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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5 February, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the additional sensors positioned under additional central paddles described by claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “detecting premature localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein detecting premature localized wear comprises comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer; and
modifying the CMP process in response to the detected localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein modifying the CMP process comprises adjusting a polishing profile to minimize polish rate differences across the wafer.” The written description fails to provide adequate support for this limitation.
The sole mention of localized wear in the disclosure is in paragraph [0077], which states: “local friction measurements may indicate premature localized wear. In certain embodiments, the polishing process may be adjusted in response to such localized wear.”
There is no disclosure relating non-uniform friction at a pad/wafer interface to localized wear as claimed. The sole disclosure indicates a correlation between local friction measurements and wear, but fails to indicate how the friction indicates wear with sufficient specificity that one of ordinary skill would understand applicant to have possession of the claimed method relating non-uniform friction to localized wear. Furthermore, although there is a disclosure of adjusting a polishing profile to minimize a polish rate difference (Specification [0076]), there is no disclosure of doing so in response to detecting localized wear as claimed.
Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation of “the controller detects premature localized wear by comparing a current force measurement value from each sensor in the plurality of sensors with a previous force measurement value from the same respective sensor”. As previously noted, the disclosure does not explain how local friction measurements are used to indicate premature localized wear, and consequently lacks support for a claim reciting a specific mechanism for doing so.
Consequently, claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement, as are claims 10-11, which depend from claim 9.
Claim 16 depends from claim 13, which recites a “polishing pad compris[ing] a first void, a second void, and a third void, wherein the first void and the second void are formed around a first inter-void portion of the polishing pad, wherein the second void and the third void are formed around a second inter-void portion of the polishing pad, wherein the first inter-void portion comprises a first central paddle located between a first flexible bar and a second flexible bar, and ...wherein the second inter-void portion comprises a second central paddle located between a third flexible bar and a fourth flexible bar...” Claim 16 adds the limitation “in which the first flexible bar, the second flexible bar, the third flexible bar, and the fourth flexible bar are aligned along a radial direction defined by the polishing pad”.
As described in paragraph [0059] of the specification, figure 7 shows an embodiment having radially aligned paddles. Figure 7 does not show that the first and second inter-void portions each border the second void. Similarly, figure 8 (described in paragraph [0060]) of the disclosure) shows an embodiment wherein the first and second inter-void portions each border the second void, but does not show that the paddles are aligned along a radial direction. The paddles are parallel rather than coaxial. Furthermore, although the specification discloses that the embodiments may be combined such that it includes some paddles aligned with a radial direction and other paddles parallel thereto (see [0060]), it does not disclose an embodiment wherein the two paddles aligned in a radial direction share a side with a common void as required by claim 13.
Because claim 16 recites an embodiment without support in the original disclosure, it fails to comply with the written description requirement and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall (US 6974364).
1. Marshall teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method (Marshall 4:17-45 and 10:62-11:6) comprising:
performing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Marshall 4:17-45) by contacting a polishing pad (840,850) and a substrate (12) at a pad/substrate interface (see Marshall fig. 8),
wherein a plurality of force sensors (362,364) are embedded in a platen (sensors may be embedded in table 820, see Marshall figs. 7-8, 10:29-45, and 11:7-14),
wherein the polishing pad (840,850) is mounted on the platen (840,850 are mounted on 820, see Marshall fig. 8), and
wherein the force sensor directly contacts the polishing pad at a sensor/pad interface to measure a force at the pad/substrate interface (sensors directly contact sub-pad 350, see Marshall fig. 7 and 10:29-45, would contact 850, see Marshall 11:7-14);
during the CMP process, measuring the force on the polishing pad at the pad/substrate interface with the force sensor to obtain local force measurement values (determining a force distribution based on forces detected at discrete nodes associated with sensors, Marshall 4:17-45, 7:56-64, and 9:4-13),
wherein measuring the force comprises measuring both a friction force in a direction tangential to polishing rotation and a normal force to the polishing pad (measuring both a normal force and a shear force, see Marshall 9:4-13), and
wherein the force is communicated from a top surface of the polishing pad through the polishing pad to the force sensor at the sensor/pad interface (sensors in contact with pad will receive forces from a pad/substrate interface at the top surface of the pad and communicated through the pad, see Marshall fig. 8); and
determining when the CMP process is complete based on the local force measurement values (determining when a substrate has become planar based on detected forces, Marshall 4:17-45; determining an end-point time, Marshall 8:16-40).
2. Marshall teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting a polishing profile during the CMP process to minimize polish rate differences across the substrate based on the local force measurement values during the CMP process (detecting that a substrate topography is outside an expected range, Marshall 8:16-40; modifying a process parameter in response to detecting that detected local force data is outside a desired range, Marshall 9:33-46),
wherein adjusting the polishing profile comprises adjusting at least one of a rotational speed of the polishing pad, a rotational speed of a carrier head holding the substrate, or a downforce applied to the substrate (adjusting an orbital speed or pressure applied to substrate, Marshall 9:33-46).
3. Marshall teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the force sensor communicates a signal indicative of the local force measurement values to a controller (computer 170 receives force data, Marshall 9:33-46), and wherein the controller determines how to adjust the polishing profile to minimize the polish rate differences and when the CMP process is complete based on the local force measurement values (local force data may be used to determine an end-point time, Marshall 8:16-40; control methods may be automated using a computer, Marshall 9:33-46).
4. Marshall teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising creating a two-dimensional or three-dimensional map indicative of friction at the pad/substrate interface across the substrate over time based on the local force measurement values (creating a dynamic distribution of shear forces measured at a plurality of nodes arranged on a two-dimensional grid during a polishing cycle, see Marshall 8:16-40 and Marshall fig. 8; shear forces are indicative of friction between the pad and substrate).
5. Marshall teaches the method of claim 1, wherein measuring the force on the polishing pad at the pad/substrate interface comprises locally measuring the force on the polishing pad at a plurality of locations on the polishing pad to provide the local force measurement values (measuring forces using sensors at plurality of nodes, see Marshall fig. 8 and 7:56-64), wherein determining when the CMP process is complete comprises comparing current local force measurement values with previous local force measurement values to detect a change in friction indicative of complete removal of a surface level film from the substrate (detecting planarization based on changes in shear/drag/frictional forces, Marshall 8:41-53; determining endpoint based on a change in friction between wafer and polishing medium, Moore 2:54-3:4, incorporated by reference into Marshall; a detected change necessarily involves a comparison between previous and current values).
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 6-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall.
6. Marshall teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polishing pad (950c) comprises an interior annular void (gaps 954 surround cylindrical protrusions 952 and would therefore be annular, see Marshall 11:63-12:12) formed in a top surface (956) of the polishing pad, an island portion (952) located inside the interior annular void, and an annular bridge portion (bottom of gaps 954) connecting the island portion to a base portion of the polishing pad (portions of pad below 954 connect elevated portions 952 to base of pad, see Marshall fig. 9c), wherein the island portion is positioned over the force sensor (952 is positioned over sensors 962,964), and wherein the annular bridge portion seals the force sensor from the interior annular void (portions of pad below 954 are positioned between sensors 962,964 and 954, see Marshall fig. 9c and 11:63-12:12).
Marshall does not explicitly disclose that the arrangement depicted in fig. 9c is present in the other disclosed embodiments and therefore does not anticipate claim 6. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings from different embodiments of Marshall to reach the claimed invention, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
7. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the interior annular void is filled with a compressible material (gaps 954 would be filled with air prior to use, which is a compressible fluid).
9. Marshall teaches a method comprising:
providing a polishing pad (840,850) with a plurality of sensors (362,364) for measuring forces at a plurality of locations on the polishing pad (see Marshall fig. 8);
performing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Marshall 4:17-45) by contacting a surface of the polishing pad (840,850) with a wafer (12, see Marshall fig. 8 and 5:30-28),
measuring the forces at the plurality of locations on the polishing pad with the plurality of sensors to obtain force measurements (determining a force distribution based on forces detected at discrete nodes associated with sensors, Marshall 4:17-45, 7:56-64, and 9:4-13), , wherein measuring the forces comprises measuring both a friction force in a direction tangential to a polishing rotation and a normal force to the polishing pad (measuring both a normal force and a shear force, see Marshall 7: 29-55, 9:4-13, and figs. 4a-4b);
detecting premature localized wear based on the force measurements (detecting an improper contour of a polishing surface, Marshall 8:16-40; detecting whether portions of a pad are worn out and no longer sufficiently elastic, Marshall 9:14-32; detecting that a wafer is not planarizing in an expected manner, Marshall 8:41-9:3).
Marshall does not explicitly teach that detecting premature localized wear comprises comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer or that the step of modifying the CMP process is performed in response to the detected localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein modifying the CMP process comprises adjusting a polishing profile to minimize polish rate differences across the wafer.
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, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Marshall such that detecting premature localized wear comprised comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer; and
modifying the CMP process in response to the detected localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein modifying the CMP process comprises adjusting a polishing profile to minimize polish rate differences across the wafer, as Marshall contains implicit and explicit suggestions that would lead one of ordinary skill to modify its method to obtain the claimed invention.
Marshall teaches steps of detecting wear across the substrate or pad and detecting inconsistent wear based on a distribution of shear (i.e. friction) forces (Marshall 8:53-56), that a constant force distribution may indicate that a wafer is fully planar (i.e., that planarization is complete, Marshall 9:4-13), and that polishing parameters may be automatically adjusted based on the measured force data (Marshall 9:33-46), and that the polishing process may be modified when the force distribution is outside a desired range (Marshall 9:33-46).
Marshall's teaching of detecting inconsistent wear based on a shear distribution would involve comparing measured shear forces from the plurality of sensors used to obtain the shear distribution with expected ranges of shear forces, and suggests that inconsistencies would be indicated by individual nodes in the distribution that were outside the expected range for that point. Furthermore, although Marshall does not explicitly teach that the CMP process is modified in response to detecting the localized wear, it does teach the individual elements of detecting localized wear, modifying the CMP process in response to information obtained from the force distributions, and that a desired polishing outcome is a planar profile. Reaching the claimed invention represents no more than a combination of these known elements according to the known methods suggested by Marshall, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
10. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 9, wherein each sensor in the plurality of sensors comprises a multi-axis loadcell (normal and shear sensors 162,164 may be co-located in a single structure, see Marshall fig. 8 and 9:4-13; the sort of unified structure containing both sensors depicted would fall within the broadest reasonable meaning of the term "multi-axis loadcell")
11. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein providing the polishing pad with the plurality of sensors for measuring the forces at the plurality of locations on the polishing pad further comprises forming a structure (952) for allowing local movement of a portion of the polishing pad lying over each sensor (962,964, see Marshall fig. 9c) in the plurality of sensors, wherein the structure comprises:
an interior annular void (gaps 954 surround cylindrical protrusions 952 and would therefore be annular, see Marshall 11:63-12:12) formed in a top surface (956) of the polishing pad, an island portion (952) located inside the interior annular void, and an annular bridge portion (bottom of gaps 954) connecting the island portion to a base portion of the polishing pad (portions of pad below 954 connect elevated portions 952 to base of pad, see Marshall fig. 9c), wherein the island portion is positioned over a respective sensor (952 is positioned over sensors 962,964), and wherein the annular bridge portion seals the respective sensor from the interior annular void (portions of pad below 954 are positioned between sensors 962,964 and 954, see Marshall fig. 9c and 11:63-12:12).
Marshall does not disclose that the arrangement depicted in fig. 9c is present in all other disclosed embodiments. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings from different embodiments of Marshall to reach the claimed invention, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
12. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising communicating the force measurements from the plurality of sensors to a controller (sending data from sensor array to a computer, Marshall 9:33-46), wherein the controller detects premature localized wear based on the force measurements and modifies the CMP process based on the force measurements (performing control with a controller 170, Marshall 9:33-46), wherein the controller detects premature localized wear by comparing a current force measurement value from each sensor in the plurality of sensors with a previous force measurement value from the same respective sensor (as noted in the rejection of claim 9 above, Marshall discloses detecting various forms of localized changes by comparing current force distribution data to force distribution data from earlier in the process, See Marshall 9:33-46).Claims 6-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall.
6. Marshall teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polishing pad (950c) comprises an interior annular void (gaps 954 surround cylindrical protrusions 952 and would therefore be annular, see Marshall 11:63-12:12) formed in a top surface (956) of the polishing pad, an island portion (952) located inside the interior annular void, and an annular bridge portion (bottom of gaps 954) connecting the island portion to a base portion of the polishing pad (portions of pad below 954 connect elevated portions 952 to base of pad, see Marshall fig. 9c), wherein the island portion is positioned over the force sensor (952 is positioned over sensors 962,964), and wherein the annular bridge portion seals the force sensor from the interior annular void (portions of pad below 954 are positioned between sensors 962,964 and 954, see Marshall fig. 9c and 11:63-12:12).
Marshall does not disclose that the arrangement depicted in fig. 9c is present in the other disclosed embodiments and therefore does not anticipate claim 6. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings from different embodiments of Marshall to reach the claimed invention, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
7. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the interior annular void is filled with a compressible material (prior to the introduction of a polishing fluid, gaps 954 would be occupied by air, which is a compressible fluid and therefore a compressible material).
9. Marshall teaches a method comprising:
providing a polishing pad (840,850) with a plurality of sensors (362,364) for measuring forces at a plurality of locations on the polishing pad (see Marshall fig. 8);
performing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Marshall 4:17-45) by contacting a surface of the polishing pad (840,850) with a wafer (12, see Marshall fig. 8 and 5:30-28),
measuring the forces at the plurality of locations on the polishing pad with the plurality of sensors to obtain force measurements (determining a force distribution based on forces detected at discrete nodes associated with sensors, Marshall 4:17-45, 7:56-64, and 9:4-13), , wherein measuring the forces comprises measuring both a friction force in a direction tangential to a polishing rotation and a normal force to the polishing pad (measuring both a normal force and a shear force, see Marshall 7: 29-55, 9:4-13, and figs. 4a-4b);
detecting premature localized wear based on the force measurements (detecting an improper contour of a polishing surface, Marshall 8:16-40; detecting whether portions of a pad are worn out and no longer sufficiently elastic, Marshall 9:14-32; detecting that a wafer is not planarizing in an expected manner, Marshall 8:41-9:3).
Marshall does not explicitly teach that detecting premature localized wear comprises comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer or that the step of modifying the CMP process is performed in response to the detected localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein modifying the CMP process comprises adjusting a polishing profile to minimize polish rate differences across the wafer.
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, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Marshall such that detecting premature localized wear comprised comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer; and
modifying the CMP process in response to the detected localized wear based on the force measurements, wherein modifying the CMP process comprises adjusting a polishing profile to minimize polish rate differences across the wafer, as Marshall contains implicit and explicit suggestions that would lead one of ordinary skill to modify its method to obtain the claimed invention.
Marshall teaches steps of detecting wear across the substrate or pad and detecting inconsistent wear based on a distribution of shear (i.e. friction) forces (Marshall 8:53-56), that a constant force distribution may indicate that a wafer is fully planar (i.e., that planarization is complete, Marshall 9:4-13), and that polishing parameters may be automatically adjusted based on the measured force data (Marshall 9:33-46), and that the polishing process may be modified when the force distribution is outside a desired range (Marshall 9:33-46).
Marshall's teaching of detecting inconsistent wear based on a shear distribution would involve comparing measured shear forces from the plurality of sensors used to obtain the shear distribution with expected ranges of shear forces, and suggests that inconsistencies would be indicated by individual nodes in the distribution that were outside the expected range for that point. Furthermore, although Marshall does not explicitly teach that the CMP process is modified in response to detecting the localized wear, it does teach the individual elements of detecting localized wear, modifying the CMP process in response to information obtained from the force distributions, and that a desired polishing outcome is a planar profile. Reaching the claimed invention represents no more than a combination of these known elements according to the known methods suggested by Marshall, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
10. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 9, wherein each sensor in the plurality of sensors comprises a multi-axis loadcell (normal and shear sensors 162,164 may be co-located in a single structure, see Marshall fig. 8 and 9:4-13; the sort of unified structure containing both sensors depicted would fall within the broadest reasonable meaning of the term "multi-axis loadcell")
11. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 10, wherein providing the polishing pad with the plurality of sensors for measuring the forces at the plurality of locations on the polishing pad further comprises forming a structure (952) for allowing local movement of a portion of the polishing pad lying over each sensor (962,964, see Marshall fig. 9c) in the plurality of sensors, wherein the structure comprises:
an interior annular void (gaps 954 surround cylindrical protrusions 952 and would therefore be annular, see Marshall 11:63-12:12) formed in a top surface (956) of the polishing pad, an island portion (952) located inside the interior annular void, and an annular bridge portion (bottom of gaps 954) connecting the island portion to a base portion of the polishing pad (portions of pad below 954 connect elevated portions 952 to base of pad, see Marshall fig. 9c), wherein the island portion is positioned over a respective sensor (952 is positioned over sensors 962,964), and wherein the annular bridge portion seals the respective sensor from the interior annular void (portions of pad below 954 are positioned between sensors 962,964 and 954, see Marshall fig. 9c and 11:63-12:12).
Marshall does not disclose that the arrangement depicted in fig. 9c is present in all other disclosed embodiments. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings from different embodiments of Marshall to reach the claimed invention, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
12. Marshall as modified teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising communicating the force measurements from the plurality of sensors to a controller (sending data from sensor array to a computer, Marshall 9:33-46), wherein the controller detects premature localized wear based on the force measurements and modifies the CMP process based on the force measurements (performing control with a controller 170, Marshall 9:33-46), wherein the controller detects premature localized wear by comparing a current force measurement value from each sensor in the plurality of sensors with a previous force measurement value from the same respective sensor (as noted in the rejection of claim 9 above, Marshall discloses detecting various forms of localized changes by comparing current force distribution data to force distribution data from earlier in the process, See Marshall 9:33-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed 2 December, 2025.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 13 has been amended to incorporate subject matter that was indicated as allowable. No additional art has been identified that anticipates or would render obvious the subject matter previously indicated as allowable. Therefore, for the reasons previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 2 December, 2025, claim 13 is allowed. Claims 14-15 and 17-20 depend from claim 13 and are likewise allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February, 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., endpoint detection or local wear detection based on both friction and normal force measurements) 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). Claim 1 requires a step of “determining when the CMP process is complete based on the local force measurement values.” Claim 10 requires a step of “comparing force measurements from different sensors in the plurality of sensors to identify non-uniform friction at an interface between the polishing pad and the wafer”. The claims only requires that the calculation be based on the local force measurement values (or a comparison thereof), not on all components of the local force measurement values. Because using a part of the force measurements in a calculation falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “based on the local force measurement values” or “comparing force measurements”, applicant’s argument relies on an improper narrowing of the claim language and is therefore unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that Marshall does not teach or suggest the use of the claimed “multi-axis loadcell”. However, the original disclosure does not define that term, and as Marshall suggests the use of multiple co-located sensors configured to detect forces in different axes, it is reasonable to conclude that Marshall teaches or suggests the use of a “multi-axis loadcell” as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term.
Regarding claim 12, applicant states that Marshall does not teach or suggest the use of a temporal comparison. As noted in the rejection of claim 12 above, Marshall teaches a comparison between current data and data from earlier in a particular process. Because Marshall teaches the use of a temporal data comparison, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-12 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights