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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “a difference of a first...and a second ” in claim 7 is grammatically improper. Consider ––a difference between a first...and a second––.
The limitations of “the plurality of surface roughness” in claims 7 and 21 are grammatically improper. Consider ––the plurality of surface roughnesses––.
The limitation of “a three-dimensional image sensor and disposed at upstream or downstream of the conditioner” in claim 8 is grammatically improper. Consider ––a three-dimensional image sensor disposed upstream or downstream of the conditioner––.
The limitation of “reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to difference between the” in claim 21 is grammatically improper. Consider ––reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to the difference between the––.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-18, 26, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10675732, "Chen") in view of Huang et al. (US PGPub 2020/0130136, "Huang") and Huey et al. (US 11710228, "Huey") and as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 10131031, "Kim").
7. Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches a control method for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100) having a polishing pad (106), a sensor (128), a polishing head (112) and a conditioner (120, see Chen fig. 1), the control method comprising:
conditioning, by the conditioner, a plurality of regions of the polishing pad (conditioning head brought into in contact with pad and translated in step 1004, see Chen figs. 10A-10E; conditioning performed across polishing zones Z1-Z6, see Chen fig. 3 and 5:54-6:9);
capturing, by the sensor, data of the polishing pad associated with each of the plurality of regions of the polishing pad to obtain a plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions (sensor 128 provides a signal based on a surface condition such as surface roughness, see Chen 4:40-54 and fig. 10E; data includes information regarding plurality of zones, see Chen 5:54-6:9);
tuning at least one polishing condition of the conditioner to adjust removal rate in one of a plurality of regions of a wafer corresponding to a first region of the plurality of regions or the second region of the plurality of regions(1008A adjusting a position of the conditioning pad in response to the surface condition signal, see Chen fig. 10E; see also Chen claim 5, teaching conditioner position or rotation is adjusted in response to the surface condition signal; conditioning processes are based on regions Z1-Z6, see Chen 5:37-40; control of conditioning variables is based on the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and ensures that the condition is within a target range, and that the method includes control based on a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range, see Chen 5:54-6:9; control of conditioning may be modified if data is outside a predetermined threshold value, see Chen 7:15-26; conditioning is correlated with removal rate, see Chen 2:41-60);
polishing a wafer according to the removal rate (conditioning may occur simultaneous to wafer polishing, thereby ensuring that removal occurs at a rate corresponding to that of a freshly conditioned surface, see Chen 3:4-8); and
reconditioning, by the conditioner, the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to the at least one polishing condition that is tuned (steps 1004 and 1006, see Chen fig. 10E).
Chen does not explicitly teach a step of determining whether a difference of a first one of the plurality of surface roughness at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughness at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value or that the tuning is performed when the difference is determined to be greater than an acceptable value.
However, Chen does teach that the control of conditioning variables is based on both the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range (see Chen 5:54-6:9). It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Furthermore, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
From Chen's teachings that conditioning has been completed when a surface condition signal is within a signal target range, that the surface condition may incorporate data regarding the relative condition of various polishing zones, and that the zones may be subjected to different conditioning parameters to generate zones having different surface properties (see Chen 8:36-56), one of ordinary skill would infer that the process involves a step of comparing the different surface roughnesses in adjacent zones to a predetermined target range for the relative values to ensure that difference between the surface roughnesses in different zones is held within a target range. As a person of ordinary creativity, they would further understand that determining the relative conditions of different zones is impossible without a comparison of some sort, and that such a comparison would most likely involve taking a difference and comparing it to an acceptable signal target range.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to modify the method of Chen to include a step of determining whether a difference of a first one of the plurality of surface roughness at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughness at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value, wherein the step of tuning was performed when the difference is determined to be greater than an acceptable value, as doing so would improve the uniformity and efficiency of the conditioning process (see Chen 8:45-56).
Chen as modified does not explicitly teach that the data of the polishing pad are images of the polishing pad. Chen is also silent as to the specific nature of the sensor, referring only to a "optical scanner" (see Chen 4:43-48).
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (200) having a polishing pad (290), a sensor (detection module 260), a polishing head (210) and a conditioner (280, see Huang fig. 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a surface roughness of the pad (sensor detects profile of polishing pad, profile can include a surface roughness, see Huang [0025]). Huang further teaches that an optical module that captures 3-dimensional holographic images, such as a digital holography device, is suitable for use in obtaining a surface roughness of a polishing pad (see Huang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try using a scanner such as the digital holography device taught by Huang as the optical scanner of unknown form taught by Chen.
Chen teaches the use of an optical scanner, but does not teach any specific type of optical scanner. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to find prior art that taught a suitable sort of optical scanner. Huang identifies a set of sensors suitable for use as an optical scanner to capture data for determining a surface roughness (an optical profilometer, a digital holography device configured to build holography images, or a confocal microscopy device configured to record multiple two-dimensional images of top surface 302 at different focal planes, see Huang [0047]). Because these sensors, several of which capture surface images, are taught as suitable for use as an optical scanner for determining a surface roughness in a conditioning apparatus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use one of the devices taught by Huang for the method of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success.
Chen as modified does not teach that the polishing head comprises a membrane that forms a pressurizable chamber therein; or that the method includes a step of chucking and moving the wafer by negatively pressurizing the pressurizable chamber.
However, Huey teaches a polishing head (70) comprising a membrane (80) that forms a pressurizable chamber therein (membrane 80 forms a plurality of chambers 82, see Huey fig. 2); wherein the polishing head is configured to chuck and move a wafer by negatively pressurizing the pressurizable chamber (carrier head may carry wafer 10 from load cups 8 to polishing pad 30, see Huey figs. 1-3 and 6:58-7:10; one of ordinary skill in the wafer polishing arts would understand the chucking to be carried out using negative pressure, as doing so is old and well known in the art, see Kim 2:22-35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the carrier head of Huey in the method of Chen as modified such that the polishing head comprises a membrane that forms a pressurizable chamber therein and the method includes a step of chucking and moving the wafer by negatively pressurizing the pressurizable chamber, as one of ordinary skill in the polishing arts would understand that being able to control radial pressures so as to increase or decrease backside pressure in different polishing zones would allow for greater control over a polishing process, thereby reducing wasted resources due to overpolishing or underpolishing of certain regions.
8. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein the sensor comprises a three-dimensional image sensor (sensor is a digital holography device that builds three dimensional holographic images, see Huang [0047]) and is disposed upstream or downstream of the conditioner (sensor 128 is disposed on arm 122 and is capable of being rotated such that it is sensing surface conditions upstream or downstream of the conditioner, e.g., if the pad is rotating counterclockwise, then rotating arm 122 counterclockwise would result in the sensor obtaining data directly upstream from the conditioner see Chen fig. 2).
9. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein a field of view of the sensor is smaller than an area of the polishing pad (128′ is smaller than area of 106, see Chen fig. 1), and wherein capturing the images of the polishing pad comprises: moving the sensor between a center and an edge of the polishing pad so that the sensor is able to capture images correspond to regions between the center and the edge of the polishing pad (arm 122 rotates, allowing sensor 128 to move and capture images in zones Z1-Z6, see Chen 5:62-6:3 and fig. 3).
10. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 9, wherein reconditioning the polishing pad comprises: moving the conditioner between the center and the edge of the polishing pad so that the conditioner is able to polish the polishing pad from the center to the edge of the polishing pad (Conditioner 120 moves along line A3 and rotates with arm 122, see Chen 5:7-24 and fig. 3).
11. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 10, wherein the sensor and the conditioner are moved synchronously (sensor 128 and conditioner 120 are both are both on arm 122 of conditioning apparatus 200, and would move synchronously as the arm swings, see Chen fig. 3).
12. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein the at least one polishing condition comprises at least one of a rotational speed of the conditioner, a downward force of the conditioner against the polishing pad, and a polishing time of the conditioner (rotation of conditioner, see Chen claim 5).
Regarding claims 13-18, Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, but does not explicitly teach a specific timing for the step of reconditioning the polishing pad relative to the step of polishing the wafer. However, Chen does teach that the conditioning step may be performed during, before, or after wafer polishing operations (conditioning may occur concurrently to wafer polishing or as a separate process, see Chen 3:4-8). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide additional conditioning steps of before, during, and after wafer polishing, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (performing the conditioning process before, during, or after polishing) according to known methods (Chen teaches that conditioning may be performed sequentially, using different pads) such that a person of ordinary skill would recognize that the results of the combinations were predictable.
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches a control method for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100) having a polishing pad (106), a sensor (128), a polishing head (112) and a conditioner (120, see Chen fig. 1), the control method comprising:
conditioning, by the conditioner, a plurality of regions of the polishing pad (conditioning head brought into in contact with pad and translated in step 1004, see Chen figs. 10A-10E; conditioning performed across polishing zones Z1-Z6, see Chen fig. 3 and 5:54-6:9);
capturing, by the sensor, data of the polishing pad associated with each of the plurality of regions of the polishing pad to obtain a plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions (sensor 128 provides a signal based on a surface condition such as surface roughness, see Chen 4:40-54 and fig. 10E; data includes information regarding plurality of zones, see Chen 5:54-6:9);
tuning a plurality of polishing conditions to adjust a plurality of removal rates in a plurality of polishing regions of a wafer based on the plurality of surface roughnesses associated with the plurality of regions of the polishing pad (step 1008A: adjusting a position of the conditioning pad in response to the surface condition signal, see Chen fig. 10E; see also Chen claim 5, teaching position or rotation is adjusted in response to the surface condition signal; conditioning processes are based on regions Z1-Z6, see Chen 5:37-40; control of conditioning variables is based on the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and ensures that the condition is within a target range, and that the method includes control based on a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range, see Chen 5:54-6:9; control of conditioning may be modified if data is outside a predetermined threshold value, see Chen 7:15-26; conditioning of a region of the pad is correlated with removal rate in a corresponding region of a wafer, see Chen 2:41-60);
polishing a wafer which is pushed against the polishing pad by the polishing head (conditioning may occur simultaneous to wafer polishing, see Chen 3:4-8); and
reconditioning, by the conditioner, the plurality of regions of the polishing pad (steps 1004 and 1006, see Chen fig. 10E).
Chen does not specifically teach that the step of tuning a first removal rate in a first polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the first region or a second removal rate in a second polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the second region of the polishing pad is performed when a difference between the first and second surface roughnesseses is greater than an acceptable value, or that the step of reconditioning is likewise performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness. However, Chen does teach that the control of conditioning variables is based on both the relative condition of various zones of the polishing pad and a surface condition such as roughness being within a signal target range (see Chen 5:54-6:9). It has been held that it is proper to take into account the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw from a reference. MPEP 2144.01. From Chen's teachings that conditioning has been completed when a surface condition signal is within a signal target range, that the surface condition may incorporate data regarding the relative condition of various polishing zones, and that the zones may be subjected to different conditioning parameters to generate zones having different surface properties (see Chen 8:36-56), one of ordinary skill would infer that the process involves a step of comparing the different surface roughnesses in adjacent zones to a predetermined target range for the relative values to ensure that difference between the surface roughnesses in different zones is held within a target range, and that the step of reconditioning is performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the method of Chen such that the step of tuning a first removal rate in a first polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the first region or a second removal rate in a second polishing region of a wafer corresponding to the second region of the polishing pad is performed when a difference between the plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad at the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is greater than an acceptable value and the step of reconditioning is performed according to the difference between the first surface roughness and the second surface roughness, as doing so would improve the uniformity and efficiency of the conditioning process (see Chen 8:45-56).
Chen as modified does not explicitly teach that the data of the polishing pad are images of the polishing pad. Chen is also silent as to the specific nature of the sensor, referring only to a "optical scanner" (see Chen 4:43-48).
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (200) having a polishing pad (290), a sensor (detection module 260), a polishing head (210) and a conditioner (280, see Huang fig. 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a surface roughness of the pad (sensor detects profile of polishing pad, profile can include a surface roughness, see Huang [0025]). Huang further teaches that an optical module that captures 3-dimensional holographic images, such as a digital holography device, is suitable for use in obtaining a surface roughness of a polishing pad (see Huang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a scanner such as the digital holography device taught by Huang as the optical scanner of unknown form taught by Chen.
Chen teaches the use of an optical scanner, but does not teach any specific type of optical scanner. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to find prior art that taught a suitable sort of optical scanner. Huang identifies a set of sensors suitable for use as an optical scanner to capture data for determining a surface roughness (an optical profilometer, a digital holography device configured to build holography images, or a confocal microscopy device configured to record multiple two-dimensional images of top surface 302 at different focal planes, see Huang [0047]). Because these sensors, several of which capture surface images, are taught as suitable for use as an optical scanner for determining a surface roughness in a conditioning apparatus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use one of the devices taught by Huang for the method of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success.
28. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 26, wherein the first region comprises a center region of the polishing pad and the second region comprises an edge region of the polishing pad (Zones Z1-Z6 include a central region Z6 and a peripheral region Z1, see Chen fig. 3).
29. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, wherein the polishing head further comprises a retaining ring surrounding the membrane, wherein a lower surface of the retaining ring is brought into contact with the polishing pad during the polishing process, and an inner surface of the retaining ring is configured to circumferentially surround an edge of the wafer to retain the wafer during polishing (the carrier head of Huey integrated into the method of Chen as modified includes a retaining ring 86 that contacts the polishing pad during polishing and has an inner surface that surrounds an edge of wafer 10, see Huey fig. 1).
31. Chen as modified teaches the control method according to claim 7, but does not specifically teach a step of performing a cleaning process over the wafer after polishing the wafer, wherein reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is performed after the cleaning process.
However, Huey further teaches the inclusion of a mechanism for cleaning the wafer (load cup 8 may include elements for cleaning the carrier head and substrate, see Huey 7:11-20), and that the cleaning mechanism is incorporated in a transfer station used to move substrates between processing stations before and after polishing (Huey 6:50-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include cleaning mechanisms for cleaning a wafer after polishing as taught by Huey in the method of Chen as modified such that it included a step of performing a cleaning process over the wafer after polishing the wafer, wherein reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is performed after the cleaning process, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill. Note that Chen teaches that conditioning may be performed before, during, or after polishing (Chen 3:35-54), which means that the cleaning step would occur before, after, or at the same time as the at least one conditioning step. When processing a succession of wafers, at least one cleaning process would occur before at least one reconditioning step.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taylor (US 7094695) in view of Huey.
21. Taylor teaches a control method for chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (100), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of surface roughnesses of a polishing pad from a plurality of regions of the polishing pad (measuring a surface condition such as roughness in a plurality of regions R1-R3, see Taylor 4:24-49 and figs. 2-3);
tuning at least one polishing condition to increase or decrease a removal rate in one of a plurality of regions of a wafer corresponding to the first region of the plurality of regions or the second region of the plurality of regions (adjusting a conditioning variable based on detecting a difference in surface conditions between two regions of a polishing pad, Taylor 5:25-45; performing conditioning changes a polishing rate, so adjusting conditioning variables will necessarily increase or decrease a polishing rate, see Taylor 1:61-2:12);
polishing a wafer by the polishing pad according to a removal rate that is increased or decreased (conditioning occurs between planarization steps to return a polishing surface to a desired texture, see Taylor 5:1-24; removal rate is correlated to the surface texture after conditioning, see Taylor 2:13-24 and 6:32-43); and
reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to the removal rate that is increased or decreased (conditioning occurs between planarization steps to return a polishing surface to a desired texture, see Taylor 5:1-24).
Taylor does not explicitly teach that the step of tuning at least one polishing condition to increase or decrease a removal rate in one of a plurality of regions of a wafer corresponding to the first region of the plurality of regions or the second region of the plurality of regions is performed when a difference between a first one of the plurality of surface roughness at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughness at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01.
Taylor teaches a step of adjusting conditioning variables associated with removal of material for different pad regions based on the different measured surface conditions such as roughness in those regions (see Taylor 5:1-24), and further teaches that the adjustment of conditioning variables is based on a determination that different regions have different surface conditions such as surface roughness and adjusting the conditioning settings correlated with removal rate is performed such that conditioning restores the regions to a common surface roughness (Taylor 5:25-45), thereby reducing differences in removal rate across different substrate regions (Taylor 6:32-43). A person of ordinary skill would conclude that in teaching a step of adjusting downforce, relative velocity, or sweep velocity based on a measured difference in surface conditions between regions (such as the surface roughness in each region), Taylor implicitly teaches that the tuning is performed when a difference between a first one of the plurality of surface roughness at a first region of the plurality of regions and a second one of the plurality of surface roughness at a second region of the plurality of regions is greater than an acceptable value (i.e., performing conditioning when the difference between the surface roughnesses in different regions is greater than zero or, implicitly, some minimum allowable threshold to ensure textures that will remove material consistently from the wafer).
Taylor does not teach steps of performing a cleaning process over the wafer; and
after the cleaning process, reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad according to the difference between the first one of the plurality of surface roughnesses at the first region of the plurality of regions and the second one of the plurality of surface roughnesses.
However, Huey teaches a polishing system including a mechanism for cleaning the wafer (load cup 8 may include elements for cleaning the carrier head and substrate, see Huey 7:11-20), and that the cleaning mechanism is incorporated in a transfer station used to move substrates between processing stations before and after polishing (Huey 6:50-57). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would understand that the normal course of using such a polishing system would include a conditioning step being performed more than once during the lifetime of a pad, such that at least one conditioning process would be performed after at least one cleaning process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include cleaning mechanisms for cleaning a wafer after polishing as taught by Huey in the method of Taylor such that it included a step of performing a cleaning process over the wafer after polishing the wafer, wherein reconditioning the plurality of regions of the polishing pad is performed after the cleaning process, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
23. Taylor as modified teaches the control method according to claim 21, wherein the method of increasing or decreasing the removal rate comprises tuning at least one of a rotational speed of the conditioner, a downward force of the conditioner that pushes the wafer against the polishing pad and a polishing time of the conditioner (adjusting downforce of end effector 180 on conditioner, see Taylor fig.2 and 5:25-45).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taylor and Huey as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Huang.
22. Taylor as modified teaches the control method according to claim 21, and further teaches the use of an optical sensor to detect surface roughnesses (monitoring device includes an optical device that measures a surface condition such as roughness in a plurality of regions including first and second regions, see Taylor 4:24-49). However, Taylor as modified does not teach that the plurality of surface roughnesses of the polishing pad is obtained by capturing images of the polishing pad via a sensor.
However, Huang further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (200) having a polishing pad (290), a sensor (detection module 260), a polishing head (210) and a conditioner (280, see Huang fig. 2), wherein the sensor is configured to detect a surface roughness of the pad (sensor detects profile of polishing pad, profile can include a surface roughness, see Huang [0025]), and wherein the sensor is movable to monitor more than one region (probe 261 is movable along a rail 263, see Huang [0044], and fig. 2) and wherein the sensor may be an optical monitoring device that captures images (sensor may be a digital holography device configured to build holography images or a confocal microscopy device configured to record multiple two-dimensional images of top surface 302 at different focal planes, see Huang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement an image-capturing optical sensor movable on an arm to capture more than one region such as the confocal microscopy device taught by Huang into the method of Taylor as modified, as Taylor teaches the use of an optical monitoring device (Taylor 4:31-34) and that the optical monitoring device may be movable to monitor more than one region (Taylor 4:47-49), but does not teach a structure for such a device. Using the device of Huang as the optical monitoring device of Taylor represents the simple substitution of one known optical sensor element for another such that the method of Taylor was modified to determine a plurality of surface roughnesses based on captured images, and such a substitution would produce results predictable to one of ordinary skill.
24. Taylor as modified teaches the control method according to claim 22, wherein a field of view of the sensor is smaller than an area of the polishing pad, and wherein capturing the images of the polishing pad comprises: moving the sensor between a center and an edge of the polishing pad so that the sensor is able to capture images correspond to the plurality of regions between the center and the edge of the polishing pad (the sensor 261, 421 of Huang captures images as it moves across the pad from a center and edge, see Huang figs. 4b, 5 and [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a polishing pad including an existing roughness variation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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