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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “auxiliary supplying unit” in claims 34-53.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 34-53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 34, 41, and 48 each recite a step of determining an amount of an additive to add to a slurry based on the claimed input parameters. Specifically, claim 34 recites “determining a compensation amount for the additive based on a difference between the first parameter and the second parameter, and further based on the third parameter;” claim 41 recites “determining a concentration variation of the additive based on a difference between the first input parameter and the second input parameter, and further based on the third parameter;” and claim 48 recites “providing the first input parameter, the second input parameter, and the third input parameter associated with as inputs to a computational model; [and] determining a compensation amount of the additive based on the inputs by the computational model”.
The only reference in the disclosure to an amount of additive to be added to compensate for decay is in fig. 7b and paragraphs [0064]-[0067]. This teaches a step of determining a compensation amount of an additive based solely on the first and second input parameters, the compensation amount also being used as an input parameter. The original disclosure contains no mention of “determining a compensation amount for the additive based on a difference between the first (input) parameter and the second (input) parameter, and further based on the third parameter;” (emphasis added) as required by independent claims 34 and 41, or of “providing the first input parameter, the second input parameter, and the third input parameter associated with [a temperature] as inputs to a computational model; [and] determining a compensation amount of the additive based on the inputs by the computational model”.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure of providing a compensation amount to counteract a degradation rate associated with the temperature of the platen as required by claim 48.
Because claims 34, 41, and 48 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, they fail to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Claims 35-40, 42-47, and 49-53 depend from claims 34, 41, and 48 and are likewise rejected.
Additionally, the claim limitation “auxiliary supplying unit”, which appears in each of independent claims 34, 41, and 48, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Fig. 4b and paragraph [0062]-[0066] of the disclosure describe an auxiliary compensation apparatus, but describe it in functional terms and do not clearly disclose the corresponding structure that performs the claimed functions. Claims 34, 41, and 48 have been amended to recite that the “auxiliary supplying unit comprises a storage configured to alleviate or reduce a decay of the additive”, the actual language from the disclosure is “the auxiliary compensation apparatus provides a storage that alleviates or reduce the decay of the additive (such as H.sub.2O.sub.2), for example, by providing a controlled environment with a constant pressure and/or a constant temperature and isolated from the influence of the ambient environment, et cetera.” Paragraph [0066]. Although this disclosure uses the word “storage”, it does so in the context of describing a function performed by the apparatus rather than actual structure, and still does not disclose any structure for performing the entire claimed function (storage alone is not capable of performing the claimed function of “adding the compensation amount”).
Therefore, claims 34, 41, and 48 (and claims 35-40, 42-47, and 49-53 depending therefrom) are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 34-41, 43-44, 47-48, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US PGPub 2022/0193858, "Deshpande").
Regarding claims 34 and 41, Deshpande teaches a method (300, Deshpande fig. 3) for polishing a workpiece, comprising:
obtaining a first parameter, a second parameter and a third parameter (via sensors including sensors 203a-n associated with processing parameters, see Deshpande [0058]-[0063] and [0105]; additional data includes facilities systems data 130, see Deshpande [0053]; parameters are maintained via a closed loop control system that measures the parameters, Deshpande [0108]-[0110] and fig. 12), wherein
the first parameter is associated with a concentration of an additive of a slurry and is obtained directly from a first portion of the slurry flowing in a conduit (analyzers are used to determine the composition and health of a polishing fluid in an upstream polishing fluid distribution system, composition will be associated with relative concentrations and decay behavior of fluid components such as additives, see Deshpande [0053]),
the second parameter is associated with a concentration of the additive and is obtained directly from a second portion of the slurry downstream from the first portion (sensors are used to determine the composition of a polishing fluid in the fluid distribution system 281, composition will be associated with relative concentrations of additives, see Deshpande [0095]); and
the third parameter associated with a process apparatus (process parameters include downforce, sweep speed, dwell time, and temperature, see Deshpande [0081]-[0083]);
determining a compensation amount for the additive based on a difference between the first parameter, the second parameter, and further based on the third parameter (adjusting a polishing fluid composition based on a plurality of control parameters, Deshpande [0088] and [0127]; an adjustment taking decay behaviors between locations into account would necessarily be based on measured difference between the first and second parameters, Deshpande [0053]);
securing the workpiece (242) by a head (238) over a platen (212) in the process apparatus (21, see Deshpande figs. 2a-2b);
supplying a compensated slurry, by adding the compensation amount of the additive into the slurry via an auxiliary supplying unit (285) fluidly coupled to the conduit and positioned proximal to a slurry dispense arm (216), over the platen (285 is fluidly coupled to slurry supply sources 287, see Deshpande fig. 2c and [0088]-[0092]), wherein the auxiliary supplying unit comprises a storage (polishing fluid sources 287a and 287b would include some sort of storage so as to be able to supply fluid, Deshpande fig. 2c and [0089]) configured to alleviate or reduce a decay of the additive (the fluid system would be capable of supplying additives to alleviate or reduce decay of components such as pH adjusters, Deshpande [0091]-[0092]); and
planarizing a surface of the workpiece by operating the process apparatus using the slurry into which the additive has been supplied (method step 302, Deshpande fig. 3).
Deshpande does not explicitly teach steps of obtaining a first slurry parameter associated with an additive of a slurry directly from a first portion of the slurry flowing in a conduit, and obtaining a second parameter associated with the additive directly from a second portion of the slurry flowing in the conduit downstream from the first portion.
However, Deshpande does teach that the fluid distribution system (280) includes a plurality of polishing fluid sources (287a,287b, Deshpande [0089] and fig. 2c), that the fluid distribution comprises a plurality of control systems which “may be used to control, measure, and deliver polishing fluids and/or individual polishing fluid components to the surface of the polishing pad 231, and a polishing fluid mixing apparatus 285d” (Deshpande [0090]) and that the fluid mixing apparatus (285d) may be used to adjust a composition of the slurry before delivery to the pad surface (Deshpande [0091]). Furthermore, Deshpande teaches that the polishing method incorporates data from analyzers in polishing fluid distribution systems that monitor variables associated with polishing fluid health such as chemical properties and decay rates of the polishing fluid. Deshpande [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Deshpande such that the step of measuring a parameter of a polishing composition (i.e. a parameter associated with an additive of a slurry) in the conduit included a step of measuring a first parameter of a polishing composition prior to composition adjustment in the mixing apparatus and a step of measuring the parameter of a polishing composition a second time subsequent to composition adjustment in the mixing apparatus, thereby obtaining a first slurry parameter associated with an additive of a slurry directly from a first portion of the slurry flowing in a conduit, and obtaining a second parameter associated with the additive directly from a second portion of the slurry flowing in the conduit downstream from the first portion, as doing so would ensure that the composition of slurry coming from polishing fluid sources (287a,287b) was properly accounted for in the recipe prior to modification, as one of ordinary skill would understand that modifying a slurry of unclear composition to reach a set composition would waste significantly more material than modifying a slurry whose composition was being actively verified prior to modification.
35. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 34, wherein obtaining the second parameter comprises obtaining the second parameter by a sensor attached to the conduit that supplies the slurry (systems data includes sensors monitoring fluid properties, see Deshpande [0053], fluid distribution system 281 likewise includes elements configured to measure fluid components, [0090], as part of the system, such elements would be attached to the conduit so as to be in fluid and/or electrical communication with the slurry flow and control systems).
36. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 34, wherein obtaining the first parameter comprises: obtaining the first parameter by a sensor attached to the conduit that supplies the slurry (composition is measured by a sensor attached to fluid distribution system 281, of which the conduit is a part, so the sensor is necessarily attached to the conduits, Deshpande [0095] and fig. 2c).
35. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 34, wherein adding the compensation amount of the additive into the slurry via the auxiliary supplying unit comprises supplying a pure additive consisting essentially of the additive into the conduit (Deshpande teaches the addition of individual additives, one of ordinary skill would understand that the additives should be as pure as possible, so as to avoid variation between a process recipe and the actual process).
36. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 34, wherein the compensated slurry has an additive concentration greater than the concentration of the additive obtained from the second portion of the slurry (Deshpande as modified teaches adjusting a fluid composition from one point to another to compensate for decay, concentration of an additive in a compensated slurry would be higher than concentration in a slurry that had not had the additive added).
37. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 34, further comprising obtaining a fourth parameter, wherein the fourth parameter is selected from the group consisting of (obtaining actual values of environmental conditions such as ambient temperature, see Deshpande [0053]).
38. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 34, wherein determining the compensation amount for the additive is performed by execution of a computational model (changing a polishing parameter based on a machine learning model, polishing parameters include polishing fluid composition, Deshpande [0127]-[0128]).
39. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 38, further comprising obtaining a value of an evaluator parameter after planarizing the workpiece, wherein the evaluator parameter is associated with performance of the surface of the workpiece after planarization (obtaining training data including polishing process data and result data such as material layer uniformity, Deshpande [0044]-[0049]).
40. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 39, wherein the computational model is obtained through a training process using the first parameter, the second parameter, the third parameter and the evaluator parameter as inputs (steps 314-320 of method 300 involve training an AI model using the training data as inputs, see Deshpande fig. 3; training data included process data associated with individual polishing data, Deshpande [0043]).
43. Deshpande teaches the method of Claim 41, wherein obtaining the first input parameter comprises obtaining the first input parameter by a first sensor in the conduit of the chemical supplying apparatus configured to supply the slurry (system data including the chemical properties of polishing fluids is monitored by analyzers in polishing distribution system lines, (Deshpande [0053])).
44. Deshpande teaches the method of Claim 41, wherein an output parameter is obtained based on the first amount, the first input parameter, the second input parameter and the third input parameter, and the output parameter is determined by an artificial neural network (corrective actions including at least one output parameter are obtained based on a trained AI algorithm, Deshpande fig. 5; the AI algorithm may include a neural network, Deshpande [0042]).
47. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of Claim 41, wherein an output parameter is obtained based on the first amount, the first input parameter, the second input parameter, and the third input parameter (corrective action taken based on differences identified in input parameters, Deshpande fig. 5), and the third input parameter is selected from a group consisting of a temperature of working fluid flowing in the platen, and a flow rate of working fluid flowing in the platen (polishing parameters include temperature controlled by a system including coolant or heated fluid and a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the platen and/or a flow rate of the fluid, Deshpande [0070]; Controlling the system involves comparing and potentially adjusting every parameter, Deshpande [0011]).
48. Deshpande teaches a method (300, Deshpande fig. 3) for polishing a workpiece, comprising:
obtaining a first input parameter, a second input parameter, a third input parameter (via sensors 203a-n associated with processing parameters, see Deshpande [0058]-[0063] and [0105]; parameters are maintained via a closed loop control system that measures the parameters, Deshpande [0108]-[0110] and fig. 12), wherein the first input parameter is associated with a concentration of an additive of a slurry and is obtained directly from a first position of the slurry flowing in a conduit within a chemical supplying apparatus and outside a slurry supplier of the chemical supplying apparatus (analyzers are used to determine the composition and health of a polishing fluid in an upstream polishing fluid distribution system, composition will be associated with relative concentrations and decay behavior of fluid components such as additives, see Deshpande [0053]),
the second input parameter is associated with a concentration of the additive at a second position in the conduit and proximal to a polishing apparatus (sensors are used to determine the composition of a polishing fluid in the fluid distribution system 281, composition will be associated with relative concentrations of additives, see Deshpande [0095]), and
the third input parameter associated with a temperature of a platen of a polishing apparatus (temperature is a processing parameter, Deshpande [0063]; platen assembly includes temperature control system that monitors and adjusts control parameters, Deshpande [0070]);
providing the first input parameter, the second input parameter, and the third input parameter associated with as inputs to a computational model (all parameters are used by an AI model, Deshpande [00876]-[0088]);
determining a compensation amount of the additive based on the inputs by the computational model (determining an amount to adjust an output parameter using the model, Deshpande [0105]-[0106]; parameters include polishing fluid composition, Deshpande [0108]; polishing composition is modified by active control systems, Deshpande [0090]-[0092]);
securing the workpiece (242) by a head (238) over a platen (212) in the process apparatus (21, see Deshpande figs. 2a-2b);
supplying the compensation amount of the additive into the slurry via an auxiliary supplying unit (285) proximal to a slurry dispense arm (216) over the platen in the polishing apparatus (285 is fluidly coupled to slurry supply sources 287, see Deshpande fig. 2c and [0088]-[0092]), wherein the auxiliary supplying unit comprises a storage (polishing fluid sources 287a and 287b would include some sort of storage so as to be able to supply fluid, Deshpande fig. 2c and [0089]) configured to alleviate or reduce a decay of the additive (the fluid system would be capable of supplying additives to alleviate or reduce decay of components such as pH adjusters, Deshpande [0091]-[0092]), and
polishing a surface of the workpiece by operating the polishing apparatus using the slurry into which the compensation amount has been supplied (method step 302, Deshpande fig. 3).
Deshpande does not explicitly teach that the compensation amount is provided to compensate for a degradation of the additive occurring between the first portion and the second portion of the slurry flowing in the conduit, and further to counteract a degradation rate associated with the temperature of the platen.
However, Deshpande does teach that the polishing method incorporates data from analyzers in polishing fluid distribution systems that monitor variables associated with polishing fluid health such as chemical properties and decay rates of the polishing fluid. Deshpande [0053]. Deshpande further teaches that the method involves compensating for changes in composition or other polishing fluid properties (Deshpande [0087]). Furthermore, Deshpande teaches that temperature control may interfere with polishing fluid on the platen (coolant sublimation is preferred as it reduces dilution of the polishing flid, see Deshpande [0084]; polishing fluid composition may change as a result of temperature control, Deshpande [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Deshpande such that the compensation amount was provided to compensate for a degradation of the additive occurring between the first portion and the second portion of the slurry flowing in the conduit, and further to counteract a degradation rate associated with the temperature of the platen, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
53. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 48, wherein the first input parameter comprises a concentration of an abrasive of the slurry (polishing-fluid-related input parameters may include data from an abrasive particle concentration sensor, Deshpande [0117]).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Byers et al. (US 9770804, "Byers").
42. Deshpande teaches the method of Claim 41, but does not teach that the first input parameter comprises a concentration of H2O2 in the slurry flowing in the conduit of the chemical supplying apparatus configured to supply the slurry.
However, Deshpande does teach that system data including the chemical properties of polishing fluids is analyzed in polishing distribution system lines, including pH, oxidizer, and additive levels (Deshpande [0053]).
Additionally, Byers teaches a bulk polishing fluid supply apparatus for use in a CMP facility, including hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) sensors (Byers 4:10-5:14).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Byers regarding elements of a polishing fluid supply including sensors for measuring H2O2 concentrations into the method of Deshpande such that the first input parameter comprised a concentration of H2O2 in the slurry flowing in the conduit of the chemical supplying apparatus configured to supply the slurry, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 6544111, "Kimura").
45. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the concept of a temperature as an input parameter and the presence of at least one thermal sensor configured to measure a temperature of the platen (platen temperature control system includes sensor 203b, see Deshpande [0070] and fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach the presence of a plurality of first thermal meters disposed in the platen arranged in spiral shape.
However, Kimura teaches the concept of a platen (30) incorporating a plurality of thermal meters (thermocouples 52a-52e, see Kimura 5:21-35 and fig. 3) associated with a plurality of temperature adjustment passages (32a-32e, see Kimura figs. 3-4 and 5:9-35). Kimura further teaches the use of spiral-shaped temperature adjustment passages (see Kimura fig. 7a). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Kimura regarding the inclusion of thermal sensors associated with temperature-adjustment channels in a platen into the method of Deshpande such that obtaining the second input parameter comprised obtaining the second input parameter by a plurality of first thermal meters disposed in the platen, wherein the plurality of second thermal meters are arranged in a spiral shape, as doing so would allow for localized temperature control (see Kimura 6:10-67).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 10821572, "Jeong").
46. Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches the concept of a temperature as an input parameter and the presence of at least one thermal sensor configured to measure a temperature of the platen (platen temperature control system includes sensor 203b, see Deshpande [0070] and fig. 2A), but does not explicitly teach the presence of a plurality of first thermal meters disposed in the platen, wherein the plurality of first thermal meters are arranged in a cross shape.
However, Park teaches the concept of a platen (120) incorporating a plurality of thermal meters (temperature sensors 222, 224, 226, and 228 are in regions R1-R4 of platen 120, see Jeong 3:10-45 and fig. 3), wherein the sensors are arranged in a cross shape (lines connecting the four sensors through a central portion would form a cross, see Jeong fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Jeong regarding the inclusion of thermal sensors in a platen into the method of Deshpande such that obtaining the second input parameter comprised obtaining the second input parameter by a plurality of first thermal meters disposed in the platen, wherein the plurality of first thermal meters are arranged in a cross shape, as doing so would allow for real-time regional temperature control (see Jeong 1:39-2:8).
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Maruyama (US PGPub 2022/0072679).
Regarding claims 49-51, Deshpande as modified teaches the method of claim 48, but does not explicitly teach that the computational model comprises an input layer, an output layer and one or more hidden layers interconnected via nodes with corresponding weights; the computational model is trained using instances of the first input parameter and instances of the second input parameter for obtaining converged values of the weights; or that the second input parameter is further fed to the computational model through an evaluator for adjusting the weights of the computational model.
However, Maruyama teaches a method for polishing a workpiece (see Maruyama claims 10-18) including the steps of training a computational model with an input layer, an output layer and one or more hidden layers interconnected via nodes with corresponding weights (training a network, see Maruyama fig. 4 steps 3-4, [0132]; network made of weighted nodes which form input layer 301, hidden layers 302, and output layer 303, see Maruyama fig. 12 and [0135]),
wherein the computational model is trained using instances of a first input parameter and instances of a second input parameter for obtaining converged values of the weights (trained using multiple inputs and feedback, see Maruyama figs. 12 and 15 and [0135]-[0136]), and
wherein the second input parameter is further fed to the computational model through an evaluator for adjusting the weights of the computational model (feedback mechanism involves comparison, see Maruyama [0136]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Maruyama regarding the use of a computational model based on a neural network with the method of Deshpande, as Deshpande teaches the use of a neural network (Deshpande [0042]) but does not specify details regarding the use of such a model and Maruyama teaches an implementation for such a model and that doing so would reduce variation in polishing performance, reduce cost, and enhance accuracy (see Maruyama [0154]-[0155]).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande in view of Maruyama as applied to claim 51 above, and further in view of Kimura.
52. Deshpande as modified by Maruyama teaches the method of Claim 51, but although Deshpande teaches a step of obtaining additional parameters such as a fourth parameter associated with the polishing apparatus by at least one thermal meter disposed in the platen (platen temperature control system includes sensor 203b, see Deshpande [0070] and fig. 2A), it does not explicitly teach obtaining a fourth parameter from a plurality of thermal meters disposed in the platen, wherein at least three of the plurality of thermal meters are located on a diameter of the platen from a top-view perspective.
However, Kimura teaches the concept of a platen (30) incorporating a plurality of thermal meters disposed in the platen (thermocouples 52a-52e are in platen 30, see Kimura 5:21-35 and fig. 3) associated with a plurality of temperature adjustment passages (32a-32e, see Kimura figs. 3-4 and 5:9-35), such that at least three of the plurality of thermal meters are located on a diameter of the platen from a top-view perspective (because five thermal meters are shown along a diameter and are associated with the holes arranged in a line along a diameter, they would be on the diameter from a top view perspective, see Kimura figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Kimura regarding the inclusion of thermal sensors associated with temperature-adjustment channels in a platen into the method of Deshpande as modified such that obtaining a fourth parameter associated with the polishing apparatus by a plurality of thermal meters disposed in the platen, wherein at least three of the plurality of thermal meters are located on a diameter of the platen from a top-view perspective, as doing so would allow for localized temperature control (see Kimura 6:10-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 34-53 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as containing new matter, applicant argues that paragraphs [0064]-[0065] and fig. 7b disclose a multi-parameter compensation calculation; paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and fig. 4b disclose the use of environmental parameters in a multi-parameter determination operation; that paragraphs [0028]-[0030] provide support for the claim limitation of counteracting degradation associated with platen temperature and identify a temperature-related parameter (A4) used in the parameter determination operation; and that paragraphs [0052]-[0055] and figs. 6a-6b disclose the use of a plurality of parameters A1-A4 for training a computational model.
The claims require the compensation amount (associated with a parameter A5) for the additive (which is supplied by the auxiliary supplying unit) be determined based on three parameters, the first two parameters (A1 and A2) being associated with a concentration of an additive of a slurry at different locations in a conduit and the third parameter (A3) being associated with a characteristic of a process apparatus (such as temperature). However, as was noted in the rejection, the only reference to a compensation amount supplied by the auxiliary supplying unit is in paragraphs [0062]-[0067] and [0070], associated with figures 7a and 7b. The only variables disclosed as involved in determining the compensation amount are parameters A1 and A2, and the calculation (performed as part of operation 3015, see [0064] and fig. 7b) for determining the compensation amount is entirely distinct from the multi-parameter determination (3021) relied on by applicant. Furthermore, although multi-parameter determination (3021) is shown as using parameters A1-A5 as inputs and including a feedback loop for parameter adjustment (see Fig. 7), the feedback loop only involves adjustments to parameters B and C.
Similarly, although applicant is correct that the disclosure teaches the use of variables associated with platen temperature (e.g., A4 as described in [0042]) in multi-parameter determination (3021) and in training a model (see, e.g. figs. 6a and 7b), there is no disclosure of using any parameters other than A1 and A2 in determining the compensation amount from the auxiliary supplying unit.
Therefore, the claims lack support in the original disclosure.
Additionally, regarding the rejection of claims 34-53 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function associated with the claimed “auxiliary supplying unit”, applicants’ arguments are not persuasive, as the term “storage” is both not clearly disclosed as a structure, and is also not clearly linked to the function of supplying a compensation amount of the additive as claimed.
In response to applicant's arguments against the explicit disclosures of the references, applicant is reminded that “[t]o support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references.” Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (emphasis added). The rejection was made on the basis that the claimed invention would have been obvious in light of Deshpande, not that Deshpande anticipated the claimed invention. Furthermore, because slurry additives would necessarily be present adjacent in tubes adjacent Deshpande’s mixing and/or supply mechanism, it would include a storage element capable (under certain conditions and with the correct additive) of inhibiting decay (e.g., by reducing the total amount being stored or by isolating the additive from atmospheric oxygen).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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