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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CRF 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/21/2025 has been entered.
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 06/22/2025, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15-17, and 19 have been amended, and claims 13 and 14 are cancelled. Claims 4 and 9 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-20 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 21-22 of claim 1, lines 16-17 of claim 12, and lines 19-20 of claim 19, the phrase may be amended as “the surface of each of the protrusion patterns includes a top surface and side surfaces.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (KR 20160054633A, cited on 11/30/2022 IDS, hereinafter Lefevre), in view of Yoon et al. (US 2007/0128991, cited on 11/30/2022 IDS, hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 1, Lefevre discloses, in fig. 2C, a polishing pad (polishing pad 200) comprising: a support layer; and a pattern layer disposed directly on the support layer, the pattern layer comprising a base and a plurality of protrusion patterns disposed on the base and having a plurality of pores, wherein the base has a plurality of pores (see annotated Lefevre fig. 2C below, the recited pattern layer comprising the protrusions 202 [correspond to the recited protrusion pattern] is disposed on a polishing body 200A [corresponds to the recited support layer]. The pattern layer comprises a base and the protrusions 202 are disposed on the base; Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-26, a polishing pad 200 comprises a plurality of closed cell pores. Thus, the pattern layer of the polishing pad has pores. Because the base is a part of the pattern layer, the base also has a plurality of pores),
wherein the surface of each of the protrusion patterns includes a top surface and side surfaces of each of the protrusion patterns (see annotated Lefevre fig. 2C below), but does not disclose the plurality of pores of the plurality of protrusion patterns contributes to an increase in perimeter length of each protrusion pattern in plan view.
Yoon teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the plurality of pores of the plurality of protrusion patterns contributes to an increase in perimeter length of each protrusion pattern in plan view (fig. 4 and ¶ 0037 and 0050, a polishing layer 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern] of a polishing pad 30 comprises a plurality of apertures/pores 38. The pores add a perimeter length, thus it increases the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern. Although figures of Lefevre does not show clearly whether the pores are disposed on surfaces of the pattern layer, Yoon clearly shows, in figs. 4-6, that the pores 38 are disposed on surfaces of the pattern layer and they increase the perimeter length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre to provide the pores for increasing the perimeter length as taught by Yoon. The pores enhance the ability of a slurry to infiltrate a contact area between the polishing layers and a target substrate for effective polishing (Yoon ¶ 0013).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon does not disclose explicitly a perimeter length of a polishing surface formed by the protrusion patterns per unit area is in a range of 1.0 mm/mm2 to 50.0 mm/mm2.
Although Yoon does not disclose the numerical values of the perimeter length of the polishing surface formed by the protrusion pattern per unit area, it discloses the pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Since the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern depends on percentage of area occupied by the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to be within the recited range by adjusting the pore area percentage as disclosed by Yoon in order to have appropriate number and size of pore for effective flow of slurry during polishing operation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon also does not disclose explicitly a perimeter length of any one protrusion pattern is 4 times to 50 times a minimum width of the any protrusion pattern.
As discussed similarly above, Yoon does not disclose the numerical values of the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern, but it discloses the pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Since the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern depends on percentage of area occupied by the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to be 4 times to 50 times a minimum width of the any protrusion pattern in order to have appropriate number and size of pore for effective flow of slurry during polishing operation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon still does not disclose in plan view, per unit area, an actual polishing area of the protrusion pattern is 5% to 30%.
However, Lefevre discloses the body of polishing pad comprises a plurality of closed cell pores (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-26 and fig. 11f) without disclosing an actual polishing area percentage. Yet Yoon teaches, in ¶ 0047, a small number of pores, which can be interpreted as a small area of pores, in a polishing layer would result in a low amount of slurry contained in the pores and it makes chemical polishing process to be inefficient. Examiner notes that a polishing area is inversely related to the area of pores. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the recited percent range of actual polishing area of the protrusion pattern in order to achieve effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon does not disclose a value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base is greater than 0, a surface roughness of the top surface of the base is greater than a surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns, wherein the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns is formed by the pores of each of the protrusion patterns, and the surface skewness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns have a negative value.
Specification of the instant application explains that a positive surface skewness means a tendency having protruding portions from a flat surface and a negative surface skewness means a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface (p. 12:23-13:8). Specification further explains the surface roughness defined as the skewness of the top surface 210s of the base 210 may have a negative value, zero, or a positive value, and the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0 because when the pattern layer of the polishing pad is formed using a laser or the like, the skewness of the top surface of the base may be adjusted in a more positive direction (p. 50:7-25). Thus, while the skewness of the top surface of the base can be any value, it can be made to have more positive value.
Although Lefevre does not disclose values of the surface skewness, the polishing pad 200 comprising the base and the protrusion pattern has a plurality of pores wherein the pores may have different diameters and volumes (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-13:5). Yoon also discloses the apertures 38 [correspond to the recited pores] may have various shapes and occupy various areas/percentages of polishing layers (¶ 0047-48). Therefore, the pores of the top surface of the base and the pores of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns can be adjusted such that the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Specification of the instant application states the surface roughness is defined as the surface skewness (p. 50:7). The surface roughness of the top surface of the base needs to be greater than the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns when the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Additionally, the aperture 38 of Yoon can be arranged to have a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface so that the surface skewness of the surface of each of the polishing layers 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion patterns] has a negative value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to make the skewness and surface roughness of the top surface of the base and the surface of each of the protrusion patterns as recited in order to achieve effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).
Finally, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches a number of pores formed on a top surface of the base is less than the number of pores formed on a surface of each of the protrusion pattern.
Although Yoon does not disclose explicitly that there are more pores on the surface of each of the protrusion pattern than the top surface of the base, Yoon teaches, in ¶ 0063, slurry can be contained in the pores near the contact between the polishing layer of the polishing pad and a to-be-polished layer of a substrate so that chemical polishing is affected. Therefore, it is necessary to have more pores at the polishing layer of the polishing pad. The protrusion pattern of the instant application is the polishing layer. The base is not the polishing layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the greater arrangement density of pores on a surface of the protrusion pattern as taught by Yoon in order to improve the polishing efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lefevre Figure 2C
Regarding claim 3, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein in plan view, a ratio of an area occupied by the plurality of pores of the protrusion patterns to a total area of a top surface of any one protrusion pattern is 10% to 50% (Yoon, ¶ 0047, the area of pores 38 may occupy about 5-30% of the polishing layer area [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern]. The disclosed ranges overlap the recited range).
Regarding claim 5, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the perimeter length of the polishing surface formed by the protrusion pattern per unit area is in a range of 0.1 times to 1.0 times a reciprocal of a minimum width of any protrusion pattern.
As discussed similarly in claim 1 above, Yoon does not disclose the numerical values of the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern, but it discloses the pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Since the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern depends on percentage of area occupied by the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to be 0.1 times to 1.0 times a reciprocal of a minimum width of any protrusion pattern in order to have appropriate number and size of pore for effective flow of slurry during polishing operation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 6, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the perimeter length of any protrusion pattern is increased by 1.5 times to 3.5 times compared to a perimeter length when the pores of the protrusion patterns do not exist.
As discussed similarly in claim 1 above, Yoon does not disclose the numerical values of the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern, but it discloses the pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Since the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern depends on percentage of area occupied by the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to be increased by 1.5 times to 3.5 times compared to a perimeter length when the pores do not exist in order to have appropriate number and size of pore for effective flow of slurry during polishing operation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a minimum width of each of the protrusion pattern is 20 µm or more (Yoon, ¶ 0044, the polishing layer 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern] has a width of about 50-200 µm. That is greater than 20 µm), and an average diameter of the pores of the protrusion patterns is in a range of 10 µm to 150 µm (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:34-35, a pore has a diameter ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the recited minimum width of the protrusion pattern as taught by Yoon in order to achieve the effective polishing outcome.
Regarding claim 8, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein in plan view, per unit area, an area occupied by the pores of the protrusion patterns is 0.5% to 20% (Yoon, ¶ 0047, the area of the pores 38 may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern]. Thus, the disclosed range overlaps the recited range. The range is also valid for a unit area).
Regarding claim 10, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pores of the protrusion patterns comprises a third pore which is positioned on a side surface of a corresponding protrusion pattern to form a side groove of the corresponding protrusion pattern, contributes to an increase in an area of the side surface, and affects a flow of slurry during a polishing process (Yoon, figs. 4-5, the polishing layer 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern] comprises the plurality of pores 38. Some of the pores 38 are formed on a side groove of the protrusion pattern as shown in figs. 4-5. The pores add area of the side surface of the protrusion pattern), and an average diameter of the third pores of the protrusion patterns is in a range of 20 µm to 150 µm (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:34-35, a pore has a diameter ranging from 10 microns to 100 microns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the pore on a side surface of the protrusion as taught by Yoon in order to promote effective flow of slurry during polishing operation for effective polishing outcome.
Regarding claim 12, Lefevre discloses, in fig. 2C, a polishing pad (polishing pad 200) comprising: a support layer; and a pattern layer disposed on the support layer, the pattern layer comprising a base and a plurality of protrusion patterns disposed on the base and having a plurality of pores, wherein the base has a plurality of pores (see annotated Lefevre fig. 2C above, the recited pattern layer comprising the protrusions 202 [correspond to the recited plurality of protrusion patterns] is disposed on a polishing body 200A [corresponds to the recited support layer]. The pattern layer comprises a base and the protrusions 202 are disposed on the base; Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-26, a polishing pad 200 comprises a plurality of closed cell pores. Thus, the pattern layer of the polishing pad has pores. Because the base is a part of the pattern layer, the base also has a plurality of pores),
wherein the surface of each of the protrusion patterns includes a top surface and side surfaces of each of the protrusion patterns (see annotated Lefevre fig. 2C above), but does not disclose each of the protrusion patterns has the plurality of pores exposed on a side surface.
Yoon teaches, in the analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, each of the protrusion pattern has the plurality of pores exposed on a side surface (figs. 4-5 and ¶ 0037 and 0050, a polishing layer 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern] of a polishing pad 30 comprises a plurality of apertures/pores 38. The pores are exposed on a side surface of the protrusion pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre to provide the pore on a side surface of the protrusion as taught by Yoon in order to promote effective flow of slurry during polishing operation for effective polishing outcome.
Lefevre as modified by Yoon does not disclose explicitly a ratio of a sum of heights occupied by the pores of the side surface to a vertical height of each of the protrusion patterns is in a range of 10% to 50%.
Although Yoon does not disclose the ratio of the sum of pore height with respect to the height of the protrusion pattern explicitly, it discloses the pores including the side pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Yoon further teaches, in the same paragraph, that a small number of pores, which can be related to a sum of heights occupied by the pores, in a polishing layer would result in a low amount of slurry contained in the pores and it makes chemical polishing process to be inefficient. Therefore, the pore height ratio affects the efficiency of chemical polishing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the recited ratio in order to promote effective flow of slurry during polishing operation for effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)I.
Lefevre as modified by Yoon still does not disclose a value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base is greater than 0, a surface roughness of the top surface of the base is greater than a surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns, wherein the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns is formed by the pores of each of the protrusion patterns, and the surface skewness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns have a negative value.
As discussed in claim 1 above, specification of the instant application explains, in p. 12:23-13:8, that a positive surface skewness means a tendency having protruding portions from a flat surface and a negative surface skewness means a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface. Specification further explains, in p. 50:7-25, the surface roughness defined as the skewness of the top surface 210s of the base 210 may have a negative value, zero, or a positive value, and the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0 because when the pattern layer of the polishing pad is formed using a laser or the like, the skewness of the top surface of the base may be adjusted in a more positive direction. Thus, while the skewness of the top surface of the base can be any value, it can be made to have more positive value.
Although Lefevre does not disclose values of the surface skewness, the polishing pad 200 comprising the base and the protrusion pattern has a plurality of pores wherein the pores may have different diameters and volumes (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-13:5). Yoon also discloses the apertures 38 [correspond to the recited pores] may have various shapes and occupy various areas/percentages of polishing layers (¶ 0047-48). Therefore, the pores of the top surface of the base and the pores of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns can be adjusted such that the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Specification of the instant application states the surface roughness is defined as the surface skewness (p. 50:7). The surface roughness of the top surface of the base needs to be greater than the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns when the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Additionally, the aperture 38 of Yoon can be arranged to have a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface so that the surface skewness of the surface of each of the polishing layers 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion patterns] has a negative value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to make the skewness and surface roughness of the top surface of the base and the surface of each of the protrusion patterns as recited in order to achieve effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches a number of pores formed on a top surface of the base is less than the number of pores formed on a surface of each of the protrusion pattern.
Although Yoon does not disclose explicitly that there are more pores on the surface of each of the protrusion pattern than the top surface of the base, Yoon teaches, in ¶ 0063, slurry can be contained in the pores near the contact between the polishing layer of the polishing pad and a to-be-polished layer of a substrate so that chemical polishing is affected. Therefore, it is necessary to have more pores at the polishing layer of the polishing pad. The protrusion pattern of the instant application is the polishing layer. The base is not the polishing layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the greater arrangement density of pores on a surface of the protrusion pattern as taught by Yoon in order to improve the polishing efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 12, wherein an average diameter of the pores of the protrusion patterns is in a range of 20% to 40% of the vertical height of a corresponding protrusion pattern (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:34-35, a diameter of the closed cell pore may be about 10-100 µm; Yoon ¶ 0044, a thickness of the polishing layer may be about 20-50 µm. Therefore, the ratio of the pore diameter with respect to the height of the protrusion pattern may be 20-40%: 10-20 µm pore diameter/50 µm height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the recited pore diameter ratio in order to promote effective flow of slurry during polishing operation for effective polishing outcome.
Regarding claim 18, Lefevre as modified by Yoon teaches a polishing device comprising the polishing pad according to claim 1, and a platen configured to support the polishing pad (Lefevre fig. 12 and Lefevre English translation, p. 17:3-5, a polishing apparatus 1200 comprises a platen 1204 which supports a polishing pad).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre in view of Yoon, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Sung et al. (US 2018/0043499, hereinafter Sung).
Regarding claim 2, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a rigidity of the pattern layer is greater than a rigidity of the support layer.
Sung teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, a rigidity of the pattern layer is greater than a rigidity of the support layer (fig. 3 and ¶ 0019, a polishing pad 1 comprises a base portion 11 [corresponds to the recited pattern layer] and a support layer 14. The support layer 14 is softer than the base portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide recited rigidity as taught by Sung. The support layer serves as a buffer layer during the polishing process and increases the efficiency of planarization (Sung ¶ 0019).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre in view of Yoon, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith et al. (US 2018/0169827A1, hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 11, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a porosity of the support layer is different from a porosity of the pattern layer.
Smith teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, a porosity of the support layer is different from a porosity of the pattern layer (¶ 0064, a porosity of a subpad [corresponds to the recited support layer] is different from that of a polishing layer [corresponds to the recited pattern layer]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the different porosity as taught by Smith in order to achieve proper slurry flow for effective polishing operation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre in view of Yoon, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Joseph et al. (TW 201136710A, hereinafter Joseph).
Regarding claim 16, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 12, but does not disclose the base has an at least partially recessed first trench, the first trench does not penetrate the base.
Joseph teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the base has an at least partially recessed first trench, the first trench does not penetrate the base (fig. 1 and Joseph English translation, p. 6:4-40, a polishing pad 2 comprises a polishing element 4 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern]. A distribution layer 8 and a sheet 13’ form the recited base. An opening 6 [corresponds to the recited first trench], which does not penetrate the base, is formed in the base).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the first trench as taught by Joseph so that it provides additional flow path for slurry for achieving effective polishing outcome.
Lefevre as modified by Yoon and Joseph does not disclose a surface skewness of a bottom surface of the first trench is greater than a surface skewness of an inner wall of the first trench.
However, Joseph discloses that the distribution layer 8 and the sheet 13’ forming the base have pores as shown in fig. 1. Therefore, each of the bottom surface of the first trench and the inner wall of the first trench has a surface skewness. Having greater surface skewness at the bottom of the trench than at the inner wall of the trench means greater surface roughness or greater number of pores at the bottom of the trench, and it will allow the trench to contain more slurry. Since Yoon teaches, as discussed in claims 9 and 12 above, the greater number of pores would result in the more amount of slurry contained in the pores to make chemical polishing process to be efficient (¶ 0047). Thus, the greater surface skewness at the bottom surface of the trench would result in better polishing efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon and Joseph to provide recited surface skewness for the bottom surface and the inner wall of the first trench in order to make slurry to flow effectively. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre in view of Yoon, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Joseph, Dornfeld et al. (US 7226345B1, hereinafter Dornfeld), and Tateno et al. (TW 201350264A, hereinafter Tateno).
Regarding claim 17, Lefevre as modified by Yoon discloses the polishing pad as in the rejection of claim 12, but does not disclose the base has an at least partially recessed first trench and the base has pores exposed on an inner wall of the first trench.
Joseph teaches, in the analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the base has an at least partially recessed first trench and the base has pores exposed on an inner wall of the first trench (Joseph English translation, p. 6:4-40, as discussed in claim 16 above, the distribution layer 8 and the sheet 13’ form the recited base and the base have pores as shown in fig. 1. The opening 6 [corresponds to the recited first trench] allows pores to be exposed on an inner wall of the opening 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon to provide the first trench as taught by Joseph so that it provides additional flow path for slurry for achieving effective polishing outcome.
Lefevre as modified by Yoon and Joseph does not disclose the support layer has an at least partially recessed second trench which is connected to the first trench.
Dornfeld teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the support layer has an at least partially recessed second trench which is connected to the first trench (annotated Dornfeld fig. 5 below, a base 50 has a first trench and a support layer 54 has a partially recessed second trench. The first trench and the second trench are connected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon and Joseph to provide the second trench as taught by Dornfeld in order to enhance the transport of slurry into the interface between a wafer and a polishing pad (Dornfeld, col. 5:6-13).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon, Joseph, and Dornfeld teaches the support layer has pores exposed on an inner wall of the second trench (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-26, the polishing body [corresponds to the recited support layer] has a plurality of closed cell pores. Therefore, the partially recessed second trench formed in the support layer exposes the pores on an inner wall of the second trench).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon, Joseph, and Dornfeld to expose the pores on the inner wall of the second trench so that it provides additional flow path for slurry for achieving effective polishing outcome.
Lefevre as modified by Yoon, Joseph, and Dornfeld does not disclose an average diameter of the pores of the inner wall of the second trench is greater than an average diameter of the pores of the inner wall of the first trench.
Tateno teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, an average diameter of the pores of the inner wall of the second trench is greater than an average diameter of the pores of the inner wall of the first trench (Tateno English translation, p. 12:2-4, a pore diameter on a side of a polishing surface [corresponds to the recited pattern layer] is smaller than a pore diameter on a back surface side [corresponds to the recited support layer]. Because the second trench is formed in the support layer, and the first trench is formed in the base of the pattern layer, the pore diameter at the inner wall of the second trench is greater than the pore diameter at the inner of the first trench).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Lefevre as modified by Yoon, Joseph, and Dornfeld to provide the recited pore diameters as taught by Tateno so that a polishing surface has less roughness useful for fine polishing of a substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
573
1182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Dornfeld Figure 5
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (US 2008/0305720, hereinafter Hirose), in view of Yoon et al. (US 2007/0128991A1, cited on 11/30/2022 IDS, hereinafter Yoon) and Lefevre et al. (KR 20160054633A, cited on 11/30/2022 IDS, hereinafter Lefevre).
Regarding claim 19, Hirose discloses a manufacturing method of a polishing pad, comprising: preparing a pattern layer; and partially removing the pattern layer using a laser, wherein the partially removing of the pattern layer comprises forming a base and a plurality of protrusion patterns disposed on the base (fig. 2 and ¶ 0095, a method of forming a projection and recess structure of polishing pad includes using a CO2 gas laser. As seen in fig. 2 the polishing pad includes the pattern layer comprising the protrusion patterns on the base as recited), but does not disclose the pattern layer is porous.
Yoon teaches, in the analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the pattern layer is porous (fig. 4 and ¶ 0037 and 0050, a polishing layer 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern] of a polishing pad 30 comprises a plurality of apertures/pores 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose to provide the pores as taught by Yoon. The pores enhance the ability of a slurry to infiltrate a contact area between the polishing layers and a target substrate for effective polishing (Yoon ¶ 0013).
Hirose as modified by Yoon teaches partially removing the pattern layer to have pores exposed on a side surface of each of the protrusion patterns. Since the pattern layer of Yoon comprises pores including the pores on a side surface of the protruding pattern as shown in figs. 4 and 5, the removal process of Hirose allows exposing the pores on the side surface of the protruding pattern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose as modified by Yoon to expose the side surface pores to allow slurry to flow and minimize damage to a target substrate (Yoon ¶ 0035).
Hirose as modified by Yoon also does not disclose explicitly a perimeter length of any one protrusion pattern is 4 times to 50 times a minimum width of the any protrusion pattern.
Yoon does not disclose the numerical values of the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern, but it discloses the pores may occupy about 5-30% of the area of the polishing layer (¶ 0047). Since the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern depends on percentage of area occupied by the pores, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter length of the protrusion pattern of Hirose as modified by Yoon to be 4 times to 50 times a minimum width of the any protrusion pattern in order to have appropriate number and size of pore for effective flow of slurry during polishing operation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Hirose as modified by Yoon still does not disclose in plan view, per unit area, an actual polishing area of the protrusion pattern is 5% to 30%.
However, Yoon teaches, in ¶ 0047, a small number of pores, which can be interpreted as a small area of pores, in a polishing layer would result in a low amount of slurry contained in the pores and it makes chemical polishing process to be inefficient. Examiner notes that a polishing area is inversely related to the area of pores. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Yoon to provide the recited percent range of actual polishing area of the protrusion pattern in order to achieve effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)I.
Hirose as modified by Yoon does not disclose the base has a plurality of pores and the surface of each of the protrusion patterns includes a top surface and side surfaces of each of the protrusion patterns.
Lefevre teaches, in an analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, the base has a plurality of pores (annotated Lefevre fig. 2C above and Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-26, a polishing pad 200 comprises a plurality of closed cell pores. Thus, the pattern layer of the polishing pad has pores. Because the base is a part of the pattern layer, the base also has a plurality of pores), and the surface of each of the protrusion patterns includes a top surface and side surfaces of each of the protrusion patterns (see annotated Lefevre fig. 2C above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose as modified by Yoon to provide the pores in the base and the protrusion patterns having the top surface and the side surfaces as taught by Lefevre in order to provide abrasiveness to the polishing pad for the effective polishing operation.
Hirose as modified by Yoon and Lefevre does not disclose a value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base is greater than 0, a surface roughness of the top surface of the base is greater than a surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns, wherein the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns is formed by the pores of each of the protrusion patterns, and the surface skewness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns have a negative value.
As discussed in claims 1 and 12, specification of the instant application explains, in p. 12:23-13:8, that a positive surface skewness means a tendency having protruding portions from a flat surface and a negative surface skewness means a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface. Specification further explains, in p. 50:7-25, the surface roughness defined as the skewness of the top surface 210s of the base 210 may have a negative value, zero, or a positive value, and the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0 because when the pattern layer of the polishing pad is formed using a laser or the like, the skewness of the top surface of the base may be adjusted in a more positive direction. Thus, while the skewness of the top surface of the base can be any value, it can be made to have more positive value.
Although Lefevre does not disclose values of the surface skewness, the polishing pad 200 comprising the base and the protrusion pattern has a plurality of pores wherein the pores may have different diameters and volumes (Lefevre English translation, p. 12:24-13:5). Yoon also discloses the apertures 38 [correspond to the recited pores] may have various shapes and occupy various areas/percentages of polishing layers (¶ 0047-48). Therefore, the pores of the top surface of the base and the pores of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns can be adjusted such that the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Specification of the instant application states the surface roughness is defined as the surface skewness (p. 50:7). The surface roughness of the top surface of the base needs to be greater than the surface roughness of the surface of each of the protrusion patterns when the value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion pattern from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base can be greater than 0.
Additionally, the aperture 38 of Yoon can be arranged to have a tendency having recessed portions from a flat surface so that the surface skewness of the surface of each of the polishing layers 31 [corresponds to the recited protrusion patterns] has a negative value.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose as modified by Yoon and Lefevre to make the skewness and surface roughness of the top surface of the base and the surface of each of the protrusion patterns as recited in order to achieve effective polishing outcome. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).
Lefevre as modified by Yoon and Lefevre teaches a number of pores formed on a top surface of the base is less than the number of pores formed on a surface of each of the protrusion pattern.
Although Yoon does not disclose explicitly that there are more pores on the surface of each of the protrusion pattern than the top surface of the base, Yoon teaches, in ¶ 0063, slurry can be contained in the pores near the contact between the polishing layer of the polishing pad and a to-be-polished layer of a substrate so that chemical polishing is affected. Therefore, it is necessary to have more pores at the polishing layer of the polishing pad. The protrusion pattern of the instant application is the polishing layer. The base is not the polishing layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose as modified by Yoon and Lefevre to provide the greater arrangement density of pores on a surface of the protrusion pattern as taught by Yoon in order to improve the polishing efficiency.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose in view of Yoon and Lefevre, as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Joseph.
Regarding claim 20, Hirose as modified by Yoon and Lefevre discloses the manufacturing method as in the rejection of claim 19, wherein the partially removing of the pattern layer (Hirose, fig. 2 and ¶ 0095, a method of forming a projection and recess structure of polishing pad includes using a CO2 gas laser. As seen in fig. 2 the polishing pad includes the pattern layer comprising the protrusion patterns on the base as recited), but does not disclose forming a trench in the base to have pores exposed on an inner wall of the trench.
Joseph teaches, in the analogous polishing pad field of endeavor, forming a trench in the base to have pores exposed on an inner wall of the trench (figs. 1-2 and Joseph English translation, p. 6:4-40, a polishing pad 2 comprises a polishing element 4 [corresponds to the recited protrusion pattern]. A distribution layer 8, a sheet 13’ or a guide plate 28 form the recited base. An opening 6 [corresponds to the recited trench] allows pores to be exposed on an inner wall of the opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Hirose as modified by Yoon and Lefevre to expose the pores on the inner wall of the trench as taught by Joseph so that it provides additional flow path for slurry for achieving effective polishing outcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lefever and Yoon do not teach or suggest amended claim limitations in claim 1, which was previously recited in claim 13, that a value obtained by subtracting a surface skewness of a surface of the protrusion patterns from a surface skewness of a top surface of the base is greater than 0. Applicant asserts Examiner’s reasoning of the rejection is flawed. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The surface skewness is about a tendency having protruding portions or recess portions from a flat surface (p. 12:23-13:8 of the instant application). Thus, Examiner has interpreted the protrusion patterns are the protruding portions with respect to the base, thus is could result in a large positive value such that the value after subtracting the surface skewness of the surface of the protrusion patterns wo