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 .
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending applications: 17/858,006, titled “ACOUSTIC WINDOW WITH LIQUID-FILLED PORES FOR CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING AND METHODS OF FORMING PADS”; 17/855,520, titled “COUPLING OF ACOUSTIC SENSOR FOR CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING”; 18/365,482, titled “CARRIER HEAD ACOUSTIC MONITORING WITH SENSOR IN PLATEN”; and 17/858,000, titled “ACOUSTIC WINDOW IN PAD POLISHING AND BACKING LAYER FOR CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING”. These applications have pending claims directed to similar subject matter as the claims in this application. Currently, the claims in this application and these copending applications are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection with respect to these applications is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of these copending applications be amended such that they are no longer patentably distinct from the claims in this application. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify copending applications that disclose similar subject matter as well as prior art and other information from copending applications that is material to the patentability of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Wiswesser in view of Tang
Claim 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”) in view of US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”).
Wiswesser pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Tang pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Wiswesser discloses a polishing pad (Fig. 5, polishing pad 18), comprising:
a first layer comprising a polishing layer having a polishing surface (Fig. 5, first layer including polishing layer 22 with polishing surface on the upper side; 3:15-25);
and a second layer comprising a backing layer and an acoustic window, the second layer being disposed below the first layer (Fig. 5, second layer including backing layer 20 and acoustic window 48, the second layer is below layer 22),
wherein the acoustic window comprises solid material having an acoustic impedance less than that of the backing layer and extending through the backing layer to contact a bottom surface of the polishing layer (Fig. 5, acoustic window 48 extends through backing layer 20 and contacts bottom surface of polishing layer 22; 6:32-33, “The base window 48 can be formed from glass.”; 3:15-25, “The covering layer 22 can be a durable rough layer (e.g., Rodel IC-1000), whereas the backing layer can be a more compressible layer (e.g., Rodel Suba-IV).”; it is inherently disclosed that window 48 (made of glass, which is incompressible) has a higher density than backing layer 20, and therefore, an acoustic impedance less than that of backing layer 20 as it is known that Rodel Suba-IV is a compressible polyurethane felt (US 6454630 B1 (“Tolles”) at 5:64-65, “The backing layer 20 may be a felted polyurethane, such as a SUBA-IV layer produced by Rodel”); Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, a “window” made of nearly any material could be an “acoustic window”, i.e., a window that allows acoustic signals to transmit or pass through it, even if impeded or attenuated to some extent),
wherein an entirety of the polishing layer comprises a uniform composition of material extending above both the backing layer and the acoustic window (Fig. 5, the entirety of the polishing layer 22 comprises a uniform composition of material extending above the backing layer 20 and acoustic window 48; 3:15-25, “The covering layer 22 can be a durable rough layer (e.g., Rodel IC-1000); it is known that Rodel Suba-IV is a compressible polyurethane felt (US 6454630 B1 (“Tolles”) at 5:64-65, “The backing layer 20 may be a felted polyurethane, such as a SUBA-IV layer produced by Rodel”)).
Wiswesser does not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer covers an entirety of the acoustic window. However, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious this claim.
Tang discloses wherein the polishing layer covers an entirety of the acoustic window (Figs. 1-4, polishing layer 112 covers an entirety of the acoustic window 118 (or 116 in Fig. 1); ¶¶ 0045-0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Tang with Wiswesser by modifying the polishing layer 22 of Wiswesser to cover the entirety of the acoustic window 48. For example, the polishing layer 22 may be modified to be uniform in material as taught by Tang, but thin or made of an optically transparent or semi-transparent material (see Saikin ¶ 0023), such that at least some light passes through the polishing layer 22 sufficient for optical detection and/or measurement. Wiswesser already teaches that the first layer covers the entirety of the acoustic window 48, except there is a second window 36 above a portion of the acoustic window that is not part of the “uniform” polishing layer 22 (Wiswesser Fig. 5). However, Wiswesser teaches other embodiments, including the embodiment of Fig. 6, where the upper portion of the second window 36 is smaller so as to subject the second window to “less abrasion and is less likely to break.” Based on the teachings of Wiswesser and Tang, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to make the proposed modification because it is a design choice that trades durability of the device with sensor sensitivity (e.g., the modification results in higher durability and longevity of polishing layer 22 because there is no upper window subject to abrasion, but trading for less optical sensor sensitivity). Additionally, Tang teaches the use of an optional probe (Tang Figs. 2-4) that is capable of increasing sensor sensitivity (Tang ¶¶ 0045-0054) in order to compensate for this design change.
Regarding claim 2, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser further discloses where the acoustic window is non-porous (6:32-33, “The base window 48 can be formed from glass.”; it is inherently disclosed that window 48 is non-porous as it is made of glass, which is typically non-porous, such as glass used in a typical container (see US 3149946 A (“Elmer”) at 1:14-23 “an article composed of a glass containing over 94% silica can be produced by...thereafter consolidating the porous glass to a non-porous condition by heating.”)).
To the extent Wiswesser does not inherently disclose where the acoustic window is non-porous, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the acoustic window of Wiswesser to use non-porous glass instead of porous glass. It is known that glass is typically non-porous, and not porous (Wiswesser 6:32-33, “The base window 48 can be formed from glass.” (see US 3149946 A (“Elmer”) at 1:14-23 “an article composed of a glass containing over 94% silica can be produced by...thereafter consolidating the porous glass to a non-porous condition by heating.”)). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use non-porous glass for the acoustic window in order to prevent fluid from seeping through the glass window 48 and damaging the light source 32 and detector 42 (Wiswesser 2:42-44, “slurry leakage around the perimeter of the window is minimized by the configuration of the window in the polishing pad”).
Regarding claim 9, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser further discloses wherein the polishing pad comprises a matrix material with pores (3:15-20, “The covering layer 22 can be a durable rough layer (e.g., Rodel IC-1000)”; it is known that Rodel IC-1000 is a matrix material (e.g., polyurethane) with pores (US 6780095 B1 (“Moore”) at 2:32-36, “A Rodel IC-1000 polishing pad, for example, is a relatively soft, porous polyurethane pad with a number of large slurry wells approximately 0.05-0.10 inches in diameter that are spaced apart from one another across the planarization surface by approximately 0.125-0.25 inches.”).
Regarding claim 11, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Tang further discloses a polishing pad (Fig. 4, polishing pad 110), comprising a polishing layer (Fig. 4, polishing layer 112) and a backing layer (Fig. 4, backing layer 114), and an acoustic window (Fig. 4, window 200; ¶¶ 0052-0053) for use with an acoustic sensor (Fig. 1, acoustic emission sensor 162; ¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify acoustic window 48 to have the same compressibility as backing layer 20. Wiswesser teaches that the backing layer should be compressible (Wiswesser 3:15-25, “the backing layer can be a more compressible layer (e.g., Rodel Suba-IV)”). Wiswesser also teaches that the material selected for window 36 should have the necessary “refractive index and optical clarity” and be “flexible enough to resist breakage under the frictional and compressive forces applied by the substrate” (Wiswesser 6:8-14). Although this teaching applies to window 36, this same teaching applies to window 48. Further, in view of Tang, which describes the use of an acoustic window for an acoustic sensor (Tang ¶¶ 0040, 0052-0053; Fig. 4, acoustic window 200), a person of ordinary skill would recognize that this same teaching applies to a window for use with an acoustic sensor just as it applies to a window for use with an optical sensor (Wiswesser 3:51-4:3). That is, in order to resist breakage, window 48 (of Wiswesser) could be made of a solid material that has the same compressibility as backing pad 20 so that window 48 compresses at the same rate as backing pad 20 when a force is applied upon polishing pad 22, while also being selected of a material that has less acoustic impedance than backing pad 20 given its role as an acoustic window.
Regarding claim 12, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser further discloses wherein the acoustic window and the backing layer are secured by an interface of intermingled polymer (Wiswesser 6:20-25, the polymer layer 22 may secure itself to window 36 by being molded to window 36 (i.e., using intermingled polymer), “it may be possible for the window 36 to be integrally molded into the covering layer 22”).
Although Wiswesser’s “intermingled polymer” disclosure above applies to window 36 and cover layer 22 of the embodiment of Fig. 4B, this claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application in view of Wiswesser because this disclosure provides a solution that could be also used to secure window 48 to backing layer 20 (i.e., by molding window 48 together with backing layer 20).
Regarding claim 14, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser further discloses wherein a bottom of the acoustic window is coplanar with a bottom of the backing layer (Fig. 5, bottom of window 48 coplanar with bottom of backing layer 20).
Regarding claim 15, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser further discloses wherein a top of the acoustic window is coplanar with a top of the backing layer (Fig. 5, top of window 48 coplanar with top of backing layer 20).
Wiswesser in view of Tang and Saikin
Claims 3 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”) in view of US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”) and US 20070042682 A1 (“Saikin”).
Wiswesser pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Tang pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Saikin pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 3, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Tang further discloses a polishing pad (Fig. 4, polishing pad 110), comprising a polishing layer (Fig. 4, polishing layer 112) and a backing layer (Fig. 4, backing layer 114), and an acoustic window (Fig. 4, window 200; ¶¶ 0052-0053).
Wiswesser and Tang do not explicitly disclose where the acoustic window comprises a matrix material with liquid filled pores. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Saikin combination makes obvious this claim.
Saikin discloses a polishing pad that comprises a matrix material with liquid filled pores (¶ 0023, “the polishing pad 40 is made from a polymeric matrix material 52 and includes polymeric capsules 54. The polymeric capsules 54 have a liquid core 56”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Tang and Saikin with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the polishing layer 22 and the acoustic window 48 of Wiswesser to be made of a matrix material with liquid filled pores. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize both the optical and acoustic performance of the polishing pad so that the pad could be used with both optical and acoustic sensors. With respect to optical performance, this modified construction results in the same material throughout the optical path between the bottom of the window 48 to the top of the polishing layer 22 and has the necessary optical properties for optical monitoring of the polishing process (Saikin ¶ 0023, “the refractive index of the polymeric matrix material, the polymeric shell and the liquid core are similar such that the polishing pad is transparent and can be used for in-situ optical end-point detection.”; Tang ¶ 0055, the acoustic window (body 200) “can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad”). Similarly, this construction improves acoustic sensing performance because using the same material for both window 48 and polishing layer 22 results in consistent acoustic properties throughout the acoustic path (between the bottom of the window 48 to the top of the polishing layer 22) (see Tang ¶ 0055, the acoustic window (body 200) “can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad). Further, even with this modification, the acoustic impedance of window 48 would be less than that of backing layer 20 because backing layer 20 would be chosen to be more compressible (and therefore having greater acoustic impedance) than polishing layer 22 and window 48, as modified by Tang and Saikin (Wiswesser 3:15-25, “The covering layer 22 can be a durable rough layer (e.g., Rodel IC-1000), whereas the backing layer can be a more compressible layer (e.g., Rodel Suba-IV).”).
Regarding claim 21, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 9 as applied above. Wiswesser and Tang do not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the polishing pad directly above the acoustic window comprises liquid filled pores. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Saikin combination makes obvious this claim.
Saikin discloses a polishing pad that comprises a matrix material with liquid filled pores (¶ 0023, “the polishing pad 40 is made from a polymeric matrix material 52 and includes polymeric capsules 54. The polymeric capsules 54 have a liquid core 56”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Saikin with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the polishing layer 22 of Wiswesser (including a portion directly above window 48) to be made of a matrix material with liquid filled pores so that the polishing pad could be used with optical sensors for end-point detection of the polishing process (Saikin ¶ 0023, “the refractive index of the polymeric matrix material, the polymeric shell and the liquid core are similar such that the polishing pad is transparent and can be used for in-situ optical end-point detection.”).
Regarding claim 22, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser and Tang do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer has liquid filled pores across the polishing pad. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Saikin combination makes obvious this claim.
Saikin discloses a polishing pad that comprises a matrix material with liquid filled pores (¶ 0023, “the polishing pad 40 is made from a polymeric matrix material 52 and includes polymeric capsules 54. The polymeric capsules 54 have a liquid core 56”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Saikin with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the polishing layer 22 of Wiswesser to be made of a matrix material with liquid filled pores so that the polishing pad could be used with optical sensors for end-point detection of the polishing process (Saikin ¶ 0023, “the refractive index of the polymeric matrix material, the polymeric shell and the liquid core are similar such that the polishing pad is transparent and can be used for in-situ optical end-point detection.”).
Wiswesser in view of Tang and Qian
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”) in view of US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”) and US 9475168 B2 (“Qian”).
Wiswesser pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Tang pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Qian pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1B). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the polishing layer has a polishing surface with a first region without grooves (Fig. 5, polishing layer 22 at reference 36).
Wiswesser and Tang do not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer has...a second region that surrounds the first region that has a plurality of grooves, and wherein the acoustic window is aligned with the first region. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Qian combination makes obvious this claim.
Qian discloses:
wherein the polishing layer has a polishing surface with a first region without grooves (Fig. 3B, polishing layer 210 has polishing surface 216 with first region without grooves (at reference 238)),
and a second region that surrounds the first region that has a plurality of grooves (Fig. 3B, second region with grooves (region at grooves 212 and 214)),
and wherein the acoustic window is aligned with the first region (Fig. 3B, window (portion of element 220 at reference 238)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Qian with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the polishing layer 22 of Wiswesser to have grooves outside the region above the acoustic window 48. This would have been obvious because the grooves facilitate the removal of debris (e.g., slurry and removed wafer particles) from the pad surface (Qian 6:39-45, “rotating the polishing pad 210 with polishing fluid in the debris drainage grooves 212A and 214A sends debris from the central region 236 into the polishing pad 210 through the debris drainage grooves 212A and 214A”). Further, a person would have recognized the benefit of not having grooves in the first region above the acoustic window because any debris deposited in a groove (if there were a groove in the first region) could interfere with sensor performance (e.g., an optical sensor).
Wiswesser in view of Tang and Urbanavage
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”) in view of US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”) and US 6099954 A (“Urbanavage”).
Wiswesser pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Tang pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Urbanavage pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1; 1:15-38). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 13, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser and Tang do not explicitly disclose where the backing layer is non-porous. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Urbanavage combination makes obvious this claim.
Urbanavage discloses where the backing layer is non-porous (3:19-24, “it is important that the cellular surface polishing layer of the pads be devoid, or substantially free, of non-porous fibrous material such as backing layer material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Urbanavage with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the backing layer to be made of non-porous material because this would prevent fluid from seeping through the backing layer and seeping downward to damage the light source 32 and detector 42 (Wiswesser 2:42-44, “slurry leakage around the perimeter of the window is minimized by the configuration of the window in the polishing pad”).
Wiswesser in view of Tang, Saikin, and Lehman
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”) in view of US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”), US 20110313558 A1 (“Lehman”), and US 20070042682 A1 (“Saikin”).
Wiswesser pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Tang pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Lehman pertains to a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-13). Saikin pertains to a polishing pad for a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 16, the Wiswesser/Tang combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 1 as applied above. Wiswesser does not explicitly disclose a sensor contacting a bottom surface of the acoustic window, wherein an acoustic refractive index of the acoustic window is between that of a portion of the polishing layer above the acoustic window and that of the sensor. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Lehman combination makes obvious this claim.
Lehman discloses:
a sensor contacting a bottom surface of the acoustic window (Fig. 1h, sensor 218 contacting the bottom of the “acoustic window” 216; ¶¶ 0104, 0053, 0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Lehman with the Wiswesser/Tang combination by modifying the sensor 32/42 of Wiswesser Figs. 1-2 such that it contacts the bottom of the “acoustic window” as taught by Lehman because this arrangement may improve sensor detection, compared to an arrangement where the sensor is spaced away from the bottom surface of the acoustic window, due to the direct contact and reduced signal distance (see US 20070042681 A1 (“Benvegnu”) Fig. 2H; ¶¶ 0042-0043, fiber cable 222 of the optical sensor contacts the bottom of the “acoustic window” 204 via gel 220). With this modification, Wiswesser would meet the limitation “wherein an acoustic refractive index of the acoustic window is between that of a portion of the polishing layer above the acoustic window and that of the sensor” because the sensor is at least partially made of glass like the “acoustic window” 48 (Wiswesser 6:32-33, “The base window 48 can be formed from glass.”; Lehman ¶ 0104, “a system may include measurement device 218 coupled to window 206. For example, window 206 may be bonded to an optical element (not shown) such as fixed optics of the measurement device such as an objective housing, an objective”).
Regarding claim 17, Wiswesser/Tang/Lehman combination makes obvious the polishing pad of claim 16 as applied above. Claim 17 further requires the limitation wherein the acoustic refractive index of the acoustic window is equal to that of the portion of the polishing layer above the acoustic window. Tang further discloses a polishing pad (Fig. 4, polishing pad 110), comprising a polishing layer (Fig. 4, polishing layer 112) and a backing layer (Fig. 4, backing layer 114), and an acoustic window (Fig. 4, window 200; ¶¶ 0052-0053).
Wiswesser, Tang, and Lehman do not explicitly disclose wherein the acoustic window has an acoustic refractive index equal to that of the portion of the polishing layer above the acoustic window. However, the Wiswesser/Tang/Lehman/Saikin combination makes obvious this claim.
Saikin discloses a polishing pad that comprises a matrix material with liquid filled pores (¶ 0023, “the polishing pad 40 is made from a polymeric matrix material 52 and includes polymeric capsules 54. The polymeric capsules 54 have a liquid core 56...the refractive index of the polymeric matrix material, the polymeric shell and the liquid core are similar such that the polishing pad is transparent and can be used for in-situ optical end-point detection.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Tang and Saikin with the Wiswesser/Tang/Lehman combination by modifying the polishing layer 22 and the acoustic window 48 of Wiswesser to be made of a matrix material with liquid filled pores. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize both the optical and acoustic performance of the polishing pad so that the pad could be used with both optical and acoustic sensors (see Lehman ¶ 130, “The optical device may further include a light source such as a laser coupled to a scanning assembly such as a mechanical scanner or an acousto-optical deflector.”). With respect to optical performance, this modified construction results in the same material throughout the optical path between the bottom of the window 48 to the top of the polishing layer 22 and has the necessary optical properties for optical monitoring of the polishing process (Saikin ¶ 0023, “the refractive index of the polymeric matrix material, the polymeric shell and the liquid core are similar such that the polishing pad is transparent and can be used for in-situ optical end-point detection.”; Tang ¶ 0055, the acoustic window (body 200) “can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad”). Similarly, this construction improves acoustic sensing performance because using the same material for both window 48 and polishing layer 22 results in consistent acoustic properties throughout the acoustic path (between the bottom of the window 48 to the top of the polishing layer 22) (see Tang ¶ 0055, the acoustic window (body 200) “can be of the same material as the remainder of the polishing pad). With this Wiswesser/Tang/Lehman/Saikin combination, the resulting acoustic window 48 would be made of the same material as the portion of the polishing layer 22 above window 48, and therefore, would satisfy this limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is US 6716085 B2 (“Wiswesser”), US 20160256978 A1 (“Tang”), US 20110313558 A1 (“Lehman”), US 20070042681 A1 (“Benvegnu”), and US 20070042682 A1 (“Saikin”). Wiswesser discloses a typical optical based sensor system using polishing pads that are at least partially transparent (e.g., using a glass window) (Wiswesser Fig. 5). Tang discloses a typical acoustic based sensor system using polishing pads that generally do not have a transparent window in the polishing pad or is silent regarding the optical qualities of the polishing pad (Tang Figs. 1-4). Although Saikin discloses optically transparent polishing pads (Saikin ¶ 0023) and Lehman discloses a sensor system that includes an optical aspect and an acoustic aspect (Lehman ¶ 130), it would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the “polishing layer” optically opaque to visible light as recited in claim 23 (in combination with the recited “acoustic window”/polishing layer/backing layer configuration of claim 1). That is, for an acoustic sensor system, the prior art of record does not appear to show the use of an “acoustic window” within the polishing layer/backing layer configuration as recited because the prior art generally shows an acoustic sensor that resides in a recess (i.e., an empty space) within the backing layer and/or directly contacting the bottom surface of the polishing layer (see, e.g., Tang Figs. 1-2, acoustic sensor 162 in aperture 118 contacts polishing layer 112). On the other hand, an optical sensor would require optical transparency to some degree in order to function.
Accordingly, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claim 23 in combination as claimed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 5-8, 10, and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-17, and 21-23 are pending. Claims 1-4, 9, 11-17, and 21-23 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(a) rejection of claim 16 and the § 112(b) rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn. Regarding the limitation “acoustic refractive index” in claim 16, Examiner adopts the definition stated by Applicant (Reply at 5), which is that this term “parallel[s] that for an optical refractive index...[and] measure[s] the relative speed of sound in a given medium compared to the speed of sound in a reference medium, e.g., air.” Based on this, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 16 and 17 for this limitation is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in the rejection above. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723