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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the amendments to
the claim objection of specifically claim 7 is persuasive. The previous claim 7 objection has been withdrawn. With regards to the previous claim 1 and 15 objection, the amendments are not persuasive. The amendment raises 112(b) issues as the “front side” of the wafer now includes “at least one electronic component” and it’s unclear as currently claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the polishing pad is, at greatest, equal to 50°C.”, and should be “the temperature of the polishing pad is, at greatest, equal to 50°C” or “the polishing pad temperature is, at greatest, equal to 50°C”, for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 “first direction” of the wafer as claimed in claim 15 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.
Claim 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 recite the limitation of “at greatest”. Regarding the temperature, the specification discloses “maintained below 50°C” and “process temperature equal to, or below, 50°C”. The language of “at greatest” is not in the specification to describe neither the temperature nor thickness. Therefore, it’s new matter.
Claim 7 recites: “the silicon carbide pad having a thickness, at greatest, equal to 180 µm”. The polishing pad as described in the specification is made of “polyurethane” and does not describe its thickness. Therefore, it’s new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended to recite: “the wafer having a front side and a back side opposite to one another, the front side including at least one electronic component and being coupled to the supporting head”. As claimed it is unclear how the front side of the wafer includes an electronic component. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed as “the wafer having a front side and a back side opposite to one another, another front side including at least one electronic component and being coupled to the supporting head”
Claim 7 recites: “the silicon carbide pad having a thickness, at greatest, equal to 180 µm”. The specification refers to the polishing pad as made of “polyurethane”. As claimed, it is unclear as to whether the pad or wafer is of 180µm. For examination purposes, the limitation of “the silicon carbide pad having a thickness, at greatest, equal to 180 µm” has been construed similarly to claim 15. Wherein the wafer is of 180µm or less.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (U.S. Patent No. 9,396,945 B2), in view of Sugaya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0013122 A1), LEE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0198090 A1), and Hardy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026583 A1).
Referring to claim 1: Sasaki teaches a method of executing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Abstract) on a wafer of silicon carbide (1 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)), comprising: arranging the wafer on a supporting head (24 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) of a CMP processing apparatus (2 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)), the wafer having a front side and a back side (1a and 1b Fig. 1(b)) opposite to one another; delivering a polishing slurry (S Fig. 1(a)) on the wafer,
wherein the polishing slurry (S Fig. 1(a)) has a pH value in a range of 2 and 3 (“pH of 2 to 6” Col. 5, lines 42-45); pressing the back side (1b Fig. 1(b)) of the wafer against a polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) of the CMP apparatus by exerting, via the supporting head (24 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)),
setting a rotation speed of the polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) in a range of 30 rpm and 180 rpm (“polishing pads…10 to 60 rpm” Col. 16, lines 2-5).
But is silent on:
the front side including at least one electronic component and being coupled to the supporting head;
a pressure on the polishing pad in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa;
and setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range of 30 rpm and 180 rpm; and setting and maintaining a temperature equal of the polishing pad, at greatest, equal to 50°C.
Sugaya et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches the front side (front side 3 Fig. 7) including at least one electronic component (3a Fig. 7; “motor” [0006]) and being coupled to the similar configuration supporting head (2 Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the housing and electronic component as taught by Sugaya et al. for the purpose, as it is known in the art, having the basic equipment components necessary for the intended operation.
LEE in an analogous CMP method teaches maintaining a temperature equal of the polishing pad, at greatest, equal to 50°C (Claim 4 and Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the temperature range as taught by LEE for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an efficient temperature for the intended polishing process.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches a pressure on the polishing pad in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa (“about 1.38 to about 103.42 kPa” [0028]);
and setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range between 30 rpm and 180 rpm (“wafer holder 33 rotates between about 2 to about 1,000 rpm, typically between about 5 to about 500 rpm, preferably between about 10 to about 300 rpm and more preferably between about 20 to about 100 rpm” [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the pressure and rotation speed as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, achieving the desired cutting rates [0084 of Hardy et al.].
Referring to claim 2: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the flow rate of the polishing slurry is less than 100 ml/min.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the flow rate of the polishing slurry is less than 100 ml/min (“25 to 250 milliliters/minute.” [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the flow rate as taught by Hardy et al. for the purposes, as it is known in the art, having the desired planarization criteria (cut rate, surface finish and planarity) [0087 of Hardy et al.].
Referring to claim 3: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polishing slurry is alumina-based (“alumina abrasive slurry” Col. 17, line 40 of Sasaki).
Referring to claim 4: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the CMP process is executed until a thickness of in a range of 1µm and 3µm of material is removed from the back side of the wafer.
Sugaya et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the CMP process is executed until a thickness of between 1µm and 3µm of material is removed from the back side of the wafer. (“subtracting a margin corresponding to the thickness of the layer to be polished and removed (normally 1.about.10 .mu.m.)”[0105])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the removal thickness as taught by Sugaya et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, removing the intended amount of material as required by the operation.
Referring to claim 5: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head (“It is preferred that both the wafer and the abrasive article rotate in the same direction. However, the wafer and the abrasive article may also rotate in opposite directions “ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation directions as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having the appropriate rotation direction which coincides with the intended removal rate.
Referring to claim 6: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rotation speed of the polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) of Sasaki) is set in a range of 30 and 70 rpm (“polishing pads…10 to 60 rpm” Col. 16, lines 2-5 of Sasaki), and the rotation speed of the polishing head is set in a range of 30 and 60 rpm (“wafer holder 33 rotates between about 2 to about 1,000 rpm, typically between about 5 to about 500 rpm, preferably between about 10 to about 300 rpm and more preferably between about 20 to about 100 rpm” [0084] of Hardy et al.).
Claims 7-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (U.S. Patent No. 9,396,945 B2), YAN (CN 105470122 A), Hardy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026583 A1), and LEE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0198090 A1).
Referring to claim 7: Sasaki teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method (Abstract, comprising: pressing a surface (1a and 1b Fig. 1(b)) of a silicon carbide wafer (1 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) against a polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b));
and polishing the surface of the silicon carbide wafer by rotating the polishing pad with a polishing slurry (S Fig. 1(a)) and a polishing temperature (“When the deposition temperature is a high temperature of about 1,500° C.,” [0018]), wherein: the polishing slurry has a pH value in a range of 2 and 3 (“pH of 2 to 6” Col. 5, lines 42-45); a rotating speed of the polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) is in a range of 30 rpm and 180 rpm (“polishing pads…10 to 60 rpm” Col. 16, lines 2-5).
But is silent on:
the silicon carbide pad ((112(b)) interpreted as “silicon carbide wafer”) having a thickness, at greatest, equal to 180 µm;
a pressure on the polishing pad is in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa;
and the polishing temperature is equal to or below than 50°C;
the polishing pad is, at greatest, equal to 50°C.
YAN teaches a silicon carbide wafer (“SiC” [0045]) having a thickness, at greatest, equal to 180 µm (“100µm; 105µm; and 150µm” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the wafer of less than 180µm for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, increasing the capabilities to reduce the thickness of the already thin wafer.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches a pressure on the polishing pad in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa (“about 1.38 to about 103.42 kPa” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the pressure as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, achieving the desired cutting rates [0084 of Hardy et al.].
LEE in an analogous CMP method teaches the polishing pad is, at greatest, equal to 50°C (Claim 4 and Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the temperature range as taught by LEE for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an efficient temperature for the intended polishing process.
Referring to claim 8: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 7, but is silent on comprising rotating the silicon carbide wafer with a rotation speed in a range of 30 rpm and 180 rpm.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range of 30 rpm and 180 rpm (“Preferred rotational speeds for the abrasive article are when the abrasive article rotates at a speed between 10 rpm to 1,000 rpm, and more preferably between 10 rpm to 250 rpm and more preferably between 10 rpm to 60 rpm” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation speed as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, achieving the desired cutting rates [0084 of Hardy et al.].
Referring to claim 9: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the polishing slurry is delivered with a flow rate less than 100 ml/min.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the flow rate of the polishing slurry is less than 100 ml/min (“25 to 250 milliliters/minute.” [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the flow rate as taught by Hardy et al. for the purposes, as it is known in the art, having the desired planarization criteria (cut rate, surface finish and planarity) [0087 of Hardy et al.].
Referring to claim 10: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 7, wherein the polishing slurry is alumina-based (“alumina abrasive slurry” Col. 17, line 40 of Sasaki).
Referring to claim 12: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 8, but is silent on wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the silicon carbide wafer.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head (“It is preferred that both the wafer and the abrasive article rotate in the same direction. However, the wafer and the abrasive article may also rotate in opposite directions “ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation directions as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having the appropriate rotation direction which coincides with the intended removal rate.
Referring to claim 13: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 8, but is silent on wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be opposite to a direction of rotation of the silicon carbide wafer.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head (“, the wafer and the abrasive article may also rotate in opposite directions “ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation directions as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having the appropriate rotation direction which coincides with the intended removal rate.
Referring to claim 14: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 8, wherein the rotation speed of the polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) of Sasaki) is set in a range of 30 rpm and 70 rpm (“polishing pads…10 to 60 rpm” Col. 16, lines 2-5 of Sasaki), but is silent on the rotation speed of the polishing head is set in a range of 30 rpm and 60 rpm.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range of 30 rpm and 60 rpm (“Preferred rotational speeds for the abrasive article are when the abrasive article rotates at a speed between 10 rpm to 1,000 rpm, and more preferably between 10 rpm to 250 rpm and more preferably between 10 rpm to 60 rpm” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation speed as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, achieving the desired cutting rates [0084 of Hardy et al.].
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (U.S. Patent No. 9,396,945 B2), in view of YAN (CN 105470122 A), Sugaya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0013122 A1), Hardy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026583 A1), and LEE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0198090 A1).
Referring to claim 15: Sasaki teaches a method of executing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Abstract) on a wafer of silicon carbide (1 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)), comprising: arranging the wafer on a supporting head (24 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) of a CMP processing apparatus (2 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)), the wafer having a front side and a back side (1a and 1b Fig. 1(b)) opposite to one another along a first direction (first direction of 1a to 1b Fig. 1(b)),
delivering a polishing slurry (S Fig. 1(a)) on the wafer, the polishing slurry having a pH value in a range of 2 and 3 (“pH of 2 to 6” Col. 5, lines 42-45); pressing the back side (1b Fig. 1(b)) of the wafer against a polishing pad (21 and 22 Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) of the CMP; setting a rotation speed of the polishing pad in a range of 30 rpm and 70 rpm (“polishing pads…10 to 60 rpm” Col. 16, lines 2-5),
But is silent on:
the wafer’s front side and the back side being separated by, at greatest, 180µm;
the front side including at least one electronic component and being coupled to the supporting head;
apparatus with a pressure on the polishing pad in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa;
setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range of 30 rpm and 60 rpm;
and setting and maintaining a temperature of the polishing pad in a range of 24°C and 50°C.
YAN teaches a wafer (“SiC” [0045]) the front side and the back side being (front side and the back side defining the thickness which is being “thinned” [0045]) separated by, at greatest, 180µm (“100µm; 105µm; and 150µm” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the wafer of less than 180µm for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, increasing the capabilities to reduce the thickness of the already thin wafer.
Sugaya et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches another front side (another front side of 3 Fig. 7) at least one electronic component (3a Fig. 7; “motor” [0006]) and being coupled to the similar configuration supporting head (2 Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the housing and electronic component as taught by Sugaya et al. for the purpose, as it is known in the art, having the basic equipment components necessary for the intended operation.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches a pressure on the polishing pad in a range of 5 kPa and 20 kPa (“about 1.38 to about 103.42 kPa” [0028]);
and setting a rotation speed of the polishing head in a range of 30 rpm and 60 rpm (“Preferred rotational speeds for the abrasive article are when the abrasive article rotates at a speed between 10 rpm to 1,000 rpm, and more preferably between 10 rpm to 250 rpm and more preferably between 10 rpm to 60 rpm” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the pressure and rotation speed as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, achieving the desired cutting rates [0084 of Hardy et al.].
LEE in an analogous CMP method teaches setting and maintaining a temperature of the polishing pad in a range of 24°C and 50°C (Claim 4 and Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki with the temperature range as taught by LEE for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an efficient temperature for the intended polishing process.
Referring to claim 16: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the flow rate of the polishing slurry is less than 100 ml/min.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the flow rate of the polishing slurry is less than 100 ml/min (“25 to 250 milliliters/minute.” [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the flow rate as taught by Hardy et al. for the purposes, as it is known in the art, having the desired planarization criteria (cut rate, surface finish and planarity) [0087 of Hardy et al.].
Referring to claim 17: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the polishing slurry is alumina-based (“alumina abrasive slurry” Col. 17, line 40 of Sasaki).
Referring to claim 18: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the CMP process is executed until a thickness of in a range of 1µm and 3µm of material is removed from the back side of the wafer.
Sugaya et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the CMP process is executed until a thickness of in a range of 1µm and 3µm of material is removed from the back side of the wafer. (“subtracting a margin corresponding to the thickness of the layer to be polished and removed (normally 1.about.10 .mu.m.)”[0105])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the removal thickness as taught by Sugaya et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, removing the intended amount of material as required by the operation.
Referring to claim 19: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head.
Hardy et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein a direction of rotation of the polishing pad is set to be a same as a direction of rotation of the supporting head (“It is preferred that both the wafer and the abrasive article rotate in the same direction. However, the wafer and the abrasive article may also rotate in opposite directions “ [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the rotation directions as taught by Hardy et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having the appropriate rotation direction which coincides with the intended removal rate.
Referring to claim 20: Sasaki as modified teaches the method of claim 15, wherein a removal rate of the CMP process is set to be equal to or higher than 10µm/hr (“the polishing rate of the C surface is from 3 to 15 (μm/hr)” Col. 5, lines 56-57 of Sasaki).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (U.S. Patent No. 9,396,945 B2), YAN (CN 105470122 A), Hardy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0026583 A1), and LEE (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0198090 A1), as applied above in claim 7, and in further view of Sugaya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0013122 A1).
Referring to claim 11: Sasaki as modified teaches the CMP method of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the polishing is executed until a thickness of in a range of 1 and 3µm of material is removed from the surface of the silicon carbide wafer.
Sugaya et al. in an analogous CMP method teaches wherein the CMP process is executed until a thickness of in a range of 1µm and 3µm of material is removed from the back side of the wafer. (“subtracting a margin corresponding to the thickness of the layer to be polished and removed (normally 1.about.10 .mu.m.)”[0105])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sasaki as modified with the removal thickness as taught by Sugaya et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, removing the intended amount of material as required by the operation.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723