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
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on May 4, 2026. Claim 9 has been amended. Claims 10-13 have been added. No have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 9 filed on May 4, 2026.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 9 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Shionoya (JP-H10229060). However, it is not considered to overcome the art of record. As such, the rejection from the previous action will be updated to address the amended limitations as presented.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered.
102 Rejections: The applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 102 rejections of the previous action have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The applicant argues, particularly on page 6, that the focus correction of Shionoya is not based on a measured abrade amount, because of Shionoya’s paragraph stating that “even if the thickness of the polishing cloth changes during polishing due to wear…the polished surface…is maintained at the focal position of the objective lens ([0010], [0020]).”
However, the examiner notes that the “polishing amount” recited by Shionoya is directed towards how much abrading has been accomplished, whereas the applicant’s comments and remarks appear to indicate that the pad wear is the quality desired to measured. If that the is the distinction the applicant wishes to make, language from [0076-0083] of the applicant’s specification would provide support for such an amendment. However, within the claims, the “abrade amount” was understood as how much abrading had been accomplished upon the wafer.
103 Rejections: As applicant’s remarks are directed towards the teaching references failure to cure the deficiencies of Shionoya, and the examiner respectfully disagreed towards Shionoya’s failures, the remarks are found unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shionoya (JP-H10229060).
In regards to claim 1, Shionoya discloses
a polishing apparatus comprising:
a substrate holding member (wafer carrier 5; [0004], [0008], [0009], [0018], fig. 2, 5 and 8) configured to hold a substrate (silicon wafer 1); and
a polishing table (surface plate 3, [0007], [0008], [0019], [0022]) configured to hold a polishing pad (polishing cloth 4, [0007], [0008], [0022]), wherein the polishing apparatus is configured to polish the substrate (silicon wafer 1) while pressing the substrate against the polishing pad (polishing cloth 4), and the polishing apparatus comprises:
a sensor head (at least elements 9, 15, and 17) that includes a projector (illumination light source 9, [0009], [0010], [0012], [0019], [0023]),
a condenser (condenser lens 15, [0009], [0010]), and
an optical receiver (image sensor 17, [0010]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]), the projector (illumination light source 9) being configured to project incident light, the condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) being configured to condense the incident light projected from the projector and cause the incident light to be incident on the substrate, the optical receiver (image sensor 17, [0010]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]) being configured to receive reflected light reflected by the substrate;
a displacement mechanism (actuator 19, [0009], [0010]) configured to relatively displace the condenser (condenser lens 14) with respect to the substrate to change a distance between the condenser and the substrate;
an abrade amount measurement device (image sensor 17; [0009]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]) configured to measure an abrade amount of the polishing pad; and
a control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]), wherein the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to measure a polishing state of the substrate based on a light amount parameter, the light amount parameter is a parameter related to a light amount of the reflected light received by the optical receiver (image sensor 17, [0010]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]), and the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to control the displacement mechanism (actuator 19, [0009], [0010]) based on the abrade amount of the polishing pad measured by the abrade amount measurement device (image sensor 17; [0009]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]) such that the distance between the condenser and the substrate is maintained at a preliminarily set reference distance ([0010]: the lens being automatically focused by moving in the optical direction axis based on the signal describes there being a distance necessitated to maintain focus, and the actuator adjusting in order to maintain proper configuration).
In regards to claim 2, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to measure a polishing ending point ([0011]: furthermore to detect the progress of the polishing…by the signal processing circuit 24…for detecting the end point of polishing) of the substrate (silicon wafer 1) as the polishing state of the substrate.
In regards to claim 9, Shionoya discloses
a polishing method comprising:
a step of condensing incident light ([0009]-[0010]) projected from a projector (illumination light source 9) during polishing a substrate (silicon wafer 1) by a polishing apparatus by a condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) to cause the incident light to be incident on the substrate,
receiving reflected light reflected by the substrate by an optical receiver (image sensor 17, [0010]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]), and measuring a polishing state ([0011]) of the substrate based on a light amount parameter as a parameter related to a light amount of the reflected light received by the optical receiver (image sensor 17, [0010]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]);
a step of measuring an abrade amount of a polishing pad (via image sensor [0009]-[0017], [0020]-[0021])
a step of relatively displacing ([0010]) the condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) with respect to the substrate (silicon wafer 1) based on the abrade amount of a polishing pad (polishing cloth 4) against which the substrate is pressed such that a distance between the condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) and the substrate is maintained at a preliminarily set reference distance during polishing the substrate by the polishing apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shionoya in view of Birang et al. (US Patent No. 7153185) and Takahashi (US PG Pub No. 20190193242).
In regards to claim 3, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to further calculate a distance between the condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) and the substrate (silicon wafer 1) such that “the light amount parameter becomes larger than a predetermined value by performing machine learning based on a data group associating the light amount parameter with the distance between the condenser and the substrate, and use the distance as the reference distance.”
However, Birang, which discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and method can use an eddy current monitoring system and an optical monitoring system. Signals from the monitoring systems can be combined on an output line and extracted by a computer. The eddy current monitoring system or the optical monitoring system are used to detect variations with in situ monitoring of the substrate in order to detect the polishing endpoint.
Col. 12 lines 28-58:
(49) In operation, CMP apparatus 20 uses eddy current monitoring system 40 and optical monitoring system 140 to determine when the bulk of the filler layer has been removed and to determine when the underlying stop layer has been substantially exposed. The computer 90 applies process control and endpoint detection logic to the sampled signals to determine when to change process parameter and to detect the polishing endpoint. Possible process control and endpoint criteria for the detector logic include local minima or maxima, changes in slope, threshold values in amplitude or slope, or combinations thereof…
Col. 15 lines 22-31:
…This threshold and/or intensity ratio can be adjusted to account for detector sensitivity, light source intensity, signal to noise ratio, etc…the computer 90 first collects the data (e.g., eddy current or light intensity values) as a function of time, t, from a complete scan across the retaining ring and substrate from both optical monitoring system 140 and eddy current monitoring system 40.
For the purpose of endpoint detection, Birang teaches detecting and adjusting threshold values in view of data collected by the optical monitoring system, such as the claimed apparatus detects and measures values collected by the optical receiver. Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the controller of Shionoya with the teachings of Birang, include endpoint detection logic that makes determinations based off information received from the optical monitoring system regarding thresholds of light source intensity values in order to improve endpoint detection and consistently produce high quality wafers.
However, both Birang and the Shionoya fail to address applying “machine learning” to analyzing this data.
Takahashi discloses a CMP apparatus with endpoint detection applying machine learning to adapting light intensity data.
[0028] A nineteenth aspect adopts a configuration of the polishing apparatus according to any of the eleventh to fourteenth aspects, the polishing apparatus including an optical system that irradiates the polishable surface (i.e., surface to be polished) of the object with light from an optical fiber through a through hole provided in the polishing pad and receives reflected light through the optical fiber and analysis processing means for analyzing and processing the reflected light received by the optical system, analysis processing means analyzing and processing the reflected light…
[0266] Particularly, it is possible to achieve high-speed data processing, signal processing using many sensors of many types, data normalized from these signals, learning from data using artificial intelligence (AI), creation of a data set used to determine end point detection, learning through storage of determination examples using the created data set, improvement of accuracy using learning effects, polishing parameters determined and updated by the learned determination function, a high-speed communication processing system that reflects the polishing parameters in a high-speed control system, or the like. These are applicable to all the embodiments shown in FIG. 35 and therebefore…
Shionoya, Birang, and Takahashi are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are all in the same field of endeavor, CMP apparatus with sensors for detecting and applying light intensity within controller functions.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04.III, (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Shionoya as modified with a means for automating the manual process of collating and analyzing light data in order to determine a threshold for better polishing endpoint detection, based on intended use, size and scale of the device, and basic engineering principles.
In regards to claim 4, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose that the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured “to further predict a change in light amount parameter”, which is a change in the light amount parameter in association with a lapse (duration) of a polishing time, corresponding a process condition related to a polishing rate of the substrate by the polishing apparatus, “by performing machine learning based on a data group associating the process condition with the light amount parameter,” and the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to calculate “an abnormal range of the change in light amount parameter equivalent to a case where abnormality occurs in the polishing apparatus based on the predicted change in light amount parameter and cause a storage medium to store the calculated abnormal range of the change in light amount parameter.”
However, Birang teaches taking light parameter values as a function of time (Col. 12 lines 28-58, Col. 15 lines 22-31), and adjusting threshold values based upon gathered data in order to detect when the values are within or outside the normal ranges. However, as before, Birang fails to disclose “machine learning.” Takahashi teaches the application machine learning for the automation of analyzing data for the purpose of improved endpoint detection. Further, Takahashi provides teaching about anticipating/predicting future changes:
[0272] It is possible to predict/determine/display an abnormality/life of the substrate processing apparatus. It is also possible to perform control to make performance more stable.
[0273] It is possible to automatically extract feature values of various types of data and polishing data (film thickness and end point of polishing) during operation of the substrate processing apparatus, automatically learn the operation state and polishing state, automatically standardize a control pattern and predict/determine/display an abnormality/life.
Pursuant MPEP 2144.04.III, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shionoya in view of Takahashi and Birang to collect light intensity data that uses a threshold parameter in order to detect change, and apply the historical data to adjust the polishing process in order to facilitate better endpoint detection and the production of quality wafers.
In regards to claim 5, Shionoya as modified discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to further determine whether abnormality occurs in the polishing apparatus based on the abnormal range of the change in light amount parameter stored in the storage medium and an actually measured value of the change in light amount parameter during polishing the substrate by the polishing apparatus (Birang’s teaching of the application of threshold values, see at least (Col. 12 lines 28-58, Col. 15 lines 22-31).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shionoya in view of Rodnick (US PG Pub No. 20150214091).
In regards to claim 6, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured to further “determine whether substrate slip-out” in which the substrate (silicon wafer 1) comes off from the substrate holding member (wafer carrier 5) occurs based on whether the light amount parameter is smaller than a threshold.
Rodnick discloses a wafer handling traction control system for a polishing system capable of detecting slippage of a semiconductor wafer with respect to an end effector and is able to adjust the end effector's movement in order to minimize further slippage.
Rodnick teaches: [0053] The sensor 108 may, for example, be an optical sensor supported on the end effector 112 that emits a beam of light that is configured to interact with a pattern on the semiconductor wafer 104...the surface finish or roughness of the semiconductor wafer may prove to be sufficiently rough that an optical detector may be capable of registering the surface roughness and measuring the amount of displacement that occurs when the semiconductor wafer 104 slips with respect to the end effector 112, e.g., by the amount that a particular surface roughness pattern "moves." The amount of light reflected by the pattern may change depending on which area of the pattern the light shines on. Relative motion between the semiconductor wafer 104 and the end effector 112 may be detected by the sensor 108 through changes in the amount of light reflected. The sensor 108 may output the sensor data detailing the amount of light reflected to the controller 106…”
Shionoya and Rodnick are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, wafer polishing employing reflected light and sensors in order to analyze and adjust the polishing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shionoya in view of Rodnick and provide logic within the signal processor for using light intensity information to detect slippage of the wafer, preventing the wafer from disconnecting from the polishing pad and impeding the polishing process.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shionoya in view of Bottema et al. (US PG Pub NO. 20070054602).
In regards to claim 7, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1,
the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) is configured such that when
a relative position between the substrate and the sensor head is at a position where the incident light is incident on a surface to be polished during polishing the substrate by the polishing apparatus, the control device (signal processing circuit 24; [0011], [0013], [0015], [0020]-[0021]) further controls projection timing of the projector (illumination light source 9) such that the projector projects the incident light (timing is under stood as the activation of the projector; the signal processing circuit of Shionoya is responsible for the activation and use of the different mechanisms, including the illumination light source; a skilled artisan would recognize the control device would be capable of activating/controling the light source when light shines upon the surface, and when it is not; for activation and deactivation purposes).
Shionoya fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the sensor head (at least elements 9, 15, and 17) is “disposed on” the polishing table (surface plate 3), and the “sensor head is configured to rotate together with” the polishing table (surface plate 3) during polishing the substrate (silicon wafer 1) by the polishing apparatus.”
However, Bottema, which is a CMP apparatus that applies endpoint detection relying upon reflected light. Bottema discloses a sensor head embedded within the platen (see fig. 4-7). Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, the mere rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious modification. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sensor within the platen as taught by Bottema, as it being an obvious matter of design choice.
In regards to claim 8, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a light transmitting member (a second condensing lens 15) configured to transmit the incident light condensed by the condenser (condenser lens 14, [0009], [0010]) and
the reflected light reflected by the substrate (silicon wafer 1) is disposed on a part of the polishing pad (polishing cloth 4).
Claim(s) 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shionoya in view of Birang (US Patent No. 7153185).
In regards to claim 10, Shionoya discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising “a dresser configured to dress the polishing pad,” wherein the abrade amount measurement device (image sensor 17; [0009]-[0017], [0020]-[0021]) comprises a displacement sensor (the image sensor 17, through detecting the light refraction, measures the displacement/abrade amount, i.e. how much of the wafer has worn away, exposing different refractions at different thicknesses) configured to measure the displacement in the vertical direction “of the dresser.”
Birang, which discloses a CMP apparatus employing in-situ eddy current and optical monitoring systems, teaches using a dresser to condition pad (see element 28 in fig. 1)
Col. 6 lines 53-56: Each polishing station can also include a pad conditioner apparatus 28 to maintain the condition of the polishing pad so that it will effectively polish substrates.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Birang and Shionoya are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CMP apparatus with in-situ monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shionoya and provide with a pad conditioner as taught by Birang in order to maintain polishing pad condition for effective substrate polishing.
In regards to claim 11, Shionoya as modified discloses
the polishing apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising a rotation shaft (see fig. 1 of Birang) to which the dresser is connected,
wherein the displacement sensor is configured to measure the displacement in the vertical direction of the rotation shaft of the dresser for measuring the displacement in the vertical direction of the dresser (the vertical direction of the dresser would also be in the same vertical direction as the dresser, which would be the same direction as the thickness of wafer being polished; see rejection of claim 11).
In regards to claim 12, Shionoya discloses
the polishing method according to Claim 9, wherein the step of measuring an abrade amount of a polishing pad comprises: a step of measuring a displacement in the vertical direction.
Shionoya fails to disclose “a dresser configured to dress the polishing pad.”
Birang, which discloses a CMP apparatus employing in-situ eddy current and optical monitoring systems, teaches using a dresser to condition pad (see element 28 in fig. 1)
Col. 6 lines 53-56: Each polishing station can also include a pad conditioner apparatus 28 to maintain the condition of the polishing pad so that it will effectively polish substrates.
Birang and Shionoya are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CMP apparatus with in-situ monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shionoya and provide with a pad conditioner as taught by Birang in order to maintain polishing pad condition for effective substrate polishing.
The vertical direction of the dresser would also be in the same vertical direction as the dresser, which would be the same direction as the thickness of wafer being polished; see rejection of claim 11.
In regards to claim 13, Shionoya as modified discloses
the polishing method according to Claim 12, wherein the step of measuring an abrade amount of a polishing pad comprises: a step of measuring a displacement in the vertical direction (see explanation in rejection of claim 11) of a rotation shaft (see fig. 1 of Birang) to which the dresser is connected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights