DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 11/20/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-25 are currently pending. Claims 2-3 and 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 24-25 are new.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to claims 15-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 15-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/20/2025, with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wu discloses nozzles that spray at a substrate (paragraph [0056]) in order to clean the substrate, but does not disclose what type of nozzle it is. Wada was introduced to show an atomizer nozzle that is used for cleaning. One skilled in the art would have looked to modify Wu with the atomizer nozzle of Wada as the atomizer would be expected to also have the desired cleaning effect in Wu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0376523 (henceforth referred to as Wu) in view of Wada et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0235301 (henceforth referred to as Wada) and Fukunaga U.S. Publication 2022/0281051 (henceforth referred to as Fukunaga).
As to claim 1, (Original) Wu teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising:
a first polishing station including a first platen to support a first polishing pad (FIG. 1 paragraph [0044] each polishing station 20 has a polishing pad 30);
a transfer station (FIG. 1 paragraph [0039] transfer station 6) to receive a substrate from a robot (FIG. 1 paragraph [0039] transfer robot 9);
a carrier head movable on a predetermined path (FIG. 1 paragraph [0043] a carrier head 70 is mounted to support structure 72 via a carriage 78)from the polishing station to the transfer station (FIG. 1 paragraphs [0038] and [0039] a carrier head 70 can hold a substrate at a polishing station 20 and move to the transfer station 6); and
a fluid jet cleaner at a position along the predetermined path (FIGS. 1 and 2A paragraph [0056] load cup 8 has nozzles 225. The fluid jet cleaner is at a position along the predetermined path.), and an output port positioned to spray the cleaning liquid onto the substrate held by the carrier head when the carrier head is located above the fluid jet cleaner (FIG. 2A paragraph [0056] nozzles 225 can deliver a stream to a substrate positioned in cavity 208).
Wu differs from the instant claim in failing to teach a gas flow regulator having an input for a carrier gas; a liquid flow regulator having an input for a cleaning liquid; the fluid jet cleaner including an atomizer nozzle including an input port coupled to the gas flow regulator, an injection port coupled to the liquid flow regulator, and the cleaning liquid entrained in the carrier gas.
Wada teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0032] polishing apparatus). Wada teaches the fluid jet cleaner including an atomizer nozzle (paragraph [0047] atomizers 52 and 53 are connected to a nitrogen gas supply source and a liquid supply source) including an input port coupled to the gas flow regulator (paragraph [0048] nitrogen gas is passed through a regulator), an injection port coupled to the liquid flow regulator (paragraph [0048] pure water is passed through a regulator), and an output port positioned to spray the cleaning liquid entrained in the carrier gas onto the substrate (paragraph [0048] atomizers 52 and 53 eject liquids composed of a mixture of nitrogen gas with pure water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu with an atomizer that can spray a cleaning liquid and gas as taught by Wada. It is known in the art to have regulators on supply sources in order to control the pressure of a fluid. The atomizer can be used change the state of the liquid to be ejected (paragraph [0049]).
Fukunaga teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0018] substrate processing apparatus 10). Fukunaga teaches a gas flow regulator having an input for a carrier gas (FIG. 1 paragraph [0024] the combination of the flow rate controller 56 and valve 55 for gas supply source 53 read on the claimed gas flow regulator); a liquid flow regulator having an input for a cleaning liquid (FIG. 1 paragraph [0024] the combination of flow rate controller 46 and valve 45 for liquid supply source 43 read on the claimed liquid flow regulator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu with regulators as taught by Fukunaga. It is known in the art to have regulators on supply sources in order to control the pressure of a fluid.
As to claim 4, (Original) Wu further teaches the fluid jet cleaner is positioned within the transfer station (FIG. 2A paragraphs [0039] and [0056] nozzles 225 are located within cup 8 of transfer station 6).
As to claim 5, (Original) Wu further teaches the transfer station comprises a vertically substrate support (FIG. 2A paragraph [0057] pedestal 204 can be vertically movable relative to the housing 206, which reads on the claimed vertically substrate support).
As to claim 9, Wu further teaches comprising a second polishing station including a second platen to support a second polishing pad (FIG. 1 paragraph [0044] each polishing station 20 has a polishing pad 30), and wherein the fluid jet cleaner is positioned at an interplaten station (FIG. 1 one of the load cups 8a within transfer station 6 can read on the claimed interplaten station) along the predetermined path between the first polishing station and the second polishing station (FIG. 1 the interplaten station 8a is between polishing station 20a and 20d).
As to claim 13, (Original) Wu further teaches the fluid jet cleaner includes a plurality of atomizer nozzles arranged in a line (FIG. 2A the nozzles 225 at the bottom of housing 206 are arranged in a line).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0376523 (henceforth referred to as Wu), Wada et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0235301 (henceforth referred to as Wada), and Fukunaga U.S. Publication 2022/0281051 (henceforth referred to as Fukunaga) as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Hwang KR100897226 (henceforth referred to as Hwang).
As to claim 6, (Original) Wu, Wada, and Fukunaga differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the atomizer nozzle is supported by and movable with the substrate support.
Hwang teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (page 1 CMP apparatus). Hwang teaches atomizer nozzle is supported by the substrate support (FIG. 2 page 3 spray holes 255 are on the pedestal 253).
The combination of Wu and Hwang would teach that the nozzles (Hwang page 3 spray holes 255 on pedestal 253) are movable by the substrate support (Wu FIG. 2A paragraph [0057] pedestal 204 can be vertically movable relative to the housing 206, which reads on the claimed vertically substrate support).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu, Wada, and Fukunaga with a substrate support that has nozzles on it as taught by Hwang. It would be obvious to place the nozzles onto the support plate in order to reach the entire back surface of the wafer without obstruction.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0376523 (henceforth referred to as Wu), Wada et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0235301 (henceforth referred to as Wada), and Fukunaga U.S. Publication 2022/0281051 (henceforth referred to as Fukunaga) as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of D’Ambra et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0270015 (henceforth referred to as D’Ambra).
As to claim 14, (Original) Wu, Wada, and Fukunaga differ from the instant claim in failing to teach further teaches a controller configured to control a motor that drives the carrier head along the predetermined path, and wherein the controller is configured to cause the motor to position the carrier head with the line of atomizer nozzles extending along a radius of the substrate held by the carrier head.
D’Ambra teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0022] polishing system 100). D’Ambra teaches a controller configured to control a motor that drives the carrier head along the predetermined path (paragraph [0034] each carriage 220 is controllably positioned along the inner and outer rails 222, 224 of the overhead track 128 by an actuator 228. The actuator 228 may be a great motor, servo motor, linear motor, sawyer motor or other motion control device for accurately positioning the carriage 220 along the overhead track 128), and wherein the controller is configured to cause the motor to position the carrier head with the line of atomizer nozzles extending along a radius of the substrate held by the carrier head (paragraph [0034] the carriage 220 is utilized to position the polishing head 126 over the load cups 122 or the polishing surface 130).
The combination of Wu and D’Ambra would be able to position the carrier head with the line of the atomizer nozzles extending along a radius of the substrate held by the carrier head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu, Wada, and Fukunaga with a controller that can drive the carrier head as taught by D’Ambra. It is known in the art to have a controller to control aspects of a system including a motor of a carrier head.
As to claim 15, (Currently Amended) The combination of Wu and D’Ambra further teach a controller configured to cause the carrier head to rotate at a rotation rate (D’Ambra paragraph [0036] motor 234 is coupled to the carriage 220 and is arranged to controllably rotate the shaft 232, thereby rotating the polishing head 126) to sweep the line of atomizer nozzles in an orbit around a center of the substrate while the atomizer nozzles spray the cleaning liquid on the substrate (Wu FIG. 1 the carrier head would sweep the line of atomizer nozzles while on the track 72).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0376523 (henceforth referred to as Wu), Wada et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0235301 (henceforth referred to as Wada), Fukunaga U.S. Publication 2022/0281051 (henceforth referred to as Fukunaga), and D’Ambra et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0270015 (henceforth referred to as D’Ambra) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Gotze et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0216112 (henceforth referred to as Gotze).
As to claim 16, (Original) Wu, Wada, Fukunaga, and D’Ambra differs from the instant claim in failing to teach the controller is configured to control the gas flow regulator and liquid flow regulator such that the spray of cleaning liquid on the substrate from each nozzle covers a width, and wherein a pitch between the plurality of atomizer nozzles is greater than the width.
Gotze teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0026] polishing table 11). Gotze teaches the controller is configured to control the gas flow regulator and liquid flow regulator such that the spray of cleaning liquid on the substrate from each nozzle covers a width, and wherein a pitch between the plurality of atomizer nozzles is greater than the width (FIG. 1 the pitch of the nozzles 23 is greater than the spraying width).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu, Wada, Fukunaga, and D’Ambre with a nozzle pitch as taught by Gotze. Having the nozzle pitches be spaced apart to where the spraying width would not overlap would ensure that the sprays would not impede with each other.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. U.S. Publication 2020/0376523 (henceforth referred to as Wu), Wada et al. U.S. Publication 2004/0235301 (henceforth referred to as Wada), Fukunaga U.S. Publication 2022/0281051 (henceforth referred to as Fukunaga), D’Ambra et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0270015 (henceforth referred to as D’Ambra), and Gotze et al. U.S. Publication 2003/0216112 (henceforth referred to as Gotze) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. U.S. Publication 2021/0154796 (henceforth referred to as Zhang).
As to claim 17, (Original) Wu, Wada, Fukunaga, D’Ambra, and Gotze differ from the instant claim in failing to teach the controller is configured to cause the carrier head to oscillate laterally over the plurality of atomizer nozzles while the atomizer nozzles spray the cleaning liquid on the substrate.
Zhang teaches a similar chemical mechanical polishing system (FIG. 1 paragraph [0023] polishing station). Zhang teaches the controller is configured to cause the carrier head to oscillate laterally (paragraph [0040] controller 90 can control the motor 56 of carrier head 70 and can control the actuator coupled to the support to control the frequency and magnitude of the lateral oscillation of the carrier head 70).
The combination of Wu, Wada, and Zhang would teach that the carrier head can oscillate laterally over the plurality of atomizer nozzles while the atomizer nozzles spray the cleaning liquid on the substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chemical mechanical polishing system as taught by Wu, Wada, Fukunaga, D’Ambre, and Gotze with a controller that can oscillate the carrier head as taught by Zhang. Having the carrier head oscillate would allow for the nozzles to reach all surfaces of the wafer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 10 and 12, there is no motivation to combine Wu with a reference that has a nebulizer, or a controller configured to control the gas flow regulator and liquid flow regulator such that a first pressure of the spray of cleaning liquid on the substrate is greater than a second pressure of the spray of rinsing liquid on the substrate.
Claims 7, 11, and 18-25 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, there is no motivation to combine Wu with a reference that has both an atomizer nozzle and a nebulizer, or a controller configured to control the gas flow regulator and liquid flow regulator such that a first pressure of the spray of cleaning liquid on the substrate is greater than a second pressure of the spray of rinsing liquid on the substrate.
Regarding claim 18, there is no motivation to combine Wu with a reference regarding a controller that is configured to cause the carrier head to oscillate laterally at an oscillation frequency that is lower than the rotation rate of the carrier head.
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 LAUREN G ORTA whose telephone number is (703)756-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/L.G.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711