication with any underlying structures.
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, and Kajiwara) does not specifically disclose a chamber comprising a basin and a lid, the lid comprising a plurality of side panels which, with the basin, collectively define a processing area; a first substrate handler access door disposed in a first side panel of the plurality of side panels, a second substrate handler access door disposed in a second side panel of the plurality of side panels, wherein the second substrate handler access door is used for removing the substrate from the rotatable vacuum table with a second substrate handler.
Akazawa teaches a chamber comprising a basin (cleaning tank 1) and a lid (side walls of cleaning tank 1), the lid comprising a plurality of side panels (as evidenced by Figs. 1-2, the side walls of cleaning tank 1 are comprised of panels) which, with the basin, collectively define a processing area (where substrate W is disposed); a first substrate handler access door (opening 13) disposed in a first side panel of the plurality of side panels, a second substrate handler access door (removeable ceiling cover 17) disposed in a second side panel of the plurality of side panels [Fig. 1-2 & 0043-0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module of Modified Yamaguchi to have a basin and lid, as in Akazawa, to protect outside parts from stray liquid [Akazawa - 0032].
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, Kajiwara, and Akazawa) does not specifically disclose a pad carrier positioning arm coupled to a pad carrier assembly.
Hayashi teaches a pad carrier positioning arm (horizontal arm 16) coupled to a pad carrier assembly (attitude maintaining means 50) [Fig. 1 & 0030, 0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing module of Modified Yamaguchi to have a pad carrier assembly, as in Hayashi, to improve throughput, durability, and to reduce maintenance costs [Hayashi - 0009, 0016].
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, Kajiwara, Akazawa, and Hayashi) does not specifically disclose an actuator disposed between the pad carrier assembly and a proximal end of the pad carrier positioning arm.
Kobayashi teaches an actuator (actuator 77) disposed between a first structure (polishing head 66) and a proximal end of a second structure (head arm 65) [Fig. 5 & 0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first structure (pad carrier assembly) and second structure (pad carrier positioning arm) with the arrangement of the first structure, second structure, and actuator of Kobayashi, to allow for direct rotation control [Kobayashi - 0047].
Furthermore, the limitations “configured to prevent deformation of the substrate and slippage of the substrate from the rotatable vacuum table when vacuum is applied, and configured to position the pad carrier assembly over a first position disposed over the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table and over a second position disposed over the pad conditioning station,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that the actuator 77 of Kobayashi allows for the rotation of pivot shaft 76 to thereby move the second polishing head 66 between a polishing position which is above the wafer W and a standby position which is outside of the wafer W [Kobayashi - Fig. 5 & 0047]. As such, this arrangement is capable of rotating a pad carrier assembly to another surface. It is further noted that the array of channels of the instant application prevent deformation due to their widths/spacing [IA - 0058]. Since the widths/spacing of the channels of Kajiwara can be optimized, the combination of references would be capable of preventing deformation and slippage.
The limitations “wherein the second substrate handler access door is used for removing the substrate from the rotatable vacuum table with a second substrate handler, “ is also intended use. Any of the openings in the cleaning tank 1 of Akazawa can be utilized by a transport arm to remove/insert a wafer.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, Watanabe, and Kajiwara) does not specifically disclose wherein a third side panel of the plurality of side panels features a service opening
Akazawa teaches wherein a third side panel of the plurality of side panels features a service opening (removeable rear cover 12) [Fig. 1-2 & 0043-0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the module of Modified Yamaguchi to have a basin and lid, as in Akazawa, to protect outside parts from stray liquid [Akazawa - 0032].
Furthermore, the limitations “the pad carrier positioning arm is configured to position the pad carrier assembly through the service opening to facilitate maintenance access thereto,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Any of the openings in the cleaning tank 1 of Akazawa can be utilized as a maintenance access.
Regarding Claim 13:
Yamaguchi teaches a first substrate processing region (the region of CMP apparatus 3-1000 where polishing units 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-3C, and 3-3D are disposed) comprising a plurality of polishing stations (polishing units 3-3A, 3-3B, 3-3C, and 3-3D); and a second substrate processing region (the region of CMP apparatus 3-1000 where buff process modules 3-300A and 3-300B, linear transporters 307, and cleaning modules 302-1A are located) comprising the substrate processing module and the first substrate handler [Fig. 16, 18A, 18B & 0311, 0327, 0330, 0344], wherein the first substrate handler is positioned to transfer substrates from the first substrate processing region to the substrate processing module (swing transporter 3-12 passes wafer W to temporary stage 3-180, which in turn can be delivered to buff process module 3-300A via conveyer robots 3-213 and 3-209) [Fig 16, 18B & 0320, 0327-0330].
Furthermore, although cited by the prior art, the limitations “wherein the first substrate handler is positioned to transfer substrates from the first substrate processing region to the substrate processing module,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 14:
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the second substrate processing region further comprises a substrate cleaning system (cleaning modules 3-201A and 3-201B) and the substrate processing module is disposed above the substrate cleaning system (as evidenced by Fig. 18B, at least cleaning 3-201B is disposed below buff module 3-300A) [Fig. 18B & 0323, 0344].
Regarding Claim 15:
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the second substrate handler is positioned to transfer a substrate from the substrate processing module to a cleaning station of the substrate cleaning system disposed there beneath (conveyer robot 3-213 operates so as to convey the wafer W between the upper roll cleaning module 3-201A, the lower roll cleaning module 3-201B, the temporary stage 3-204, the upper buff process module 3-300A and the lower buff process module 3-300B) [Fig 16, 18B & 0320, 0327-0330].
Furthermore, although cited by the prior art, the limitations of claim 15 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 16:
Yamaguchi teaches an annular substrate lift mechanism surrounding the vacuum table (as evidenced by Fig. 3, buff table 400 comprises lift pins 480 radially outward of it) [Fig. 1-3 & 0250-0252].
Regarding Claim 17:
Yamaguchi teaches wherein the annular substrate lift mechanism comprises a plurality of substrate contact points disposed proximate to a circumferential edge of the rotatable vacuum table (as evidenced by Fig. 3, there are multiple lift pins around buff table 400) [Fig. 3 & 0254].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein the annular substrate lift mechanism is configured so that one of the plurality of substrate contact points contacts a substrate before other ones of the plurality of substrate contact points when lifting the substrate from the supporting surface of the vacuum table,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It’s also noted that there are a plurality of lift pins and as such can be moved differently relative to other lift pins [Yamaguchi - 0254].
Regarding Claim 19:
Modified Yamaguchi (Yamaguchi modified by Doan, and Watanabe) does not specifically disclose wherein a grip area provided to by the array of concentric channels is between about 5% and about 30% of a surface area of a to-be-processed substrate disposed thereon, the grip area comprising an effective area occupied by the array of concentric channels in the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table.
Although Kajiwara does not specifically disclose "wherein a grip area provided to by the array of concentric channels is between about 5% and about 30% of a surface area of a to-be-processed substrate disposed thereon, the grip area comprising an effective area occupied by the array of concentric channels in the supporting surface of the rotatable vacuum table," Kajiwara does disclose that groove width and the spacing between grooves are result effective variables. Regarding groove spacing, Kajiwara discloses that groove density (and therefore the spacing between grooves) in a particular region affects removal rate in that particular region [Kajiwara - Col. 12 lines 42-49, Col. 12 lines 62-67, Col. 14 lines 1-2]. Regarding groove width, Kajiwara discloses that the width of a groove affects removal rate [Kajiwara - Col. 22 lines 27-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover an optimum groove/channel density and distribution, as well as a groove width in order to obtain a desired wafer profile and removal rate. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 22:
Yamaguchi does not specifically disclose wherein: the substrate processing module further comprises a rotatable brush shaft configured to support the brush and the spray nozzle is disposed within the rotational brush shaft to convey conditioning fluid to an interface between the brush and the buffing pad during pad conditioning.
However, the Fig. 59B embodiment of Yamaguchi teaches a rotatable brush shaft (the inner shaft of base plate 6-810; the base plate 6-810 is rotatable) configured to support the brush (as evidenced by Fig. 59B, the base plate 6-810 supports dresser 6-820) and the spray nozzle is disposed within the rotational brush shaft (as evidenced by Fig. 59B, the jet nozzle 6-830 is disposed within the base plate 6-810 and proximate the upper end of base plate 6-810) to convey conditioning fluid to an interface between the brush and the buffing pad during pad conditioning (jet nozzle 6-830 is fluidly connected to water jacket 6-811which in turn communicates with each of the pure water supply source 6-714) [Fig. 57, 59A, 59B & 0542, 0547]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conditioning station of the Fig. 1 embodiment of Yamaguchi to have nozzles, as in the embodiment of Fig. 59A and 59B, to decrease the time required for conditioning [Yamaguchi - 0021, 0548-0549].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059380), Doan et al. (US 20020034928), Watanabe et al. (US 20070139857), Kajiwara et al. (US 6527625), Akazawa et al. (US 20170072531), Hayashi et al. (US 20020033230), and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180315622), with Bothra et al. (US 6214734) and Torii et al. (US 20170330783) as evidentiary references, as applied to claims 11-17, 19, and 22 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20160059376).
The limitations of claims 11-17, 19, and 22 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Yamaguchi ‘380 does not specifically disclose wherein the pad carrier assembly is sized to support a buffing pad having a diameter of about 67 mm or more.
Yamaguchi '376 establishes pad carrier size is a result effective variable. Specifically, adjusting diameter can be used to control wafer processing speed [Yamaguchi ‘376 - 0301]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum pad carrier assembly size in order to obtain a desired wafer processing speed. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-22 under 35 USC 12a have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 21022 under 35 USC 112a has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 11-17, and 19-22 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection. The teachings of Doan et al. (US 20020034928), Watanabe et al. (US 20070139857), and Torii et al. (US 20170330783) remedy anything lacking in the combination of references as applied above the top amended claims.
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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718