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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of “a first group of asperities comprising the upper surface parallel to the major surface of the circular pad; and a second group of asperities comprising the additional upper surface nonparallel to the major surface of the circular pad”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations of “the upper surface parallel to the major surface of the circular pad” and “the additional upper surface nonparallel to the major surface of the circular pad” in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the trailing surface including angle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 11 will be interpreted as follows:
11. The chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 10, wherein one or more asperities of the asperities comprises:
a leading surface included angle between the leading surface of the one or more asperities and the major surface of the circular pad is greater than about 90º; and
a trailing surface included angle between the trailing surface of the one or more asperities and the major surface is greater than about 90° and different than the leading surface included angle.
Claims 12-18 depend on at least one of claims 10 and 11 and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehuu et al. (US 10071461, "Lehuu").
1. Lehuu teaches a chemical mechanical planarization tool, comprising:
a pad (50) comprising a major surface (working surface 12 of polishing layer 10, see Lehuu fig. 10a and 25:20-30);
a first group of asperities (18) extending from the major surface of the pad and comprising: a leading surface and a trailing surface each extending from the major surface of the pad (leading and trailing surfaces of asperities 18 would be defined by a direction of travel or rotation, see Lehuu fig. 4), a material composition of the leading surface substantially the same as that of the trailing surface (asperities are made from the same material as the pad, see Lehuu 6:5-34); and
an upper surface spanning between the leading surface and the trailing surface, at least a portion of the upper surface parallel to the major surface of the pad (top surface of asperities 18 is substantially flat, see Lehuu fig. 4); and
a second group of asperities (28) extending from the major surface of the pad, the asperities of the second group of asperities having substantially a same material composition as the asperities of the first group of asperities (asperities are made from the same material as the pad, see Lehuu 6:5-34) and comprising:
an additional leading surface and an additional trailing surface each extending from the major surface of the pad (leading and trailing surfaces of asperities 28 would be defined by a direction of travel or rotation, see Lehuu fig. 4), a material composition of the additional leading surface substantially the same as that of the additional trailing surface (asperities are made from the same material as the pad, see Lehuu 6:5-34); and
an additional upper surface spanning between the additional leading surface and the additional trailing surface, the additional upper surface nonparallel with respect to the major surface of the pad (asperities 28 are pointed such that at least a part of the upper surface would be nonparallel with respect to the pad, see Lehuu fig. 4).
5. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 1, wherein:
one or more asperities of the second group of asperities comprises a rotationally leading asperity; and one or more asperities of the first group of asperities comprises a rotationally trailing asperity located rotationally behind the rotationally leading asperity (pad may be rotated such that at least some of asperities 28 are ahead of at least some of asperities 18, see Lehuu fig. 4).
7. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 1, wherein:
one or more asperities of the first group of asperities comprises a rotationally leading asperity; and one or more asperities of the second group of asperities comprises a rotationally trailing asperity located rotationally behind the rotationally leading asperity (pad may be rotated such that at least some of asperities 18 are ahead of at least some of asperities 28, see Lehuu fig. 4).
9. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 1, wherein asperities of the first group of asperities alternate with asperities of the second group of asperities in a radial direction (groups of 18 and 28 are arranged in a grid such that at least some of them would alternate in radial directions, see Lehuu fig. 4).
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 6, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu.
6. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 5, but does not specify that the additional upper surface of the rotationally leading asperity is farther from the major surface than the upper surface of the rotationally trailing asperity. However, Lehuu does teach that different shapes may be used for different groups of asperities (shapes including cylinders, half spheres, cubes, rectangular prism, triangular prism, hexagonal prism, triangular pyramid, 4, 5, and 6-sided pyramids, truncated pyramids, cones, truncated cones, see Lehuu figs. 4-6 and 10:29-42); as well as specifically noting that different heights may be assigned to different groups of asperities (Lehuu 11:49-12:19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pad of Lehuu such that the taller asperities had a non-parallel top surface while the shorter asperities had a parallel top surface, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
10. Lehuu teaches a chemical mechanical planarization tool, comprising: a circular pad (pad 50 may be circular, see Lehuu fig. 10a and 26:39-44) comprising:
grooves (macro channels 19, see Lehuu fig. 7) each extending from a center of the circular pad to a circumference of the circular pad (channels may extend radially from the center of a round pad, see Lehuu 19:4-8), the grooves dividing the circular pad into segments each defined by two adjacent grooves and a portion of the circumference of the circular pad extending therebetween (channels in the shape of radial lines would divide a circular pad into wedge-shaped segments, see Lehuu 19:4-8 and 26:39-44): and
asperities (asperities 18, see Lehuu fig. 1c) within the segments of the circular pad and extending from an upper surface of the circular pad (asperities 18 are on working surfaces 12 between channels 19, see Lehuu figs. 1c and 7) and individually comprising a leading surface and a trailing surface extending from a main surface of the circular pad and an upper surface spanning between the leading surface and the trailing surface (asperities 28 and 18 have leading, trailing, and upper surfaces, though which side surface is leading or trailing would depend on direction of travel, see Lehuu fig. 4), the asperities including:
a first group of asperities comprising the upper surface parallel to the major surface of the circular pad (asperities 18 include a flat upper surface parallel to a base surface of the pad, see Lehuu fig. 4); and
a second group of asperities comprising the additional upper surface nonparallel to the major surface of the circular pad (the upper portion of asperities 28 includes a tapered upper surface that is not parallel to a base surface of the pad, see Lehuu fig. 4; furthermore, Lehuu teaches the use of additional shapes of asperities including cylinders, half spheres, cubes, rectangular prism, triangular prism, hexagonal prism, triangular pyramid, 4, 5, and 6-sided pyramids, truncated pyramids, cones, truncated cones, many of which include non-flat upper surfaces, see Lehuu figs. 4-6 and 10:29-42),
wherein each of the asperities includes a length along a longitudinal axis and a width (asperities are three-dimensional objects and have length and width dimensions, see, e.g., Lehuu fig. 4), wherein the length of at least one asperity within the segment of the circular pad is less than a distance along the longitudinal axis between the two adjacent grooves defining the respective segment of the circular pad and overlying the at least one asperity (asperities are significantly smaller than channels and space between channels, see Lehuu figs. 1c and 7).
Lehuu does not explicitly teach the specific combination of a circular pad with radial channels and asperities, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce such a planarization tool, because Lehuu teaches each of the elements of round pads, radial channels, and asperities, and combining them in a single embodiment to produce the claimed pad would be a combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
16. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 10, wherein a ratio of a pitch of the asperities in a direction transverse to a radial direction to a pitch of the asperities in the radial direction is within a range from 1.0:1.0 to 2.5:1.0 (Lehuu teaches that the asperities may be arranged in a square array, which would, at least for those asperities positioned such that the radial direction was parallel to one axis of the square array and orthogonal to the other axis, result in an equal distance between asperities in each direction such that the ratio was 1:1, see, e.g., Lehuu fig. 4).
17. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 10, wherein a transverse pitch of the asperities in a direction transverse to the radial direction is greater than a radial pitch of the asperities in the radial direction (Lehuu teaches that the asperities may be arranged in a hexagonal array, which would, at least for those asperities positioned such that the radial direction was square to two flat sides of a hexagon of the hexagonal array and the transverse direction passed through two opposing points of the hexagon, result in a greater distance between asperities in the transverse direction, see Lehuu 12:56-61).
18. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach that the length of each of the asperities is greater than the width thereof. However, Lehuu teaches the use of different shapes of asperities, including rectangular prisms, hexagonal prisms, triangular pyramids, 4, 5, and 6-sided pyramids, and truncated pyramids, see Lehuu figs. 4-6 and 10:29-42). Nearly all of these shapes are capable of having a length defined along a longitudinal axis that is greater than a width (e.g., a 6-sided pyramid has a hexagonal base, which has a greater dimension from point to point than an orthogonal dimension from the center of opposing sides). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool of Lehuu to include asperities shaped such that the length of each of the asperities was greater than the width thereof, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of asperity shape for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehuu as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Naujok (US 6602123).
11. Lehuu teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 10, wherein one or more asperities of the asperities comprises: a leading surface included angle between the leading surface of the one or more asperities and the major surface of the circular pad is greater than about 90°; and a trailing surface included angle between the trailing surface of the one or more asperities and the major surface is greater than about 90° (asperities 18 have the shape of a truncated cone, and so have an angle between the asperities and the base that is greater than about 90º, see Lehuu fig. 4). Lehuu further teaches the use of polishing portions having different properties including shape (see Lehuu figs. 4-6 and 10:29-42), but does not teach that the trailing surface angle is different than the included angle.
However, Naujok teaches the concept of adjusting the polishing properties of a pad based on a direction of travel by providing polishing elements having different leading and trailing angles (see Naujok figs. 3-4b and 4:44-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Naujok regarding different angles into the tool of Lehuu such that the trailing surface angle is different than the included angle, as doing so would allow for further adjustment of the polishing properties without having to use different discs (see Naujok 4:7-15).
12. Lehuu as modified teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 11, wherein the trailing surface included angle is greater than the included angle (Naujok teaches reversing a direction of travel to obtain different polishing results, whether a surface is a trailing surface or leading surface is determined by direction of rotation, so a reversible pad means either surface is capable of acting as the trailing surface depending on direction of rotation, and because the angles are different, one of them would necessarily be greater than the other, see Naujok 4:44-65).
13. Lehuu as modified teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 11, wherein one or more additional asperities of the asperities comprises an additional included angle different than the included angle of the one or more asperities (Lehuu teaches that the asperities may include asperities having the shape of a rectangular prism, which would have an included angle of 90º between at least two of the faces, see Lehuu 10:29-42).
15. Lehuu as modified teaches the chemical mechanical planarization tool of claim 13, wherein the one or more additional asperities comprises a trailing surface included angle different than the trailing surface included angle of the one or more asperities (Naujok teaches the concept of adjusting the polishing properties of a pad based on a direction of travel by providing polishing elements having different leading and trailing angles, see Naujok figs. 3-4b and 4:44-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Naujok regarding different angles into the tool of Lehuu such that the one or more additional asperities comprises a trailing surface included angle different than the trailing surface included angle of the one or more asperities, as doing so would allow for further adjustment of the polishing properties without having to use different discs (see Naujok 4:7-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 August, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the tapered cylinders of different height in the cited embodiment of Lehuu fail to teach the claimed first group of asperities comprising "an upper surface...at least a portion of the upper surface parallel to the major surface of the pad;" and a second group of asperities comprising "an additional upper surface...the additional upper surface nonparallel with respect to the major surface of the pad." In doing so, applicant erroneously equates a top surface with the upper surface claimed. As noted by applicant, Lehuu discloses that the cylindrical bodies include a taper due to the mechanism of manufacture. Consequently, Lehuu teaches that an upper (but not topmost) surface of the cylindrical bodies is tapered as to not be parallel with respect to the pad. If the claim recited a topmost or uppermost surface, applicant's argument might be persuasive with respect to that specific embodiment of Lehuu, but because it does not, the argument is not persuasive. Examiner would like to further note that, as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, Lehuu specifically teaches the use of asperities having different shapes and heights, including those with points.
For these reasons, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights