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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 and 20 under 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Nabeya (US 20190224808 A1) in view of Fukashima (US 20100273405 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US 20190224808 A1) in view of Fukashima (US 20100273405 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nabeya teaches: A carrier head for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
A carrier body (20);
a substrate mounting surface (306) coupled with the carrier body (See Figure 8);
an inner ring (408), the inner ring being characterized by an upper surface (top surface of 408 facing 404) that faces the carrier body and a bottommost surface opposite the upper surface (Second surface is bottom facing surface of 408);
an outer ring (302) disposed radially outward of the inner ring (See figure 8 and 9, 302 is radially outside inner ring) wherein a lower surface of the outer ring surrounds the second surface of the inner ring (See figure 8, 400 is part of 302 and extends below the top portion of 408); and
at least one downforce control actuator (piston 406) disposed above the first surface of the inner ring at a discrete position about a circumference of the inner ring (See Fig. 8, piston is located above first ring).
But does not explicitly disclose the inner ring having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface,
an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring;
the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring;
However, Fukashima discloses a similar substrate holding device for polishing, including a carrier head (1) with an inner ring (408) having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface (See Para [0074] “the retainer ring 3 comprises a ring member 408 disposed at an outer peripheral portion of the top ring body 2 and configured to hold a peripheral edge of the semiconductor wafer”), an inner diameter of the outer ring (440 forms the outer ring, See Fig. 6) at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface (See Fig. 6 showing inner surface of outer ring 440 contacting the outer surface of the inner ring 408) such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring (See Fig. 6 as noted above) the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring (See Fig. 6);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outer ring to be fitted over the inner ring such that an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring as Fukashima teaches that doing so improves the rigidity of the inner ring, suppressing deformation. See Fukashima Para [0113] “The retainer ring 3 will be further described with reference to FIG. 6. As shown in FIG. 6, a metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b. Since the metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b, the lower ring member 408b has an improved rigidity. Thus, even if a temperature of the ring member 408 increases due to the sliding contact between the ring member 408 and the polishing surface 101a, thermal deformation of the lower ring member 408b can be suppressed.”
Regarding Claim 2, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein: a magnitude of downforce applied by the at least one downforce control actuator to the discrete position of the inner ring is variable (See Para [0116] “Accordingly, by adjusting a pressure of a fluid to be supplied to the pressure chamber 410, the elastic membrane 404 can be expanded and contracted so as to vertically move the piston 406. Thus, the ring member 408 of the retainer ring 302 can be pressed against the polishing pad 22 under a desired pressure.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly teach:
the at least one downforce control actuator (piston 406) comprises a plurality of downforce control actuators, each of the plurality of downforce control actuators being disposed at a different discrete location about the circumference of the inner ring (See figure 8, where identical structure to the piston mechanism 406 is show on both sides of the carrier head and wafer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nabeya to have a plurality of downforce control actuators as suggested by figure 8 of Nabeya as doing so would allow for uniform force to be applied to all sides of the wafer applying an even polishing.
Regarding Claim 4, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein:
the at least one downforce control actuator is positioned proximate a trailing edge of the substrate (see Para [0015] “The retainer ring 302 serves to hold a peripheral edge of a semiconductor wafer. As shown in FIG. 8, the retainer ring 302 has a cylinder 400, a holder 402 attached to an upper portion of the cylinder 400, an elastic membrane 404 held in the cylinder 400 by the holder 402, a piston 406 connected to a lower end of the elastic membrane 404, and a ring member 408 which is pressed downward by the piston 406. An upper end of the cylinder 400 is closed.” Examiner notes that wafer W of Nabeya seems similarly shaped and located in a similar place as the one in applicants’ disclosure).
Regarding Claim 5, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein:
a magnitude of downforce applied by the at least one downforce control actuator to the discrete position of the inner ring is variable during a single polishing operation (See Para [0116] “Accordingly, by adjusting a pressure of a fluid to be supplied to the pressure chamber 410, the elastic membrane 404 can be expanded and contracted so as to vertically move the piston 406. Thus, the ring member 408 of the retainer ring 302 can be pressed against the polishing pad 22 under a desired pressure.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein:
the at least one downforce control actuator comprises a plunger (piston 406) that is in contact with the Upper surface of the inner ring (See Figure 8, Piston 406 has a fitted arrangement with ring 408 and contacts the external facing side of the ring); and
a downforce applied by the plunger is driven by an air cylinder (See Para [0116] “Thus, a pressurized fluid is supplied through the passages 416, 414, and 412 to the pressure chamber 410. Accordingly, by adjusting a pressure of a fluid to be supplied to the pressure chamber 410, the elastic membrane 404 can be expanded and contracted so as to vertically move the piston 406. Thus, the ring member 408 of the retainer ring 302 can be pressed against the polishing pad 22 under a desired pressure.”
Examiner notes that Nabeya teaches a pressurized fluid, but does not explicitly elaborate on what the fluid is, however air is considered a fluid and there is nothing in the disclosure of Nabeya stating that pressurized fluid is excluded from being air, which would make an air cylinder out of pressure chamber 410).
Regarding Claim 7, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein:
the substrate mounting (306) surface comprises a flexible membrane (314, See Para [0105] “The elastic membrane 314 has an opening 314a defined at a central portion thereof. As shown in FIG. 8, the lower member 306 has a passage 324 communicating with the opening 314a. The passage 324 of the lower member 306 is connected to a fluid supply source (not shown). Thus, a pressurized fluid is supplied through the passage 324 to the central portion of the elastic membrane 314.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein:
the outer ring has an inner surface that is disposed against an outer surface of the inner ring (See Figure 9 where outer ring 302 contacts outer surface of the inner ring 408).
Regarding Claim 9, Nabeya teaches A carrier head for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
A carrier body (20);
a substrate mounting surface (306) coupled with the carrier body (See Figure 8);
an inner ring (408), the inner ring being characterized by an Upper surface that faces the carrier body (Upper surface of 408 that faces 404) and a Lower surface opposite the first surface (bottom surface of 408 that faces the platen);
an outer ring (302) disposed radially outward of the inner ring (See figure 8 and 9, 302 is radially outside inner ring); and suggests but does not explicitly teach
the at least one downforce control actuator (piston 406) comprises a plurality of downforce control actuators, each of the plurality of downforce control actuators being disposed at a different discrete location about the circumference of the inner ring (See figure 8, where identical structure to the piston mechanism 406 is show on both sides of the carrier head and wafer).
But does not explicitly disclose the inner ring having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface,
an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring;
the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nabeya to have a plurality of downforce control actuators as suggested by figure 8 of Nabeya as doing so would allow for uniform force to be applied to all sides of the wafer applying an even polishing.
However, Fukashima discloses a similar substrate holding device for polishing, including a carrier head (1) with an inner ring (408) having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface (See Para [0074] “the retainer ring 3 comprises a ring member 408 disposed at an outer peripheral portion of the top ring body 2 and configured to hold a peripheral edge of the semiconductor wafer”), an inner diameter of the outer ring (440 forms the outer ring, See Fig. 6) at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface (See Fig. 6 showing inner surface of outer ring 440 contacting the outer surface of the inner ring 408) such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring (See Fig. 6 as noted above) the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring (See Fig. 6);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outer ring to be fitted over the inner ring such that an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring as Fukashima teaches that doing so improves the rigidity of the inner ring, suppressing deformation. See Fukashima Para [0113] “The retainer ring 3 will be further described with reference to FIG. 6. As shown in FIG. 6, a metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b. Since the metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b, the lower ring member 408b has an improved rigidity. Thus, even if a temperature of the ring member 408 increases due to the sliding contact between the ring member 408 and the polishing surface 101a, thermal deformation of the lower ring member 408b can be suppressed.”
Regarding Claim 10, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and suggests but does not explicitly teach wherein:
the plurality of downforce control actuators is spaced apart at regular intervals about the circumference of the inner ring (figure 8 of Nabeya shows two downforce control actuators on opposite sides of the carrier head, showing a regular interval of half the circumference of the ring).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carrier head of Nabeya as suggested by figure 8 of Nabeya to have downforce control actuators spaced apart at regular intervals as doing so would be an obvious matter of duplication and rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI) (B and C).
Regarding Claim 11, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach:
a magnitude of downforce applied to the upper surface of the inner ring is different for at least one of the pluralities of downforce control actuators.
However, Nabeya also teaches a different embodiment, which explicitly teaches multiple pressure chambers (710 see figure 20) acting on multiple pistons (706, See Para [0161]) in order to apply non-uniform pressure distribution (See Para [0162] “In the above example, a non-uniform pressure distribution can be produced along a circumferential direction of the retainer ring 502 by independently adjusting pressures of fluids to be supplied to a plurality of pressure chambers 710. Specifically, the ring member 708 and a plurality of pressure chambers 710 to press the ring member 708 against the polishing pad 22 serve as a pressure control mechanism for producing a non-uniform pressure distribution along a circumferential direction of the retainer ring 502.”).
It would be obvious to one obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify carrier head of Nabeya in view of the alternate embodiment of Nabeya to obtain have a pressure distribution that does not have to be uniformed, allowing for the magnitude of the downward force applied to the first surface of the inner ring to be different at least one of the plurality of downforce control actuators as doing so would allow an operator a larger degree of control over the polishing operation allowing for the polishing of the wafer into a specific shape as desired (See Para [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein:
the plurality of downforce control actuators are disposed in an annular pattern that is concentric with a motor of the carrier head.
However, Nabeya does first teach a motor shaft (18) driven by a motor that drives the carrier head (See Figure 3 Para [0078] “The top ring shaft 18 is rotated by actuation of a motor (not shown). By rotation of the top ring shaft 18, the top ring 20 is rotated about the top ring shaft 18.”) and Nabeya also teaches a different embodiment, which explicitly teaches multiple pressure chambers (710 see figure 20) acting on multiple pistons (706, See Para [0161]) that are arranged in an annular distribution around the carrier head (see Para [0161] “The elastic membrane 704 may have a plurality of separation membranes (not shown) disposed along a circumferential direction so as to form a plurality of pressure chambers 710, which are divided in the circumferential direction, inside of the elastic membrane 704”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polishing head of Nabeya to have a plurality of downforce control actuators disposed in an annular pattern that is concentric with a motor of the carrier head as doing so would be an obvious matter of rearrangement and duplication of parts (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B and C) and allow an operator a significant amount of control of the polishing force distribution during polishing.
Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US 20190224808 A1) in view of Fukashima (US 20100273405 A1) as modified in claim 9 and further in view of Lau (US 20170274497 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Nabeya as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein:
at least some of the plurality of downforce control actuators are inactive during a given polishing operation.
However, Lau also teaches a different embodiment, which explicitly teaches multiple pressure chambers (400) acting providing downforce on a polishing pad (See Para [0036]) that are capable of remaining inactive, (See Para [0036] “Another degree of relative movement of the polishing pad assembly 125 may be provided by a pressure chamber 400 provided in the housing 305. The pressure chamber 400 may be bounded by a bearing cap 405 and a flexible membrane 410 coupled to the polishing pad assembly 125. Compressed fluids, such as clean dry air, may be provided to the pressure chamber 400 via a fluid inlet 415 that is in fluid communication with the pressure chamber 400 by a plenum 420 positioned laterally relative to the pressure chamber 400. The plenum 420 may be bounded by surfaces of the housing 305 and the flexible membrane 410. The volumes of the pressure chamber 400 and the plenum 420 may be fluidly separated from a volume 425 between the flexible membrane 410 and the housing base 315 such that fluids are contained therein and/or the volume 425 is at a pressure lower than a pressure of the plenum 420 (as well as the plenum 420 (e.g., at ambient or room pressure, or slightly above room pressure). Fluids provided to the plenum 420 provide a downforce to the polishing pad assembly 125 by applying a controllable force against the flexible membrane 410. The downforce may be varied as needed such that movement of the polishing pad assembly 125 is provided or controlled in the Z direction.” Holding plenum at ambient or room pressure would result in no downforce being applied same as deactivating a plenum).
It would be obvious to one obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify carrier head of Nabeya in view of the Lau to obtain a pressure distribution that does not have to be uniformed, including having one or more of the downforce control actuators are inactive during a given polishing operation, as allowing one or more of the downforce actuators would allow an operator a larger degree of control over the polishing operation allowing for the polishing of the wafer into a specific shape as desired or to provide greater degree of material removal at different local areas of the wafer (See Para [0006]-[0008] of Lau).
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya (US 20190224808 A1) in view of Fukashima (US 20100273405 A1) as modified in claim 9 and further in view of Parkhe (US 20140263176 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Nabeya teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein:
a magnitude of downforce applied by each of the plurality of downforce control actuators is between 0 lbs. and 10 lbs.
However, Parkhe teaches a polishing apparatus utilizing a loading of approximately 10 pounds of force to perform a polishing operation (See Para [0055] “A loading of approximately 10 pounds of force to approximately 75 pounds of force may be applied during one or more early stages of the second polishing procedure.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the force of the downforce control actuators would be a matter of routine optimization, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to experiment and optimize to find an appropriate amount of force to apply to the wafer during grinding operation in order to achieve the desired grinding profile (See MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim(s) 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabeya2 (JP 2015051501 A) in view of Fukashima (US 20100273405 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Nabeya2 teaches A method of polishing a substrate, comprising:
flowing a polishing slurry from a slurry source to a polishing pad (See Para [0019] “A polishing liquid supply nozzle (not shown) is provided above the polishing table 100, and a polishing liquid (slurry) is supplied onto the polishing pad 101 on the polishing table 100 by this polishing liquid supply nozzle.”);
polishing a substrate atop the polishing pad (See Para [0019] “As shown in FIG. 1, the polishing apparatus includes a polishing table 100 and a top ring 1 that holds a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer, which is an object to be polished, and presses it against a polishing surface on the polishing table.”); and
applying a localized downforce to one or more discrete locations of an inner ring that retains the substrate within a carrier head while polishing the substrate (See Para [0031] “Then, by adjusting the pressure of the fluid supplied to each pressure chamber 5, 6, 7, and 9, the pressing force pressing the semiconductor wafer W against the polishing pad 101 is adjusted for each region of the semiconductor wafer, and the pressing force with which the retaining ring 3 presses the polishing pad 101 is adjusted, until the surface of the semiconductor wafer reaches a predetermined state (e.g., a predetermined film thickness).”)
The inner ring comprises an upper surface and a bottom most surface (See Annotated figure A).
The carrier head comprises an outer ring disposed radially outward of the inner ring (See Annotated Figure A)
wherein the one or more discrete locations are proximate a trailing edge of the substrate (See Para [0015] “According to the present invention, even if there is variation in the amount of elongation of the membrane in the circumferential direction, the retaining ring pressure chamber that generates the retaining ring surface pressure is divided into multiple chambers in the circumferential direction, and the pressure distribution of the retaining ring is changed by independently controlling the pressure of each divided pressure chamber, thereby making the polishing pressure applied to the substrate uniform in the circumferential direction and ensuring a uniform polishing profile in the circumferential direction.” And see figure 2 showing 9 on the circumference in relation to 4, which the wafer is attached to, (see Para [0026], Examiner notes that the location of the pressure chambers in relation to the wafer in Nabeya2 is consistent with the locations disclosed in applicants’ disclosure, Examiner further
notes that as the substrate of the instant invention and reference are circular, “trailing edge” is being interpreted as an outer edge or near the circumference).
But does not explicitly disclose the inner ring having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface,
an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring;
the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring;
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nabeya to have a plurality of downforce control actuators as suggested by figure 8 of Nabeya as doing so would allow for uniform force to be applied to all sides of the wafer applying an even polishing.
However, Fukashima discloses a similar substrate holding device for polishing, including a carrier head (1) with an inner ring (408) having an inner diameter, sized to receive and circumferentially surround a peripheral edge of a substrate positioned against the substrate mounting surface (See Para [0074] “the retainer ring 3 comprises a ring member 408 disposed at an outer peripheral portion of the top ring body 2 and configured to hold a peripheral edge of the semiconductor wafer”), an inner diameter of the outer ring (440 forms the outer ring, See Fig. 6) at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface (See Fig. 6 showing inner surface of outer ring 440 contacting the outer surface of the inner ring 408) such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring (See Fig. 6 as noted above) the outer ring is isolated from the substrate by the inner ring (See Fig. 6);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outer ring to be fitted over the inner ring such that an inner diameter of the outer ring at a lowest surface of the outer ring is greater than an outer diameter of the inner ring at the bottommost surface such that the lowest surface of the outer ring is radially outward of and surrounds the bottommost surface of the inner ring as Fukashima teaches that doing so improves the rigidity of the inner ring, suppressing deformation. See Fukashima Para [0113] “The retainer ring 3 will be further described with reference to FIG. 6. As shown in FIG. 6, a metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b. Since the metal ring 440 made of SUS or the like is fitted over the lower ring member 408b, the lower ring member 408b has an improved rigidity. Thus, even if a temperature of the ring member 408 increases due to the sliding contact between the ring member 408 and the polishing surface 101a, thermal deformation of the lower ring member 408b can be suppressed.”
PNG
media_image1.png
321
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Figure 12 of Nabeya2)
Regarding Claim 16, Nabeya2 teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition teaches wherein:
applying the localized downforce comprises pressurizing an air cylinder coupled (see figure 2, 9 and 8 form an air cylinder See Para [0029] “A retainer ring pressure chamber 9 is also formed directly above the retainer ring 3 by an elastic membrane 8” and plunger) with a plunger to press the plunger against an upper surface of the inner ring (see Para [0030]).
Regarding Claim 17, Nabeya2 teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition teaches further comprising:
adjusting a magnitude of downforce applied to at least one of the one or more discrete locations while the substrate is being polished (See Para [0030] “In the top ring 1 configured as shown in FIG. 2, as described above, the first pressure chamber 5 is formed in the center of the top ring body 2, and the second pressure chamber 6 and the third pressure chamber 7 are formed concentrically in sequence from the center toward the outer periphery, and the pressures of the fluids supplied to the first pressure chamber 5, the second pressure chamber 6, the third pressure chamber 7 and the retaining ring pressure chamber 9 can be independently adjusted by pressure controllers provided in the pressure lines of each pressure chamber.” and “With this structure, the pressure with which the semiconductor wafer W is pressed against the polishing pad 101 can be adjusted for each region of the semiconductor wafer, and the pressure with which the retainer ring 3 presses against the polishing pad 101 can also be adjusted.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Nabeya2 teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition teaches wherein:
a magnitude of the localized downforce is constant throughout a duration of the
polishing. (See Para [0037] “Here, taking into consideration the fact that the ease with which the membrane stretches varies when a certain constant pressure is applied to the inside of the membrane, the amount of stretch of the membrane is measured at predetermined ranges in the radial direction of the membrane.”)
Regarding Claim 20, Nabeya2 teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition teaches further comprising: determining a difference between a target polishing profile and an actual polishing profile; and adjusting the localized downforce for at least one of the one or more discrete locations of the inner ring based on the difference (see Para [0053] indicating that the CMP apparatus detects difference during polishing and adjusts to compensate for said differences “As shown in Figures 13(a) to (c), when the retaining ring pressure chamber is divided into three or six, just as in the method of tilting with a shim described above, it is confirmed which phase has the maximum or minimum tendency for bulging when the membrane is attached, and the pressure in the retaining ring pressure chamber is controlled so that the retaining ring surface pressure is small, for example, in the range where the bulge is small, i.e., the polishing rate is small, and conversely, the pressure in the retaining ring pressure chamber is controlled so that the retaining ring surface pressure is large, i.e., in the range where the bulge is large, i.e., the polishing rate is large. This is the case where the polishing rate of the edge portion of the substrate increases when the surface pressure of the retainer ring is small, but the opposite tendency can also occur if the polishing process is different, so the above relationship between magnitude is not limited to this example.”.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723