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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species 1 (Fig. 3A) is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Requirement for Restriction, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a). Applicant has canceled claims 1-30. Claims 31-48 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 32-34, 38-41, and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“outer section” (claim 32, lines 2-3) should be changed to --the annular outer section--;
“the outer section” (claim 33, line 2; claim 34, line 2) should be changed to --the annular outer section--;
“section is an section is” (claim 38, line 2) should be changed to --section is an--;
“the inner section” (claim 39, line 2) should be changed to --the annular inner section--;
“the vertically movable section” (claim 40, line 3; claim 41, line 2) should be changed to --the annular inner section-- (for better clarity (see claim 38 defining “the vertically movable section”));
“the entire circumference” (claim 47, line 3) should be changed to --an entire circumference--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33-34, 42-45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claims 33-34, 42-45, and 47 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the upper surface of” (claim 33, lines 1-2) (claim 34 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation);
“the central section” (claim 42, line 4) (claim 47 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation);
“the flexure” (claim 43, line 1);
“the outer platen” (claim 43, line 2);
“the central portion” (claim 44, line 1; claim 45, line 2);
“the annular outer portion” (claim 44, line 2; claim 45, lines 1-2).
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending applications: 18/214,290, titled “CONTROL OF PLATEN SHAPE IN CHEMICAL MECHANICAL POLISHING”; 18/494,632, titled “CONTROL OF CARRIER HEAD SWEEP AND PLATEN SHAPE”. These applications have pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending applications are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending applications be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending applications. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Chen in view of Hino
Claims 31-43 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040224615 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP H0890406 A (“Hino”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith).
Chen pertains to a substrate polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Hino pertains to a substrate polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0004-0005). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 31, Chen discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a platen that includes a lower platen, and an upper platen to support a polishing pad, (Figs. 1-2, platen 10 including lower platen (near reference 22) and upper platen 12/14/16 that supports a polishing pad; ¶¶ 0020-0022),
the upper platen having a vertically movable section and an annular outer section surrounding the vertically movable section and coupled to the vertically movable section by an annular bendable portion, wherein an outer edge of the annular outer section is supported by and vertically fixed relative to the lower platen (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0020-0022, vertically movable section 16, outer edge of annular outer section 12 supported and fixed to lower platen, the annular outer section 12 surrounds and is coupled to the vertically movable section 16 via an annular portion of the polishing pad (“annular bendable portion”) (see Fig. 4B, showing pad 42));
an actuator arranged to adjust a vertical position of the vertically movable section... (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0020-0022, actuator 20 adjusts the vertical position of vertically movable section 16);
a carrier head to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad; and a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0003, 0008, 0020-0022 (see incorporated reference US 5738574 A (“Tolles”) Figs. 9, 19, 22), carrier head and motors rotating the carrier head and the platen inherently disclosed and/or explicitly disclosed via Tolles).
Chen does not explicitly disclose:
an actuator arranged to adjust a vertical position of the vertically movable section and an inner edge of the annular outer section so as to modify a tilt of the annular outer section.
However, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious this claim.
Hino discloses:
a platen that includes a lower platen, and an upper platen to support a polishing pad (Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0020, platen includes lower platen 8 and upper platen 6 to support a polishing surface (on upper surface of upper platen 6)),
the upper platen having a...section and an annular outer section surrounding the...section and coupled to the...section by an annular bendable portion... (Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0020 (see annotated Fig. 1a));
an actuator arranged to adjust...an inner edge of the annular outer section so as to modify a tilt of the annular outer section (Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0020, actuator 10 is capable of adjusting the inner edge of the annular outer section to modify its tilt).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Annular recess)][AltContent: textbox (Annular bendable portion 7a)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Section”)][AltContent: textbox (Annular outer section of upper platen 6)]
PNG
media_image1.png
342
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hino Fig. 1a (annotated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hino with Chen by modifying the annular outer section 12 and the vertically movable section 16 of Chen so that they are directly coupled by an annular bendable portion 7a as taught by Hino. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because when the polishing pad of Chen is raised and lowered by the vertically movable section 16, it may cause pad separation from the platen surface because the outer section 12 is static. By using an annular bendable portion to directly connect the vertically movable section 16 to the annular outer section 12 (and by sizing or altering the geometry of the annular outer section 12 to be able to flex/tilt to the degree needed), the profile of the platen surface would more closely match that of the displaced polishing pad due to the vertical movement of the vertically movable section 16, and would reduce the likelihood of pad separation or undesired polishing results caused by a void between the pad and the platen upper surface. Examiner notes that Hino teaches the tilting of the annular outer section relative to the remainder of the platen 6 for pressure control purposes (Hino Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0021).
Regarding claim 32, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein a top surface of the annular bendable portion spans between top surfaces of the vertically movable section and [the annular] outer section (see Hino Figs. 1a-c, annular bendable portion 7a spanning between two sections).
Regarding claim 33, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 32 as applied above. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein the upper surface of the vertically movable section, the annular bendable portion, and the [annular] outer section are positionable to be coplanar (see Chen ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 34, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 33 as applied above. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein the upper surface of the vertically movable section, the annular bendable portion, and the [annular] outer section are coplanar when not actively biased by the actuator (see Chen ¶ 0022, Examiner interprets “not actively biased” to include the meaning of “not actively moved”).
Regarding claim 35, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 32 as applied above. Hino further discloses wherein the annular bendable portion is provided by an annular recess formed into a lower surface of the upper platen (Figs. 1a-c, see annotated Fig. 1a for claim 31 above).
The obviousness rationale for claim 35 is the same as for claim 32.
Regarding claim 36, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. Hino further discloses wherein the annular bendable portion is provided by an annular recess formed into a lower surface of the upper platen (Figs. 1a-c, see annotated Fig. 1a for claim 31 above).
The obviousness rationale for claim 36 is the same as for claim 31.
Regarding claim 37, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. Chen further discloses wherein the vertically movable section is a circular central section of the upper platen (Figs. 1-2, vertically movable section 16 is a circular central section).
Regarding claim 38, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. Chen further discloses wherein the vertically movable section is an [] annular inner section (Figs. 1-2, vertically movable section 16 is an annular inner section).
Regarding claim 39, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 38 as applied above. Chen and Hino do not explicitly disclose wherein the upper platen has a vertically movable circular central section surrounded by the annular inner section and coupled to the [annular] inner section by a second annular bendable portion, and further comprising a second actuator arranged to adjust a vertical position of the central section. However, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Chen/Hino combination by modifying the static central section 14 of Chen to also be vertically movable like section 16 (“annular inner section”), using a second actuator 20, where the central section 14 is connected to section 16 by a second annular bendable section as taught by Hino (like in claim 31). This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because having multiple vertically movable sections on the platen (and multiple actuators) allows for better adjustment of the platen surface for controlling polishing grinding pressures at multiple locations on the platen (see Hino Figs. 1a-c, multiple actuators 10 controlling the height of multiple sections of the platen; US 20050113010 A1 (“Kim”) Figs. 1-4, multiple adjustable platen sections 12). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having this arrangement, and describes it as an alternative embodiment (Spec. ¶¶ 0061-0063; Fig. 4A vs. Fig. 4B); . In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 40, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 39 as applied above. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein a top surface of the second annular bendable portion spans between top surfaces of the central section and the [annular inner section] (see Hino Figs. 1a-c, annular bendable portion 7a spanning between two sections).
Regarding claim 41, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 40 as applied above. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein the upper surface of the central section, the second annular bendable portion, and the [annular inner section] are positionable to be coplanar (see Chen ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 42, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31. As modified, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the limitation: wherein the outer edge of the annular outer section is vertically fixed to the lower platen...such that a top surface of the annular outer section to be is tiltable due to adjustment of the vertical position of the central section (see claim 31).
Hino further discloses a bendable flexure (Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0021, flexure at reference 7a).
As discussed for claim 31, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Hino with Chen by modifying the annular outer section 12 and the vertically movable section 16 of Chen so that they are directly coupled by an annular bendable portion 7a as taught by Hino, which includes sizing or altering the geometry of the annular outer section 12 to be able to flex/tilt to the degree needed. Hino teaches the tilting of the annular outer section relative to the remainder of the platen 6 for pressure control purposes (Hino Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0021). As mentioned, the proposed modification would require the annular outer section (which is attached to the lower platen per Chen) to have the geometry/construction to flex and tilt, and the use of a flexure as taught by Hino allows for this flex and tilt. The use of a flexure in such an application is merely a design choice and is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the use of a flexure in this application (e.g., as opposed to thinning the vertical profile of the annular outer section 12). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 43, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 32. Hino further discloses wherein the flexure comprises a recess in an outer surface of the outer platen (Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0019-0021, flexure at reference 7a).
The obviousness rationale for claim 43 is the same as for claim 32.
Regarding claim 46, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. Chen further discloses wherein the actuator is positioned to apply a vertical force to the vertically movable section (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0020-0022, actuator 20 adjusts the vertical position of vertically movable section 16 by applying a vertical force).
Regarding claim 47, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 42. Chen and Hino do not explicitly disclose wherein the actuator consists of a single actuator and the bendable flexure is sufficiently stiff that pressure from the single actuator in a limited area causes the flexure to flex along [an] entire circumference. However, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Chen/Hino combination to only use a single actuator, and to design and size the bendable flexure to perform the recited function. Regarding the use of a single actuator, this is a design choice that can reduce the cost of the apparatus in exchange for redundancy and/or performance. Regarding the stiffness of the bendable flexure, this is also a design choice that would be obvious and made based on the known actuator force and the material properties and geometry of the flexure. Further, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the use of a single actuator versus multiple actuators or to any particular arrangement of the actuators, or to any particular design for the flexure. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 48, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31 as applied above. Chen further discloses a plurality of actuators electrically ganged to a single control signal such that all actuators are driven in unison (Figs. 1-2; ¶¶ 0022, actuators 20 are ganged to control signa provided via control lines 22 to raise and lower platen section 16).
To the extent Chen does not explicitly disclose this limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Chen/Hino combination by modifying the control lines 22 and the controller to drive the multiple actuators 20 in unison. This would have been obvious because since platen section 16 is a single unit, it would be desirable for the actuators 20 to operate on a single control signal in order to achieve the same motion in unison, thereby ensuring that section 16 is lifted and raised in a planar manner (e.g., not where one side is tiled) in order to properly control polishing performance. Further, the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to the driving of multiple actuators in unison versus individually. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Chen in view of Hino and Togawa
Claims 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040224615 A1 (“Chen”) in view of JP H0890406 A (“Hino”) (citations are to the translation filed herewith) and US 20200130131 A1 (“Togawa”).
Chen pertains to a substrate polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Hino pertains to a substrate polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1a-c; ¶¶ 0004-0005). Togawa pertains to a substrate polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 44, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31. Chen and Hino do not explicitly disclose wherein the central portion is tapered to be thinner toward the annular outer portion. However, the Chen/Hino/Togawa combination makes obvious this claim.
Togawa discloses wherein the central portion is tapered to be thinner toward the annular outer portion (Fig. 3, outer portion of platen 38 is tapered thinner).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine Togawa with the Chen/Hino combination to taper the outer portion in order to thin it. As discussed in claim 31, the combination of Hino’s annular bendable portion with the central section 16 and the annular outer section 12 of Chen would allow for closer matching of the platen upper surface with the lower surface of the overlying polishing pad. By further tapering thin the outer circumferential portion of the central section 16, this would allow for an even smoother transitional surface because the outer circumferential portion of the central section 16 would also flex when there is a disparity in height between it and the annular outer section 12.
Regarding claim 45, the Chen/Hino combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 31. Chen and Hino do not explicitly disclose wherein the annular outer portion is tapered to be thinner toward the central portion. However, the Chen/Hino/Togawa combination makes obvious this claim.
Togawa discloses wherein the annular outer portion is tapered to be thinner toward the central portion (Fig. 3, outer portion of platen 38 is tapered thinner).
The obviousness rationale for claim 45 is the same as for claim 44, except as pertaining to a taper applied to the inner circumferential portion of the annular outer section 12.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 have been canceled. New claims 47-48 have been added. Claims 30-48 are pending. Claims 31-48 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723