DETAILED ACTION
Monitoring of Acoustic Events on a Substrate
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. With respect to step 1, Claim(s) 14-17 are directed to a method which is eligible at step 1.
Accordingly, each of Claims 14-17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 14 recites
(Currently Amended) A method of polishing, comprising:
holding a substrate with a carrier head and bringing [[a]] the surface of a substrate into contact with a polishing pad (additional element);
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad (additional element);
monitoring acoustic signals from the substrate (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) from a plurality of sensors in the carrier head (additional element);
calculating a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on the acoustic signals received from the plurality of sensors (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Further, dependent Claims 15-17 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 14 (and their respective dependent Claims 15-17 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 14 either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims include the following additional elements:
More specifically, the additional elements of: holding a substrate with a carrier head and bringing [[a]] the surface of a substrate into contact with a polishing pad; generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad; a plurality of sensors in the carrier head in independent Claim 14 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 14.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., _[typically, processor, computer device, server, etc.] as claimed).
In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 14 and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
None of Claims 14-17 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of “holding a substrate with a carrier head and bringing [[a]] the surface of a substrate into contact with a polishing pad; generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad; a plurality of sensors in the carrier head”.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, see para 0004,0039,0049 discusses the CMP , sensor, controller.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term sensor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the sensor, CMP, and controller.
This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 14-17. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claims 14-17 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 14-17 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 14-17 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-4,6-8,11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US6488569B1) cited in IDS in view of Wang et al (2) (US20190143474A1) cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches
a platen (12, figure 1) supporting a polishing pad (14, figure 1);
a carrier head (16, figure 1) to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad;
a motor (32, figure 1; col 3 lines 44-47 and col 3 lines 49-52) generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate;
an array of acoustic sensors (20, figure 1) arranged within the carrier head (16, figure 1) to receive acoustic signals from the surface of the substrate.
Wang fails to teach a controller configured to detect a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on received acoustic signals from the array of acoustic sensors.
Wang(2) discloses a system and method for monitoring chemical mechanical polishing of a wafer, a process controller that is configured to control the operation of the apparatus by using a set of microphones to detect sound and transmit an electrical signal based on the detected sound. The system includes a signal processor to process the electrical signal to detect the sound source position (see abstract, para 0035 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include a controller configured to detect a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on received acoustic signals from the array of acoustic sensors based on the teachings of Wang(2). This modification reduces the need for periodic optical observation of the wafer during the CMP process, and periodically stop the process and inspect the wafer to determine an endpoint has been reached. (see para 0005, 0015 of Wang(2).)
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang teaches wherein the controller is further configured to detect the position of the acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on time-of-flight calculations of received acoustic signals from each of the acoustic sensors of the array (see Wang(2) para 0036).
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang teaches
wherein the array of acoustic sensors includes three or more acoustic sensors (see Wang col 5 lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wang teaches
wherein the acoustic sensor receives acoustic signals in a frequency range from 10 kHz to 200 kHz (see Wang col 6 lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches
a platen (12, figure 1) to support a polishing pad (14, figure 1);
a carrier head (16, figure 1) to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad;
a motor (32, figure 1; col 3 lines 44-47 and col 3 lines 49-52) to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate;
an array of acoustic sensors (32, figure 1; col 3 lines 44-47 and col 3 lines 39-52) arranged within the carrier head to receive acoustic signals from the surface of the substrate; and
Wang fails to teach a controller configured to detect a position on the substrate at which a polishing endpoint has been reached based on received acoustic signals.
Wang(2) discloses a system and method for monitoring chemical mechanical polishing of a wafer, a process controller that is configured to control the operation of the apparatus by using a set of microphones to detect sound and transmit an electrical signal based on the detected sound. The system includes a signal processor to process the electrical signal to detect the sound source position (see abstract, para 0035 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include a controller configured to detect a position on the substrate at which a polishing endpoint has been reached based on received acoustic signals based on the teachings of Wang(2). This modification reduces the need for periodic optical observation of the wafer during the CMP process, and periodically stop the process and inspect the wafer to determine an endpoint has been reached. (see para 0005, 0015 of Wang(2)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang teaches
wherein the controller is configured to determine the position by performing beamforming of the received acoustic signals (see Wang(2) para 0036 discloses enhancing the signal uses multiple microphones positioned around different places see figure 2a)
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang teaches
wherein the controller is configured to perform beamforming by applying a phase shift to each of the received acoustic signals and summing the phase-shifted received acoustic signals to detect a polishing endpoint in a zone. (see Wang(2) para 0036 ,0052 which disclose enhancing the signal uses multiple microphones positioned around different places see figure 2a and there being time difference in the sound received )
Regarding claim 11, modified Wang teaches
wherein the polishing endpoint comprises removal of a layer being polished to expose an underlying layer (see Wang col 6 lines 55-64).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang teaches
wherein the controller is further configured to, prior to detecting a polishing endpoint in a zone, denoise the received acoustic signals from the array of acoustic sensors (see Wang col 6 lines 27-40 discloses band pass filter to eliminate low frequency components related to background noise).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang teaches
wherein the array of acoustic sensors includes five or more acoustic sensors (see Wang col 5 lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 14, Wang
holding a substrate (18, figure 1)with a carrier head (16, figure 1) and bringing the surface of a substrate into contact with a polishing pad (14, figure 1);
generating relative motion between the substrate and the polishing pad (col 3 lines 35-55);
monitoring acoustic signals from the substrate from a plurality of sensors in the carrier head (col 3 lines 18-27, col 4 lines 9-30,col 4 lines 55-65).
Wang fails to teach calculating a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on the acoustic signals received from the plurality of sensors.
Wang(2) discloses a system and method for monitoring chemical mechanical polishing of a wafer, a process controller that is configured to control the operation of the apparatus by using a set of microphones to detect sound and transmit an electrical signal based on the detected sound. The system includes a signal processor to process the electrical signal to detect the sound source position (see abstract, para 0035 and 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to include a step of calculating a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on the acoustic signals received from the plurality of sensors based on the teachings of Wang(2). This modification reduces the need for periodic optical observation of the wafer during the CMP process, and periodically stop the process and inspect the wafer to determine an endpoint has been reached. (see para 0005, 0015 of Wang(2).)
Regarding claim 15, modified Wang teaches
wherein calculating the position is based on time-of-flight calculations of received acoustic signals from each of the acoustic sensors of the plurality of acoustic sensors (see Wang(2) para 0036).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang teaches
wherein the plurality of sensors monitor acoustic signals in a frequency range from 10 kHz to 200 kHz (see Wang col 6 lines 35-40).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US6488569B1) cited in IDS in view of Wang et al (2) (US20190143474A1) cited in IDS as applied to claim 1 and 14 further in view Yavelberg (US 20150360343 A1)
Regarding claims 5 and 17, modified Wang teaches all limitations stated above, but fails to teach wherein the acoustic sensor is a passive acoustic sensor.
Yavekverg teaches chemical mechanical polishing carrier that has a passive acoustic sensor (para 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang wherein the acoustic sensor is a passive acoustic sensor based on the teachings of Yavekverg. This modification would help ensure the sensor can perform in-situ detection/measurement. (see Yavekverg para 0041).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US6488569B1) cited in IDS in view of Wang et al (2) (US20190143474A1) cited in IDS as applied to claim 1 further in view Chiariotti (Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing)
Regarding claim 9, modified Wang teaches all limiations stated above and
wherein the controller is configured to, for each respective position of a plurality of positions on the substrate, apply a respective set of phase shifts to the received acoustic signals (see Wang(2) para 0036 ,0052 which disclose enhancing the signal uses multiple microphones positioned around different places see figure 2a and there being time difference in the sound received ) ,but fails to teach sum the phase-shifted received acoustic signals to generate a summed signal that is beamformed to selectively represent acoustic activity at the respective position on the substrate, thus generating a plurality of summed signals that represent the plurality of positions.
Chiariotti teaches acoustic beamforming for noise location which includes summing the phase-shifted received acoustic signals to generate a summed signal that is beamformed to selectively represent acoustic activity at the respective position on the substrate, thus generating a plurality of summed signals that represent the plurality of positions (pages 423, 425,429 432, 433, 437-440).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang’s controller include a step of calculating a position of an acoustic event on the surface of the substrate based on the acoustic signals received from the plurality of sensors based on the teachings of Wang(2). This helps improve the process of determining the specific position of a sound source. (see page 422-423,427,429,435-438 of Chiarioltti)
Regarding claim 10, Wang as modified in claim 9 teaches
wherein the controller is configured to monitor each respective summed signal of the plurality of summed signals for a change in the respective summed signal that represents a polishing endpoint at the respective position corresponding to the respective summed signal.(see Wang(2) para 0036 and see page 422-423,425-432,435-440 of Chiarioltti)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jagannathan et al. (US20170269243A1) discloses .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights