DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 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 1-5, 24, 27-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew et al. (US PGPub 2014/0329439, "Chew") in view of Huh et al. (US 7029747, "Huh").
1. Chew teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising:
a platen (518, 618, see Chew figs. 5-6);
a polishing pad (516, 616, see Chew figs. 5-6) supported on the platen (516 and 616 are supported on 518 and 618, respectively, see Chew figs. 5-6);
a carrier head (522) to hold a surface of a substrate (501) against the top surface of polishing pad (see Chew fig. 5);
a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer of the substrate (the platen is rotated by a motor and carrier head is rotated by unspecified means that one of ordinary skill would understand to include a motor, see Chew [0026]-[0027] and fig. 5); and
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system comprising an acoustic sensor (acoustic sensors 534a, or 634a-634c, see Chew [0041]) configured to receive acoustic signals from the substrate and comprising a transducer (sensors may be transducers and receive acoustic information from a substrate holder, see Chew [0045] and [0048]), the transducer comprising a flat contact plate with a topmost surface abutting a bottom surface of the backing layer and configured to receive acoustic signals from the substrate (sensors include flat upper surfaces, see Chew figs. 5-6, abutting a bottom surface of the pad due to a mechanism ensuring constant contact as described in Chew [0032] or contacting the bottom surface of a blind hole formed in the lower portion of polishing pad 616 as described in Chew [0045]-[0046]. see Chew figs. 5-6).
Chew does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein the flat contact plate of the transducer has a topmost surface abutting a planar bottommost surface of the backing layer. However, it does suggest that a transducer may be located in the platen itself (534a is in platen 518 below the pad entirely, see Chew fig. 5), and that a sensor (or sensors) may protrude slightly from the platen into a blind hole in a subpad (Chew [0045]-[0046] and figs. 5-6), conclusively stating only that the acoustic sensors should be positioned proximate the polishing pad (Chew [0032]). 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). “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.
One of ordinary skill, when confronted with the teachings of Chew regarding different locations for the transducer, would conclude that Chew was teaching that the specific location for a transducer should be balanced between locating it as close as possible to the interface between the wafer and pad and locating it distant enough to avoid incidental damage as a result of the polishing process (Chew [0041]-[0042]).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chew such that D1 was zero, which would result in a topmost planar surface of the acoustic transducer being coplanar with a bottommost surface of the backing layer of the polishing pad, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the height that the acoustic sensors protrude from the platen (D1) which achieves the recognized result of balancing signal attenuation due to a backing layer with the risk of damage to the sensor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Chew as modified does not teach that the polishing pad includes a polishing layer comprising a solid matrix material with liquid-filled pores, and a backing layer composed of a solid polymer material that is softer than the polishing layer and substantially without pores.
However, Huh teaches a polishing pad (100) for use in a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (1, see Huh fig. 2), wherein the pad comprises a polishing layer (120, see Huh fig. 1), and a backing layer (110, see Huh fig. 1); the polishing layer comprising a solid matrix material with liquid-filled pores (polymeric matrix 130 includes liquid microelements 140, which act as pores on polishing surface 160, see Huh fig. 1 and 4:57-65), wherein the backing layer is composed of a nonporous solid polymer material (Huh 5:9-15) that is softer than the polishing layer (support layer is softer than polishing layer, Huh 3:51-61).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Huh regarding the design of a structure for a polishing pad having a polishing layer and a backing layer with the apparatus of Chew such that the pad included a polishing layer comprising a solid matrix material with liquid-filled pores, and a backing layer, as doing so allows the performance of the polishing pad to be adjusted based on the type of object being polished and other polishing conditions (Huh 6:43-49).
2. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the backing layer comprises a first matrix material including a first polymer and a second polymer and the polishing layer comprises a second matrix material having pores, the second matrix material including the first polymer and the second polymer in a different percentage contribution than the first matrix material such that the backing layer is more compressible than the polishing layer.
However, Huh further teaches that the backing layer and polishing layer should be made from chemically compatible materials (Huh 4:8-10), that both the backing layer and polishing layer are preferably made from polyurethane (Huh 4:23-25), that a polyurethane matrix may be made from a mix of different polymers (a prepolymer and a curing agent such as a polyester polyol are mixed and produce a cured crosslinked polymer network, see Huh 4:25-39), and that it is known in the art to adjust the properties of polyurethane by combining ingredients in different ways (Huh 4:39-41). In doing so, Huh teaches that the backing layer comprises a first matrix material (a polyurethane, Huh 4:23-25) including a first polymer and a second polymer (polymer precursors, see Huh 4:25-39) and the polishing layer comprises a second matrix material (a polyurethane having different properties, see Huh 4:23-39) having pores (see Huh 6:5-28), the second matrix material including the first polymer and the second polymer in a different percentage contribution than the first matrix material (the polishing layer includes additional elements in a mix than the backing layer such that the resulting percentage contributions of the first and second polymer precursors would be different, see Huh 6:5-42). Huh explicitly teaches that this will result in the backing layer being more compressible than the polishing layer (Huh 4:2-7).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the additional teachings from Huh regarding a polymer composition for a polishing pad with the apparatus of Chew as modified such that the backing layer comprised a first matrix material including a first polymer and a second polymer and the polishing layer comprised a second matrix material having pores, the second matrix material including the first polymer and the second polymer in a different percentage contribution than the first matrix material such that the backing layer was more compressible than the polishing layer, as doing so allows the performance of the polishing pad to be adjusted based on the type of object being polished and other polishing conditions (Huh 6:43-49).
3. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the backing layer is non-porous (Huh teaches that the backing layer does not include pores, see Huh fig. 1 and 5:3-8).
4. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the polishing layer has a polishing surface with a first region without grooves and a second region that surrounds the first region that has a plurality of grooves, and wherein the acoustic sensor is aligned with the first region.
However, Huh further teaches the inclusion of grooves in the polishing layer (pattern 125, see Huh fig. 1) and a flat region between grooves for positioning a sensor (light source 300 for an optical sensor is positioned underneath the flat portion between grooves, see Huh fig. 1 and 4:57-5:8).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the additional teachings from Huh regarding a grooved polishing surface and sensor placement with the apparatus of Chew as modified such that the polishing layer has a polishing surface with a first region without grooves and a second region that surrounds the first region that has a plurality of grooves, and wherein the acoustic sensor is aligned with the first region, 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.
5. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the polishing layer comprises a porous portion and a non-porous solid portion that extends through the polishing layer (as taught by the portions of Huh integrated into the apparatus of Tang in the rejection of claim 1, the entire thickness of the polishing layer comprises pores 140 and a solid portion 130 between the pores, see Huh fig. 1 and 4:57-65), and the acoustic sensor is positioned below the non-porous solid portion (acoustic sensor 162 is positioned below the polishing layer, including the solid portions, see Chew fig. 6).
24. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the backing layer is non-porous (Huh teaches that the backing layer does not include pores, see Huh fig. 1 and 5:3-8).
27. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a controller (system controller 540, see Chew fig. 5) configured to detect a polishing transition point based on received acoustic signals from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (detecting exposure of a layer based on acoustic signals indicative of the frictional difference between polishing metallic material and oxide material, see Chew [0052]).
28. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to indicate an exposure of an underlying layer in response to detection of the polishing transition point (detecting exposure of a layer based on acoustic signals indicative of the frictional difference between polishing metallic material and oxide material, see Chew [0052]).
29. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to change a polishing parameter in response to detection of the polishing transition point (terminating polishing in response to the detected clearing of a layer, which will result in a change in polishing parameters, Chew [0052]).
30. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the polishing parameter comprises a carrier head pressure or a polishing liquid composition (an end of polishing will include a reduction of carrier head pressure to zero to end contact, see Chew [0052]-[0053]).
32. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to halt polishing in response to detection of the polishing transition point (terminating polishing in response to the detected clearing of a layer, which will result in a change in polishing parameters, Chew [0052]).
33. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer (piezoelectric sensor, Chew [0046]; due to the reversible nature of the piezoelectric effect, any piezoelectric material will inherently be capable of acting as a transducer).
34. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the acoustic sensor is a passive acoustic sensor (the acoustic sensor may be a piezoelectric sensor, Chew [0046]; as any deformation of the piezoelectric material in the sensor will result in a signal response, piezoelectric sensors are passive acoustic sensors).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew in view of Huh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krishnan et al. (US 10493691, "Krishnan").
23. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the liquid-filled pores comprise a polymer gel.
However, Krishnan teaches a polishing article (700) including pores (732, see Krishnan figs. 7a-7b) filled with a material (Krishnan 13:53-14:7) that may include a gel (Krishnan 19:5-14).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of gel-filled pores from Krishnan into the apparatus of Chew as modified such that the liquid-filled pores comprise a polymer gel, as doing so would allow for enhanced control over the softness, compressibility, and flexibility of the polishing layer (Krishnan 13:53-14:17).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew in view of Huh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benvegnu et al. (US 7727049, "Benvegnu").
26. Chew as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 25, but does not teach the presence of an adhesive layer securing the topmost surface of the acoustic sensor to the planar bottommost surface of the backing layer. (Chew teaches the use of a friction fit or other suitable manner of coupling, see Chew [0041]).
However, Benvegnu, which is directed to an in-situ sensor system for a polishing apparatus (see Benvegnu fig. 1 and 2:51-67) teaches that an adhesive layer is a suitable mechanism to secure a sensor element (Benvegnu 9:52-10:3).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the teachings from Benvegnu regarding attachment methods in the apparatus of Chew as modified such that an adhesive layer secured the planar top surface of the acoustic sensor to the planar bottommost surface of the backing layer, as doing so represents the simple substitution of one sort of fastening means for another, the interchangeability of different sensor connections was known in the art, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the system of Chew according to the teachings regarding a suitable pad for polishing from Huh such that the pad included a softer backing layer and a topmost surface of the transducer abutted a bottommost surface of the backing layer. In support of this, Applicant appears to argue that because Chew teaches the use of blind holes in a softer backing layer to reduce signal attenuation, that it teaches away from the claimed combination of elements.
Applicant is correct that combining references that teach away from their combination is improper. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, “the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). See MPEP §2145(X)(D).
Although Chew does teach that the use of blind holes in association with a softer backing layer may be desirable to reduce attenuation, it also suggests that a protruding sensor is at greater risk of damage, with the protrusion distance being selected to balance these factors (Chew [0042]). This teaching of different factors to consider in sensor placement constitutes more of a general preference and indication of a variable to optimize than a criticism or teaching away from the placement of sensors in a flush position. Additionally, Chew does not, as applicant asserts, teach that the use of blind holes “would” reduce signal attenuation or “prevent” damage, but that it “may” reduce signal attenuation while making the sensors “not likely to be damaged during polishing”. Chew [0042]. The teaching from Chew is less definitive than suggested by applicant.
Because Chew merely suggests a preference for a particular invention rather than teaching away, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (KR 20000013554 U), which teaches a polishing apparatus including a plurality of piezoelectric vibration sensors (10) arranged in a platen with a top surface coplanar with the backing surface of a polishing pad (see Choi fig. 4).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723