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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 28 July, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ejection droplet printing, spin-on coating, spray-on, or screen printing” in claim 2, “mask” in claim 3, “in line metrology system” in claim 20, “stand-alone metrology system” in claim 21, and “applying sound energy” in claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the substrate comprising dispending an abrasive slurry” should be “the substrate comprising dispensing an abrasive slurry”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 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 2 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives.
The Markush grouping of the selectively dispensing the treatment fluid is improper because the open list of alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: ejection droplet printing, spin-on coating, spray-on, or screen printing do not have an expectation from the knowledge in the art that members of the class will behave in the same way in the context of the claimed invention. Further, there is no mention in the specifications that the structures possess at least one property in common which is mainly responsible for their function. In the claimed invention applicant has used “comprising” language which leaves the grouping open.
The Markush grouping of the selectively dispensing is additionally improper due to the use of the comprising language. While the components of the Markush grouping are closed as to the components therein, the claim transition "comprising" allowed for additional component(s) that were functionally similar to the members of the Markush grouping. Thus, the plain language of the claim requires "one or more of" of the Markush members and does not further limit the claim to only binders and disintegrants listed in the Markush grouping.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claims 2 and 4 is 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 4 seems to recite a further limitation of the ejection droplet printing as recited in Claim 2. However, Claim 2 does not require ejection droplet printing as a sole means of selectively dispensing treatment fluid. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for ejection droplet printing to be ONLY required in claim 4 or if the list of claim 2 is meant to encompass ONLY ejection droplet printing or other options.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata (2017/0259395, previously presented) in view of Zhang (2015/0321312, previously presented) and Zhang (6,135,863, Zhang 2).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobata teaches A method of processing a substrate (Ref. Wf, Fig. 3), comprising:
selectively dispensing a treatment fluid on different parts of a substrate ([0201] describes selectively dispensing a treatment fluid on the substrate);
chemical mechanical polishing the substrate after dispensing the treatment fluid ([0006]), wherein chemical mechanical polishing the substrate comprises dispensing an abrasive slurry onto the polishing pad ([0202] describes dispensing a slurry onto the polishing pad) and contacting the substrate to the polishing pad ([0006], Fig. 1), wherein the treatment fluid modifies a polishing rate of the chemical mechanical polishing at one or more selected parts to which the treatment fluid is applied in comparison to one or more remaining part(s) to which the treatment fluid is not applied ([0007&0223] describes the treatment fluid (slurry) modifying the polishing at the center vs the edges where more slurry is applied vs less slurry).
Kobata fails to explicitly teach a substrate with multiple dies. Zhang further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Zhang further teaches a substrate with a plurality of dies ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the substrate, as taught by Kobata, with the substrate with a plurality of dies, as taught by Zhang, to achieve the predictable result of dispensing treatment fluid for processing a substrate.
Kobata as modified fails to explicitly teach applying the treatment fluid prior to contacting a polishing pad of chemical mechanical polishing to a substrate. Zhang 2 teaches a chemical mechanical polishing unit that has a polishing pad and wafer carrier and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Zhang 2 teaches prior to contacting a polishing pad of chemical mechanical polishing to a substrate (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 38-61]), selectively dispensing a treatment fluid onto specific areas of the substrate (Ref.22, Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 38-61] describes dispensing and adjusting the flow of a treatment fluid before the substrate contacts a polishing pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid process, as taught by Kobata as modified, to be dispensed before contact of the polishing pad and substrate, as taught by Zhang 2, to ensure the flow of the treatment fluid over the polishing pad to have a more economical program for polishing pads without numerous trial runs ([Col. 3, Lines 34-39]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the treatment fluid (slurry) modifying the polishing at the center vs the edges where more slurry is applied vs less slurry ([0007&0223]). Kobata as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the treatment fluid damages a layer to be polished so as to increase the polishing rate at the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s). Zhang further teaches wherein the treatment fluid damages a layer to be polished so as to increase the polishing rate at the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s) ([0003-0004&0045] describes the slurry having abrasive particles and causing variations in material removal rates at different locations & ([0007&0223] describes the treatment fluid (slurry) modifying the polishing at the center vs the edges where more slurry is applied vs less slurry). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slurry, as taught by Kobata as modified, to damage layers to be polished to increase polishing rates at dies, as taught by Zhang, to allow for variations in material removal rates at the different locations.
Regarding Claim 10, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach measuring thicknesses of a layer at a plurality of locations corresponding to a plurality of dies on the substrate, and determining the selected die(s) based on the thicknesses. Zhang further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Zhang further teaches measuring thicknesses of a layer at a plurality of locations corresponding to a plurality of dies on the substrate, and determining the selected die(s) based on the thicknesses ([0026-0029] describes using the thickness measurement to determine the type of substrate and profile). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of processing, as taught by Kobata, to measure the thickness and determine regions of the substrate, as taught by Zhang, to more efficiently and accurately polish different sections of the substrate ([0029]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach measuring thicknesses of the layer at an in-line metrology system. Zhang further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Zhang further teaches measuring thicknesses of the layer at an in-line metrology system (Ref. 160, Fig. 1A, [0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of processing, as taught by Kobata, to measure the thickness and determine regions of the substrate, as taught by Zhang, to more efficiently and accurately polish different sections of the substrate ([0029]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach measuring thicknesses of the layer at a stand-alone metrology system. Zhang further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Zhang further teaches measuring thicknesses of the layer at a stand-alone metrology system (Ref. 102, Fig. 1A, [0026-0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of processing, as taught by Kobata, to measure the thickness and determine regions of the substrate, as taught by Zhang, to more efficiently and accurately polish different sections of the substrate ([0029]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trickett (2010/0255682).
Regarding Claim 2, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further Kobata teaches the wafer spinning. Kobata as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively dispensing the treatment fluid comprises one or more of ejection droplet printing, spin-on coating, spray-on, or screen printing. Trickett teaches a process for planarizing a wafer by applying a treatment fluid and chemical mechanical polishing and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Trickett further teaches dispensing the treatment fluid by spin-on coating ([0008] teaches a spin-on process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the treatment fluid, as taught by Kobata as modified, by a spin-on process, as taught by Trickett, to evenly coat the surface of the substrate [0018].
Regarding Claim 3, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Trickett further teaches wherein selectively dispensing comprises flowing the treatment fluid through a mask ([0008] teaches putting a mask on the wafer and having fluid flow through it). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the substrate, as taught by Kobata as modified, with a mask, as taught by Trickett, to planarize parts of the substrate while protecting parts that are not meant to be planarized ([0007]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata in view of Zhang and Trickett as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kobata (2017/0047237, Kobata’).
Regarding claim 4, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively dispensing comprises selectively ejecting droplets of the treatment fluid onto the substrate. Kobata’ teaches a process for planarizing a wafer by applying a treatment fluid and chemical mechanical polishing and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Kobata’ further teaches selectively dispensing a treatment fluid comprises selectively ejecting amounts of the treatment fluid onto the substrate ([0016] describes selectively dispensing fluid by reducing the amount of liquid by any amount). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distribution of the treatment liquid, as taught by Kobata as modified, to eject droplets amounts of the treatment fluid onto the substrate, as taught by Kobata’, to reduce the amount of treatment liquid needed.
Claims 5-6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata in view of Zhang and/or Trickett as modified as applied to claims 1&2 above, and further in view of Sung (2005/0227590).
Regarding claim 5, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein selectively dispensing comprises disposing the treatment fluid across all of the dies on the substrate and curing the treatment fluid at the one or more selected die(s). Sung teaches an abrasive tool with a substrate after distributing a treatment fluid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sung further teaches disposing the treatment fluid across all of the surface on the substrate and curing the treatment fluid at the one or more selected places ([0076] describes the slurry being cured at different portions to create 3D patterns and cover only particular portions of the substrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid, as taught by Kobata as modified, to be cured on one or more of the selected dies, as taught by Sung, to protect the parts of the substrate from external stimuli.
Regarding claim 6, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach curing the treatment fluid before chemical mechanical polishing the substrate. Sung teaches an abrasive tool with a substrate after distributing a treatment fluid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sung further teaches curing the treatment fluid before chemical mechanical polishing the substrate ([0076] describes the slurry being cured at different portions to create 3D patterns and cover only particular portions of the substrate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid, as taught by Kobata, to be cured on one or more of the selected dies, as taught by Sung, before polishing to protect the parts of the substrate from external stimuli.
Regarding claim 23, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Sung further teaches wherein curing the treatment fluid comprises applying UV light ([0076] describes UV light curing).
Claim 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (2007/0281486).
Regarding Claim 7, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach forming the treatment fluid into a protective film that reduces the polishing rate at the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s). Han teaches polishing a substrate after distributing and treating a treatment fluid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Han further teaches forming the treatment fluid into a protective film that reduces the polishing rate at the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s) ([0093] describes the slurry adjusting the polishing rates due to the hydrophilicity of selected regions) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid, as taught by Kobata as modified, to form a protective film at selected dies, as taught by Han, to allow for more efficient polishing and selective polishing in some areas ([0093]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the treatment fluid forms a monolayer that adjusts a hydrophilicity of the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s). Han teaches polishing a substrate after distributing and treating a treatment fluid and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Han further teaches wherein the treatment fluid forms a monolayer that adjusts a hydrophilicity of the selected die(s) relative to the remaining die(s) ([0093] describes the slurry adjusting the polishing rates due to the hydrophilicity of selected regions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid, as taught by Kobata as modified, to form a monolayer that adjusts a hydrophilicity of the portions, as taught by Han, to allow for more efficient polishing and selective polishing in some areas ([0093]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Dave (5,551,907).
Regarding Claim 22, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach applying sound energy to the treatment fluid and cause sonication of a layer on the substrate at the selected die(s). Dave teaches a system for polishing a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Dave further teaches applying sound energy to the treatment fluid and cause sonication of a layer on the substrate at the selected die(s) (examiner notes sonication is interpreted as ultrasonic or vibrations, [col. 1, lines 52-65] teaches applying an ultrasonic energy to a liquid to specific portions of the pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment liquid, as taught by Kobata as modified, with sound liquid to cause sonication, as taught by Dave, to enhance the rate of removal of material from a substrate ([Col. 1, Lines 10-12]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobata in view of Zhang and Sung as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ohishi (2011/0092137).
Regarding Claim 24, Kobata as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and teaches a slurry being cured by UV light ([0076], Sung). Kobata as modified fails to explicitly teach , wherein curing the treatment fluid comprises applying IR light. Ohishi teaches applying a resin to a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to process a treatment fluid before polishing. Ohishi teaches the concept of a resin being able to be cured by different energy sources such as IR and UV ([0094]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the curing light, as taught by Kobata as modified, to be IR light, as taught by Ohishi, to produce the predictable result of curing a liquid resin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation has been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. Examiner has also withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) and 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the drawing objections interpretation has been fully considered and examiner has withdrawn some of the drawing objections but has maintained the drawing objections above.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 2 and 4 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has clarified the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above. Examiner notes due to claim 4 reciting further limitation of the ejection droplet printing. It is unclear how claim 2 the other non-ejection droplet printing options or a combination of printing options would be possible with the further limiting claim of claim 4. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for ejection droplet printing to be required in claim 4 or if the list of claim 2 is meant to encompass ejection droplet printing and other options.
Applicant has amended claim 1 thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 January, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhang (6,135,863, Zhang 2). Zhang 2 teaches prior to contacting a polishing pad of chemical mechanical polishing to a substrate (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 38-61]), selectively dispensing a treatment fluid onto specific areas of the substrate (Ref.22, Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 38-61] describes dispensing and adjusting the flow of a treatment fluid before the substrate contacts a polishing pad). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the treatment fluid process, as taught by Kobata as modified, to be dispensed before contact of the polishing pad and substrate, as taught by Zhang 2, to ensure the flow of the treatment fluid over the polishing pad to have a more economical program for polishing pads without numerous trial runs ([Col. 3, Lines 34-39]).
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights