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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1,4-5,7-8,11-12,14 and 16-19 are pending. Claims 1, 8 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
In claim 4, consider -- The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises--.
In claims 16 and 17, consider -- The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising--
Examiner will allow entry of the above amendments after-final, or after notice of appeal, if the claims are not otherwise amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“polishing-table rotating device” in claim 8 and 15; corresponding to polishing table rotating device 30 including actuator or electric motor as described in [0049], and equivalents thereof
“polishing-head rotating device” in claim 8 and 15 corresponding to a polishing head rotating device 20 including an electric motor (no structure recited for torque transmission device in [0046]) and equivalents thereof.
“polishing-head elevating device” in claim 8, 14 and 15 corresponding to a polishing head elevating device 25 including ball screw mechanism, a servomotor, or an actuator as in [0046] and equivalents thereof.
“fluid supply system” in claim 11 corresponding to fluid supply system 80 with fluid line and valve as in [0083] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 20090191791 A1) in view of Komura (JP 5210444 B1; translation attached 01/17/2025).
With respect to claim 1, Fukushima discloses:
A method of raising a polishing head after polishing of a workpiece, comprising: polishing the workpiece by pressing the workpiece against a polishing pad while rotating the polishing head and the polishing pad (rotating top ring 101A, fig. 5 [the polishing head] and rotating polishing surface 105A [polishing pad] as described in [0116]; the workpiece W is pressed during polishing as in [0119]), raising the polishing head to separate the workpiece from the polishing pad with the workpiece held on the polishing head by vacuum suction of the polishing head (lifting the workpiece as in [0129] after the polishing is finished as described in [0121]; [0121] describes that this is a vacuum suction process by top ring 101A). Fukushima further teaches of a retaining ring that can move vertically (retainer ring 203, fig. 7; [0114]), that during polishing, the retaining ring is pressed against the polishing pad ([0016,0117,0119]) and that it is desirable to use a lower force to remove the workpiece from the polishing pad because the workpiece may break ([0123])
However, does not explicitly disclose
stopping the rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head while the workpiece and a retainer ring of the polishing head are in contact with the polishing pad; separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Translated fig. 8 (Komura - image contains grayscale, original quality image available in .docx in Patent Center)
Komura, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing, teaches of stopping the rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head ([0051], stopping polishing table 11 and polishing head 13 to complete the polishing process, which are shown in fig. 1 polishing pad 12 is on the table as in [0019]), while the workpiece and a retainer ring of the polishing head are in contact with the polishing pad ([0046,0049] provides that during polishing the retainer ring is pressed against the polishing pad, and [0052] provides that during polishing the substrate is pressed downwards, which is against the polishing pad; furthermore [0036,0046] provides that pressurized fluid presses the wafer and retainer ring against the pad, and in [0052] and S109, translated fig. 8 above, the pressurized fluid is recovered after stopping rotation); separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece (as shown in fig. 7; [0047]). Komura teaches that stopping rotation after polishing is completed is done after a specified time ([0051]) as part of an arrangement to prevent uneven/insufficient and over polishing ([0008]); and that lifting the retaining ring makes it easier to peel the substrate from the polishing pad with a horizontal spray ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Fukushima to stopping the rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head, as taught by Komura, in order to prevent over polishing and ensure polishing is completed for an appropriate amount of time (as the relative motions of the polishing pad and head cause abrasion when the workpiece remains pressed against the pad), and separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece (and before lifting the workpiece from the pad), in order to make it easier to peel the substrate off (thus preventing breakage caused by excessive force). Regarding having raising the polishing head to separate the workpiece from the polishing pad with the workpiece held on the polishing head by vacuum suction of the polishing head after separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece, Fukushima provides that the lifting process of separating the wafer from the polishing pad occurs after the polishing is finished ([0121,0129]), and therefore, the step would have occurred after separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece, as that step of raising the retaining ring in Komura occurs with the workpiece adjacent to the polishing pad.
With respect to claim 7, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches raising the polishing head at a first speed until the entire workpiece is separated from the polishing pad; and raising the polishing head at a second speed higher than the first speed after the entire workpiece is separated from the polishing pad (Fukushima, producing a gradual/stepwise increase in force/height during lifting as in [0134-0135]; while the workpiece is still attracted to the polishing surface, using a lower force/speed to prevent the wafer from being broken as in [0040-0041], thus because of the gradual/stepwise increase in force (thus speed/acceleration) the polishing head is moved at a first speed until separation, and a second increased speed afterwards; further explanation of this gradual increase in speed to prevent breakage is also found in [0138-0139]).
With respect to claim 8, Fukushima discloses: A polishing apparatus for a workpiece, comprising: a polishing table configured to support a polishing pad (table 100A, fig. 5; with pad 222, fig. 5; [0090]) a polishing-table rotating device configured to rotate the polishing table together with the polishing pad (motor connected to shaft 106, fig. 5; [0090]; 112(f) equivalent by being a motor as in the instant disclosure); a polishing head configured to press the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece (101A,. fig. 5; [0091]; configured to press the workpiece as in [0095] during polishing); a polishing-head pressure controller configured to control pressure in the polishing head (pressure regulator in [0124] as a polishing head pressure controller, the control device 247 is also able to control the pressure of fluid supplied to the head 101a as in [0098]); a polishing-head rotating device configured to rotate the polishing head (motor 114 that rotates shaft 111 as in [0094], being a 112(f) equivalent that rotates the head using a motor, shown in fig. 5); a polishing-head elevating device configured to raise and lower the polishing head relative to the polishing table (lifting mechanism 124, fig. 5; as described in [0135], and 112(f) equivalent by being a ball screw/ servo motor); and an operation controller configured to control operations of the polishing-table rotating device, the polishing-head pressure controller, the polishing-head rotating device, and the polishing-head elevating device (control device 247 also includes aspects, including control of all operations of the polishing device as described in [0098]), the polishing head having a retainer ring surrounding the workpiece (retainer ring 203, fig. 7; [0114], can move vertically, surrounds workpiece peripherally as in [0109]), the operation controller being configured to:
instruct the polishing-head elevating device to raise the polishing head to separate the workpiece from the polishing pad with the workpiece held on the polishing head by vacuum suction of the polishing head (lifting the workpiece as in [0129-0130] after the polishing is finished as described in [0121]; [0121] describes that this is a vacuum suction process by top ring 101A),
however, does not explicitly disclose the operation controller being configured to: after polishing of the workpiece, instruct the polishing-table rotating device and the polishing-head rotating device to stop rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head while the workpiece and the retainer ring of the polishing head are in contact with the polishing; instruct the polishing-head pressure controller to separate the retainer ring from the polishing pad and move the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece;
Fukushima further teaches that it is desirable to use a lower force to remove the workpiece from the polishing pad because the workpiece may break ([0123]). Fukushima, further explains how the workpiece is held using a vacuum pressure before detachment from the polishing pad ([0123-0124], the interaction between the operations controller 247 and pressure regulator is explained in [0098,0124]), and that during polishing, the retaining ring is pressed against the polishing pad ([0016,0117,0119]).
Komura, in the same field of endeavor, as related to polishing, teaches of stopping the rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head ([0051], stopping polishing table 11 and polishing head 13 to complete the polishing process, which are shown in fig. 1 polishing pad 12 is on the table as in [0019]), while the workpiece and a retainer ring of the polishing head are in contact with the polishing pad ([0046,0049] provides that during polishing the retainer ring is pressed against the polishing pad, and [0052] provides that during polishing the substrate is pressed downwards, which is against the polishing pad and in [0052] and S109, translated fig. 8 above, the pressurized fluid is recovered after stopping rotation); separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad, moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece (as shown in fig. 7; [0047], the retainer ring also separating from the polishing pad). Komura teaches that stopping rotation after polishing is completed is done after a specified time ([0051]) as part of an arrangement to prevent uneven/insufficient and over polishing ([0008]); and that lifting the retaining ring makes it easier to peel the substrate from the polishing pad with a horizontal spray ([0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Fukushima to have the operations controller configured for stopping the rotations of the polishing pad and the polishing head, as taught by Komura, in order to prevent over polishing and ensure polishing is completed for an appropriate amount of time, and to move the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece with the retainer ring separated from the polishing pad after polishing is completed (and before lifting the workpiece from the pad), in order to make it easier to peel the substrate off (thus preventing breakage caused by excessive force). Regarding having the raising the polishing head to separate the workpiece from the polishing pad with the workpiece held on the polishing head by vacuum suction of the polishing head after separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece, Fukushima provides that the lifting process of separating the wafer from the polishing pad occurs after the polishing is finished ([0121,0129]), and therefore, the step would have occurred after separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad and moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece, as that step of raising the retaining ring in Komura occurs with the workpiece adjacent to the polishing pad.
With respect to claim 14, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches wherein the operation controller is configured to instruct the polishing-head elevating device to raise the polishing head at a first speed until the entire workpiece is separated from the polishing pad, and raise the polishing head at a second speed higher than the first speed after the entire workpiece is separated from the polishing pad (Fukushima, producing a gradual/stepwise increase in force/height during lifting as in [0134-0135]; while the workpiece is still attracted to the polishing surface, using a lower force/speed to prevent the wafer from being broken as in [0040-0041], thus because of the gradual/stepwise increase in force (thus speed/acceleration) the polishing head is moved at a first speed until separation, and a second increased speed afterwards; further explanation of this gradual increase in speed to prevent breakage is also found in [0138-0139]).
With respect to claim 16, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head after moving the retainer ring to the position higher than the workpiece (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the lift off process in Fukushima is to remove and lift the workpiece using the polishing head, which occurs after raising the retainer ring to the position higher than the workpiece; examiner notes to meet the claim limitation, holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head could occur anytime after [does not require immediately after] raising the retainer ring to the position higher than the workpiece).
With respect to claim 17, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head before separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad (Fukushima, [0116] describes suction holding the workpiece before polishing, separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad in Komura occurs after polishing in [0047]; examiner notes that to meet the claim limitation holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head could occur anytime before [does not require immediately before] separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad).
With respect to claim 18, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches wherein the operation controller is configured to instruct the polishing-head pressure controller to hold the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head before the retainer ring is separated from the polishing pad (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the lift off process in Fukushima is to remove and lift the workpiece using the polishing head, which occurs after raising the retainer ring to the position higher than the workpiece; examiner notes to meet the claim limitation, holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head could occur anytime after [does not require immediately after] raising the retainer ring to the position higher than the workpiece).
With respect to claim 19, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches wherein the operation controller is configured to instruct the polishing-head pressure controller to hold the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head after the retainer ring is moved to the position higher than the workpiece (Fukushima, [0116] describes suction holding the workpiece before polishing, separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad in Komura occurs after polishing in [0047]; examiner notes that to meet the claim limitation holding the workpiece by vacuum suction of the polishing head could occur anytime before [does not require immediately before] separating the retainer ring from the polishing pad).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 20090191791 A1) in view of Komura (JP 5210444 B1), and further in view of Sharples (US 20020019197 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach further comprises holding the workpiece by the polishing head, wherein holding the workpiece by the polishing head is performed while supplying fluid directly to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad. It is however noted, that Kimura teaches of moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece to spray liquid between the retainer ring and polishing pad (as shown in fig. 7; [0047] - which would contact the workpiece at a side).
Sharples, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches holding the workpiece by the polishing head is performed while supplying fluid directly to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad ([0029-0030], during the ramp down/completion of the polishing process, polishing/planarizing liquid is replaced with a fluid that rinses the wafer, the fluid being supplied by a conduit/line from 153, fig. 2 as shown in fig. 2, directly to the workpiece while being held, in a manner consistent with the claimed invention). Sharples teaches this arrangement removes abrasive particles and reduces defects ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Fukushima to have the step of holding the workpiece by the polishing head is performed while supplying fluid directly to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad, as taught by Sharples for the purpose of reducing defects.
With respect to claim 11, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly teach a fluid supply system configured to supply fluid to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad, the operation controller being configured to instruct the fluid supply system to supply the fluid directly to the area between the workpiece and the polishing pad when the polishing head holds the workpiece. It is however noted, that Kimura teaches of moving the retainer ring to a position higher than the workpiece to spray liquid between the retainer ring and polishing pad (as shown in fig. 7; [0047] - which would contact the workpiece at a side).
Sharples, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of a fluid supply system configured to supply fluid to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad (conduit/line from 153, fig. 2, [0029-0030], shown with openings in pad 141, to workpiece 112, described in [0021], and with a valve 149, described in [0023], making this arrangement a 112(f) equivalent by including a fluid line/conduit and valve) and of suppling the fluid directly to the area between the workpiece and the polishing pad when the polishing head holds the workpiece ([0029-0030], during the ramp down/completion of the polishing process, polishing/planarizing liquid is replaced with a fluid that rinses the wafer, the fluid being supplied by a conduit/line from 153, fig. 2 as shown in fig. 2, directly to the workpiece while being held, in a manner consistent with the claimed invention). Sharples teaches this arrangement removes abrasive particles and reduces defects ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Fukushima to have a fluid supply system configured to supply fluid to an area between the workpiece and the polishing pad, and to have the operation controller being configured to instruct the fluid supply system to supply the fluid directly to the area between the workpiece and the polishing pad when the polishing head holds the workpiece, using the teachings of Sharples, for the purpose of reducing defects.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 20090191791 A1) in view of Komura (JP 5210444 B1), and further in view of Nabeya (US 20200043773 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing head includes an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad, wherein the method further comprises: holding the workpiece by the polishing head, wherein holding the workpiece by the polishing head comprises holding the workpiece with the polishing head by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers. Fukushima, however teaches that the degree of vacuum is important when detaching the wafer from the polishing pad ([0030-0032])
Nabeya, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of wherein the polishing head includes an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad (elastic membrane 34 with plurality of chambers 25A-D, [0289-0290], figs. 35-36) and that holding the workpiece by the polishing head comprises holding the workpiece with the polishing head by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers (the sequence of “vacuums are sequentially formed in the pressure chambers 25D, 25C, and 25B in order from the pressure chamber 25D located outside to the pressure chamber 25B located on the center side (that is, in order of the pressure chambers 25D, 25C, and 25B” described in [0290] with respect to fig. 36). Nabeya teaches that this arrangement removes liquid ([0290]) which ensures an appropriate force is applied to the wafer ([0275,0280] which describe how removing liquid between the polishing film ensures an intended force is applied to the wafer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Fukushima with an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad, such that holding the workpiece by the polishing head comprises holding the workpiece with the polishing head by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers, as taught by Nabeya, in order to ensure an appropriate force is applied to the workpiece.
With respect to claim 12, Fukushima, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing head includes an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad, and the operation controller is configured to instruct the polishing-head pressure controller to cause the polishing head to hold the workpiece by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers. Fukushima, however teaches that the degree of vacuum is important when detaching the wafer from the polishing pad ([0030-0032])
Nabeya, in the same field of endeavor, related to polishing, teaches of wherein the polishing head includes an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad (elastic membrane 34 with plurality of chambers 25A-D, [0289-0290], figs. 35-36) and to cause the polishing head to hold the workpiece by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers (the sequence of “vacuums are sequentially formed in the pressure chambers 25D, 25C, and 25B in order from the pressure chamber 25D located outside to the pressure chamber 25B located on the center side (that is, in order of the pressure chambers 25D, 25C, and 25B” described in [0290] with respect to fig. 36). Nabeya teaches that this arrangement removes liquid ([0290]) which ensures an appropriate force is applied to the wafer ([0275,0280] which describe how removing liquid between the polishing film ensures an intended force is applied to the wafer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Fukushima, the polishing head includes an elastic membrane forming a plurality of pressure chambers for pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad, and the operation controller is configured to instruct the polishing-head pressure controller to cause the polishing head to hold the workpiece by forming a negative pressure in an outer pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers and then forming a negative pressure in an inner pressure chamber of the plurality of pressure chambers using the teachings of Nabeya, in order to ensure an appropriate force is applied to the workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant takes the position (response pages 6-10) that the 103 combination of Fukushima in view of Kimura was in error. First, the applicant argues (response page 6) that Komura shows the substrate separated from the elastic membrane. As in the action dated 05/14/2025, the examiner noted that the membrane and the substrate are on close contact as in [0047] of Kimura, indicating that the substrate is being held. In that action, the examiner noted [0038] describes fig. 4 as having a pressing force being applied to the substrate, thus evidencing that the wafer is held, while also showing the same gap as in fig. 7. The examiner notes that it appears that the amendments dated 08/14/2025 have struck out the limitations that this argument is directed to (that the spraying simultaneously occurs with the holding of the substrate using the polishing head), and that claim 4 is directed towards a different aspect, and does not require holding while lifting the retainer ring (the limitations in claim 4 can occur at a different time in the process as it does not require spraying while lifting the retaining ring)
Applicant then argues (response page 7) that the retaining ring lifting is for the purpose of making it easier to peel the substrate from the film. If that is the case, it contradicts applicant’s previous argument that the wafer is not being held while being sprayed, as there would be no need to spray fluid if the wafer is already detached/peeled from the film. However, the examiner submits that in view of [0046] of Kimura, which was already cited, the substrate is pressed against the polishing pad, and [0047] provides for peeling the substrate, a reasonable interpretation of the reference is that the substrate is peeled off the polishing pad. The aspects in [0047] cited by the applicant simply say that the substrate is in close contact with the membrane, and the examiner’s position is that to interpret that to mean that the peeling off is with respect to the membrane is not supported.
Applicant noted (response page 7) that in the previous remarks, dated 08/14/2025 (apparently referring to page 7 of the remarks of 08/14/2025), that the substrate subsequently is transported by a substrate means, completing the polishing process, however the referred to step in Kimura does not address the lifting of the retaining ring, and this is addressed later in [0054] of Kimura. In any case, the teachings of Kimura does not teach that the substrate transport means directly removes the wafer from the polishing pad, and this aspect is addressed in Fukushima with the lifting process (which is also noted to teach other substrate transport means such as robots [not cited because it is not necessary to address a particular limitation in the rejection]). Furthermore, Kimura does not in any way, teach away from a combination of the raising the retaining ring and the lift off process of Fukushima, and should the examiner adapt the applicant’s position that Kimura provides for making it easier to peel off the substrate from the polishing head membrane, Kimura does not actually provide that the substrate is peeled off from the membrane, but rather that it is easier to peel off. The specifics of the examiner’s response to address the rotation stopping was with respect to the applicant’s specific arguments that the wafer is not in contact when the rotations stop.
With response to the examiner’s inherency position (response pages 7-8) the examiner has not asserted inherency, but is rather pointing out aspects of Kimura’s disclosure.
Applicant also argues that the examiner lacks motivation to combine, that the combination teaches away, and renders Fukushima inoperable (pages 8-10), because of the difference in post handling, as Kimura provides for a substrate transfer means. The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Kimura does not otherwise describe a substrate transport means, or at what point it engages the substrate. As addressed above, the examiner’s position is that this does not exclude a lift off process, and again, should the examiner adapt the applicant’s position that Kimura provides for making it easier to peel off the substrate from the polishing head membrane, Kimura does not actually provide that the substrate is actually peeled off (or released) from the membrane, but rather that it is easier to peel off, and that making it easier to peel off could actually be beneficial in Fukushima in any case, because at some point in handling, the substrate will have to be detached from the CMP head for further processing or usage at a later point. Therefore, there would not be any incompatibility. The applicant also presents the argument that Fukushima and Kimura provide for differing objectives, namely Fukushima is directed to safe lift off of the substrate, and Kimura is directed to preventing over-polishing and using jet sprays to make it easier to peel off the substrate. The examiner submits that those differing goals (to the extent that they do differ, the examiner submits that both Fukushima, in the safe lift off aspect, and Kimura, in the peeling off aspect, and preventing over-polishing, are directed towards preventing damage to the substrate), are not incompatible, and are references provided in the same field of endeavor.
Applicant also argues (pages 10-11), that because Kimura is directed to making it easier to detach the substrate from the membrane, it would be contrary to how Fukushima uses suction to lift off the wafer. In response, the examiner submits that, should the examiner accept the applicant’s position, Kimura uses the membrane with positive pressure fluid to push the wafer against the polishing pad, and that subsequent use of vacuum would be different in nature. The examiner also submits that, as noted in the examiner’s response above, Kimura does not actually provide that the substrate is actually peeled off (or released) from the membrane, but rather that it is easier to peel off, and that making it easier to peel off could actually be beneficial in Fukushima in any case, because at some point in handling, the substrate will have to be detached from the CMP head for further processing or usage at a later point. In addition, in making this argument, applicant appears to argue that the instant application is inoperative or provides for an undesirable/undermined result, in that unlike Kimura (fig. 7) which provides for the jet spray to be horizontal, instant fig. 5 points the spray towards the membrane, which by its nature, as the applicant argues, would release the wafer from the membrane, and thus weaken the vacuum holding of the wafer when it is subsequently held and lifted (indeed, this is how instant [0064] describes it; and [0070-0071] then describes the process afterwards).
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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723