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
1. Amendments filed 5/4/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-20 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-20 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn except for those maintained below. This action is Final.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “a substrate” should read “[[a]] the substrate” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles.
Regarding claim 1, Kiesel teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig. 3), comprising:
a pad (fig. 3, pad 102) disposed on a platen (platen 101), wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends (fig. 3);
a carrier assembly (polishing head 104) configured to be disposed on a surface of the pad (fig. 3) and having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly (fig. 3, [0031]), wherein the rotational axis is disposed at a first radial distance from the central axis (fig. 3);
a first fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 below, [0056-0057]) having a first nozzle (outlet 109 of the first fluid delivery arm, as shown in fig. 2) extending over at least 60% of the pad radius (fig. 3) and the first fluid delivery arm having a first nozzle (outlet 109 of the first fluid delivery arm, as shown in fig. 2) configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis (the outlet of the first fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]);
PNG
media_image1.png
447
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 above, [0056-0057]) having a second nozzle (outlet 109 of the second fluid delivery arm, as shown in fig. 2) configured to provide a second fluid [0055] to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis (the outlet of the second fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]); and
a controller (control unit 125) adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly (paragraph 0060, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area).
Kiesel does not explicitly teach
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system including a first fluid delivery arm (conduit 118, fig. 1b) and a second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128, fig. 1b), wherein the second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128) extends over less than 60% of the pad radius (fig. 1b, pad 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the second fluid delivery arm of Kiesel extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fluid delivery arm extension for another known fluid delivery arm extension to obtain the predictable results of providing fluid to a polishing operation.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kiesel, as modified, to include wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kiesel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed extension since the second fluid delivery arm would continue to be capable of delivering fluid to the polishing operation. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Tolles teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein slurry is delivered to the polishing article’s surface by fluid nozzles 154 to aid in polishing the substrate [0060]. Additionally, Tolles teaches the fluid nozzles track with the sweeping motion of the carrier head so the slurry is deposited adjacent to the carrier head [0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Tolles to provide the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the controller of Kiesel, as modified, is adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Doing so would provide fluid adjacent to the carrier head [0060 of Tolles] which prevents damage to the workpiece and promotes even processing of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches a first actuator (drive assembly 105) that is configured to cause the carrier assembly to translate across a surface of the pad such that the first radial distance varies between a first radial value and a second radial value as the carrier assembly is translated across the surface of the pad [0031 of Kiesel]; and
a second actuator (linear drive assembly 220 of Kiesel) that is configured to cause the second fluid delivery arm (fig. 3 of Kiesel) to translate over the surface of the pad (fig. 2-3, [0053] of Kiesel) such that the third radial distance varies between a third radial value and a fourth radial value as the second fluid delivery arm is translated over the surface of the pad (fig. 2-3, [0053] of Kiesel),
wherein the fourth radial value is greater than the first radial value or the second radial value (fig. 2-3, [0053 and 0060] of Kiesel, the fourth radial value of the position of the second fluid deliver arm is greater than the first radial value. That is, the outermost position of the second fluid delivery arm, as modified, is greater than an inner most position of the carrier assembly).
Regarding claim 4, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the second radial distance is less than the first radial distance (fig. 2-3 of Kiesel), and the third radial distance is greater than or equal to the second radial distance (fig. 2-3, [0053] of Kiesel, the second nozzle, as modified, is movable such that the third radial distance is greater than or equal to the second radial distance).
Regarding claim 5, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly (fig. 2 of Kiesel, additionally, the second nozzle is movable such that a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad (fig. 2-3 of Kiesel).
Regarding claim 7, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 50% of the pad radius.
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system including a first fluid delivery arm (conduit 118, fig. 1b) and a second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128, fig. 1b), wherein the second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128) extends over less than 50% of the pad radius (fig. 1b, pad 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 50% of the pad radius. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the second fluid delivery arm of Kiesel extends over less than 50% of the pad radius. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fluid delivery arm extension for another known fluid delivery arm extension to obtain the predictable results of providing fluid to a polishing operation.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kiesel, as modified, to include wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 50% of the pad radius since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kiesel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed extension since the second fluid delivery arm would continue to be capable of delivering fluid to the polishing operation. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises:
a fluid source; and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
However, Huang additionally teaches wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises:
a fluid source (reservoir 120, fig. 1a); and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm (controller 150, [0026], fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Huang to provide wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises: a fluid source; and a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the fluid source and temperature control unit of Huang. Doing so would allow the temperature of the fluid to be controlled, which aids in controlling the polishing rate [0004 of Huang] in order to promote quality of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 9, Kiesel teaches an apparatus for processing a substrate (fig. 3), comprising:
a platen (platen 101);
a pad (fig. 3, pad 102) disposed on the platen (platen 101, figs. 2-3), the pad having a pad radius extending from a central axis (fig. 3);
a carrier assembly (polishing head 104) disposed on the pad having (fig. 3) a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly (fig. 3, [0031]);
a first fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 below, [0056-0057]) extending over at least 50% of the pad radius (fig. 3) and configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad (the outlet of the first fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]);
PNG
media_image1.png
447
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 above, [0056-0057]), the second fluid delivery arm configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad (the outlet of the second fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]), the second point disposed a radial distance from the central axis (fig. 2-3), the radial distance being greater than about 40% of the pad radius ([0056-0057], the second fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a second fluid to a second point which is disposed a radial distance from the central axis, wherein the radial distance is greater than about 40% of the pad radius (fig. 3) due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]); and
a controller (control unit 125) adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly (paragraphs 0060 and 0056-0057, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area).
Kiesel does not explicitly teach a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius,
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system including a first fluid delivery arm (conduit 118, fig. 1b) and a second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128, fig. 1b), wherein the second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128) extends over less than 60% of the pad radius (fig. 1b, pad 114).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Huang such that the second fluid delivery arm of Kiesel extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fluid delivery arm extension for another known fluid delivery arm extension to obtain the predictable results of providing fluid to a polishing operation.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kiesel, as modified, to include wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kiesel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed extension since the second fluid delivery arm would continue to be capable of delivering fluid to the polishing operation. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Tolles teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein slurry is delivered to the polishing article’s surface by fluid nozzles 154 to aid in polishing the substrate [0060]. Additionally, Tolles teaches the fluid nozzles track with the sweeping motion of the carrier head so the slurry is deposited adjacent to the carrier head [0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Tolles to provide the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the controller of Kiesel, as modified, is adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Doing so would provide fluid adjacent to the carrier head [0060 of Tolles] which prevents damage to the workpiece and promotes even processing of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 14, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the carrier assembly is disposed a distance of at least 10% of a total radius of the pad from a center of the pad and no more than 90% of the total radius of the pad from the center of the pad (fig. 3).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kiesel, as modified, to include wherein the carrier assembly is disposed a distance of at least 10% of a total radius of the pad from a center of the pad and no more than 90% of the total radius of the pad from the center of the pad since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kiesel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed ratio since the carrier assembly would continue to be able to process the workpiece. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles, as applied to claims 1-2 and 9 above, and further in view of Kimba (US PGPUB 20120019830).
Regarding claim 3, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2.
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising a metrology unit disposed within the platen comprising a window disposed through the pad and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate.
However, Kimba teaches a method of monitoring progress of substrate polishing and a polishing apparatus comprising a metrology unit (fig. 8) disposed within the platen (fig. 8) comprising a window disposed through the pad (fig. 8, through hole 31) and a measurement unit (fig. 8, structures 13, 14 and other associated structures), wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller (fig. 8, processor 15) and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate ([0057], the polishing rate is calculated from the initial film thickness, the last film thickness and the polishing time that are obtained by actual measurement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kimba to provide comprising a metrology unit disposed within the platen comprising a window disposed through the pad and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the sensor teachings of Kimba to provide a sensor disposed within the platen of Kiesel which comprises a window through the pad of Kiesel and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller of Kiesel and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by preventing over polishing of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would aid in identifying an endpoint of the processing.
Regarding claim 10, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9.
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach a metrology unit connected to the controller and configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of the substrate.
However, Kimba teaches a method of monitoring progress of substrate polishing and a polishing apparatus comprising a metrology unit (fig. 8) connected to the controller (fig. 8, processor 15) and configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of the substrate ([0057], the polishing rate is calculated from the initial film thickness, the last film thickness and the polishing time that are obtained by actual measurement).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kimba to provide a metrology unit connected to the controller and configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of the substrate.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the sensor teachings of Kimba to provide a sensor disposed within the platen of Kiesel which comprises a window through the pad of Kiesel and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller of Kiesel and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by preventing over polishing of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would aid in identifying an endpoint of the processing.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chen (US PGPUB 20120171933).
Regarding claim 11, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises:
a swivel actuator ([0055-0056], rotational drive assembly 214, fig. 2);
an extension member extending over the pad (fig. 2-3, structure indicated by element 220); and
a nozzle coupled to the extension member and disposed over the pad (fig. 2-3, outlet 109 of the second fluid delivery arm is coupled to the extension member and disposed over the pad).
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach a base plate and a swivel actuator coupled to the base plate.
However, Chen teaches a pressure controlled polishing platen wherein the fluid applicator arm 155 is adapted to rotate about axis C (fig. 1) and wherein the applicator arm 155 is connected to a base plate 110 (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Chen to provide a base plate and the swivel actuator coupled to the base plate. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a base plate as taught by Chen, wherein the second fluid delivery arm and swivel actuator are coupled to the base plate. Doing so would properly mount the fluid delivery arm and allow it to operate as intended. Additionally, doing so would increase the rigidity of the device which promotes longevity.
Regarding claim 12, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad (fig. 2-3 of Kiesel).
Regarding claim 13, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach a fluid source; and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
However, Huang additionally teaches a fluid source (reservoir 120, fig. 1a); and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm (controller 150, [0026], fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Huang to provide a fluid source; and a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the fluid source and temperature control unit of Huang. Doing so would allow the temperature of the fluid to be controlled, which aids in controlling the polishing rate [0004 of Huang] in order to promote quality of the workpiece.
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Lin et al. (US PGPUB 20180286699), hereinafter Lin, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles.
Regarding claim 15, Kiesel teaches a method of polishing a substrate (fig. 2-3) comprising:
urging a substrate (fig. 2, substrate 107) against a surface of a pad (pad 102) of a polishing system using a carrier assembly (fig. 3, polishing head 104), wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends (fig. 3);
translating the carrier assembly across the surface of the pad while rotating the carrier assembly about a rotational axis (fig. 3, [0031], wherein drive assembly 105 translates the polishing head and rotates the polishing head);
dispensing a first fluid onto the pad from a first fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 below, [0056-0057]) at a first temperature and a first flow rate (the first fluid delivery arm dispenses a fluid onto the pad. Therefore, the dispensed fluid has a first temperature and a first flow rate), wherein the first fluid is delivered to the pad at a second radial distance that is measured from the central axis (the outlet of the first fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a first fluid at a second radial distance from the central axis due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]);
PNG
media_image1.png
447
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
dispensing a second fluid onto the pad from a second fluid delivery arm (see annotated fig. 3 above, [0056-0057]) at a second flow rate and at a second temperature (the second fluid delivery arm dispenses a fluid onto the pad. Therefore, the dispensed fluid has a second temperature and a second flow rate), wherein the second fluid delivery arm dispenses the second fluid at a third radial distance measured from the central axis that is greater than the second radial distance (the outlet of the second fluid delivery arm is configured to provide a second fluid at a third radial distance measured from the central axis that is greater than the second radial distance due to the linearly movable slurry distribution device as further detailed in fig. 2 [0056-0057]);
moving the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly (paragraph 0060, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area).
Kiesel does not explicitly teach
tracking the translating of the substrate carrier assembly with the second fluid delivery arm while the substrate carrier assembly translates;
stopping the dispensing of the second fluid; and
stopping the dispensing of the first fluid.
However, Lin teaches a polishing process of a semiconductor device wherein when the polishing of the wafer is finished, the supply assembly of the slurry arm is turned off and the dispensing nozzle stops supplying the slurry on the polishing pad [0055]. Overall, Lin teaches stopping the dispensing of the fluid after polishing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kiesel to incorporate the teachings of Lin to provide stopping the dispensing of the second fluid; and stopping the dispensing of the first fluid. Specifically, it would have been obvious to stop the dispensing of both fluids after the polishing is complete. Doing so would prevent waste of the polishing fluid when the workpiece is not being polished. Additionally, doing so would conserve the polishing fluid.
Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach
tracking the translating of the substrate carrier assembly with the second fluid delivery arm while the substrate carrier assembly translates.
However, Tolles teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein slurry is delivered to the polishing article’s surface by fluid nozzles 154 to aid in polishing the substrate [0060]. Additionally, Tolles teaches the fluid nozzles track with the sweeping motion of the carrier head so the slurry is deposited adjacent to the carrier head [0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Tolles to provide the controller tracking the translating of the substrate carrier assembly with the second fluid delivery arm while the substrate carrier assembly translates. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the controller of Kiesel, as modified, is adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the translating of the carrier assembly while the carrier assembly translates. Doing so would provide fluid adjacent to the carrier head [0060 of Tolles] which prevents damage to the workpiece and promotes even processing of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 16, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the first fluid and the second fluid are different [0055 of Kiesel].
Regarding claim 17, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly (fig. 2 of Kiesel, additionally, the second nozzle is movable such that a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly [0053 and 0060]).
Regarding claim 19, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the second fluid is dispensed onto the pad at a radial position outward from an innermost edge of the carrier assembly with respect to the central axis of the pad, but inward from an outermost edge of the carrier assembly with respect to the central axis of the pad (fig. 2 of Kiesel, additionally, the second nozzle is movable such that the second fluid is dispensed onto the pad at a radial position outward from an innermost edge of the carrier assembly with respect to the central axis of the pad, but inward from an outermost edge of the carrier assembly with respect to the central axis of the pad due to the movement of the slurry outlets being controlled to achieve even slurry distribution over wafer diameter [0053 and 0060]).
Regarding claim 20, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Kiesel, as modified, teaches wherein the second fluid delivery arm moves so the second fluid intersects a same portion of the carrier assembly while the carrier assembly is translated across the surface of the pad (fig. 2 of Kiesel, additionally, the second nozzle is moved such that the second fluid delivery arm moves so the second fluid intersects a same portion of the carrier assembly while the carrier assembly is translated across the surface of the pad due to the movement of the slurry outlets being controlled to achieve even slurry distribution over wafer diameter [0053 and 0060], wherein even slurry distribution over wafer diameter is interpreted as intersecting a same portion of the carrier assembly while the carrier assembly is translated).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Lin et al. (US PGPUB 20180286699), hereinafter Lin, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 18, Kiesel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Kiesel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a temperature of the second fluid is controlled by a temperature control unit to adjust a polishing rate.
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system including a first fluid delivery arm (conduit 118, fig. 1b) and a second fluid delivery arm (conduit 128, fig. 1b), wherein a temperature of the second fluid is controlled by a temperature control unit to adjust a polishing rate (controller 150, [0026 and 0004], fig. 1a).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kiesel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide wherein a temperature of the second fluid is controlled by a temperature control unit to adjust a polishing rate.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the fluid source and temperature control unit of Huang. Doing so would allow the temperature of the fluid to be controlled, which aids in controlling the polishing rate [0004 of Huang] in order to promote quality of the workpiece.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 are 4 of copending Application No. 18/401,306 in view of Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles.
Instant Application 18/215,267
Copending Application 18/401,306
An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
1. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a pad disposed on a platen, wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends;
a pad disposed on a platen, wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends;
a carrier assembly configured to be disposed on a surface of the pad and having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly, wherein the rotational axis is disposed at a first radial distance from the central axis;
a carrier assembly configured to be disposed on a surface of the pad and having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly, wherein the rotational axis is disposed at a first radial distance from the central axis;
a first fluid delivery arm having a first nozzle configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis;
a first fluid delivery arm having a first nozzle configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on a surface of the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis;
a second fluid delivery arm having a second nozzle configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis; and
and a second nozzle configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the surface of the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis, wherein the third radial distance is greater than or equal to the first radial distance and the second radial distance.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second nozzle is positioned on a second fluid delivery arm that is positionable over a portion of the surface of the pad.
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly.
9. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
4. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a platen;
a platen;
a pad disposed on the platen, the pad having a pad radius extending from a central axis;
a pad disposed on the platen, the pad having a pad radius extending from a central axis;
a carrier assembly disposed on the pad having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly;
a carrier assembly disposed on the pad having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly;
a first fluid delivery arm configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad;
a first fluid delivery arm configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad;
a second fluid delivery arm configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a radial distance from the central axis, the radial distance being greater than about 40% of the pad radius; and
and a second fluid delivery arm configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a radial distance from the central axis, the radial distance being greater than about 75% of the pad radius.
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly.
Claims 1-2 and 4 of the copending application do not explicitly teach
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly and adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. ;
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 50-60% of the pad radius
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius.
However, Kiesel teaches a system for controlling chemical mechanical polishing including
a controller (125) adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly (paragraph 0060, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area) and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly (paragraphs 0060 and 0056-0057, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area);
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 50-60% of the pad radius (fig. 3, wherein a first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 50 % of the pad radius).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 1-2 and 4 of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Kiesel to provide a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly;
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 50-60% of the pad radius.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller and functions of the controller as taught by Kiesel and wherein the first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 50% of the pad radius. Incorporating the controller would promote even distribution of the fluid over the wafer diameter [0060 of Kiesel] which promotes quality of the workpiece. Additionally, incorporating wherein the first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 50% of the pad radius allows the first fluid delivery arm to dispense fluid across the entire pad which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Claims 1-2 and 4, as modified, of the copending application do not explicitly teach
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius,
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. .
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system wherein a second fluid delivery arm (128 of fig. 1b) extends over less than 60% of the pad radius.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 1-2 and 4, as modified, of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide the second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the second fluid delivery arm such that it extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Doing so would provide less moving parts which decreases maintenance requirements. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the fluid delivery arm to deliver fluid to the pad.
Claims 1-2 and 4, as modified, of the copending application do not explicitly teach
the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Tolles teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein slurry is delivered to the polishing article’s surface by fluid nozzles 154 to aid in polishing the substrate [0060]. Additionally, Tolles teaches the fluid nozzles track with the sweeping motion of the carrier head so the slurry is deposited adjacent to the carrier head [0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 1-2 and 4, as modified, of the copending application to incorporate the teachings of Tolles to provide the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the controller is adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Doing so would provide fluid adjacent to the carrier head [0060 of Tolles] which prevents damage to the workpiece and promotes even processing of the workpiece.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11724355 in view of Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles.
Instant Application 18/215,267
US Patent 11724355
An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
1. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a pad disposed on a platen, wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends;
a pad disposed on a platen, wherein the pad has a pad radius and a central axis from which the pad radius extends;
a carrier assembly configured to be disposed on a surface of the pad and having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly, wherein the rotational axis is disposed at a first radial distance from the central axis;
a carrier assembly configured to be disposed on a surface of the pad and having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly, wherein the rotational axis is disposed at a first radial distance from the central axis;
a first fluid delivery arm having a first nozzle configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis;
a first fluid delivery arm having a first nozzle configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad at a second radial distance from the central axis;
a second fluid delivery arm having a second nozzle configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis; and
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second radial distance is less than the first radial distance, and the third radial distance is greater than or equal to the second radial distance.
a second fluid delivery arm having a second nozzle configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a third radial distance from the central axis, wherein the second radial distance is less than the first radial distance, and the third radial distance is greater than or equal to the second radial distance;
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly.
and a controller
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising
a first actuator that is configured to cause the carrier assembly to translate across a surface of the pad such that the first radial distance varies between a first radial value and a second radial value as the carrier assembly is translated across the surface of the pad; and
2. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a first actuator that is configured to cause the carrier assembly to translate across a surface of the pad such that the first radial distance varies between a first radial value and a second radial value as the carrier assembly is translated across the surface of the pad;
a second actuator that is configured to cause the second fluid delivery arm to translate over the surface of the pad such that the third radial distance varies between a third radial value and a fourth radial value as the second fluid delivery arm is translated over the surface of the pad,
and a second actuator that is configured to cause the second fluid delivery arm to translate over the surface of the pad such that the third radial distance varies between a third radial value and a fourth radial value as the second fluid delivery arm is translated over the surface of the pad,
wherein the fourth radial value is greater than the first radial value or the second radial value.
wherein the fourth radial value is greater than the first radial value or the second radial value.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a metrology unit disposed within the platen comprising a window disposed through the pad and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to a controller and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a metrology unit disposed within the platen comprising a window disposed through the pad and a measurement unit, wherein the measurement unit is connected to the controller and is configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of the third radial distance is less than a fourth radial distance that extends from the central axis to an outer most point on the carrier assembly.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises:
a fluid source; and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises: a fluid source; and a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
9. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
8. An apparatus for processing a substrate, comprising:
a platen;
a platen;
a pad disposed on the platen, the pad having a pad radius extending from a central axis;
a pad disposed on the platen, the pad having a pad radius extending from a central axis;
a carrier assembly disposed on the pad having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly;
a carrier assembly disposed on the pad having a carrier radius that extends from a rotational axis of the carrier assembly;
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 50% of the pad radius and configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad;
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 50% of the pad radius and configured to provide a first fluid to a first point on the pad;
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius, the second fluid delivery arm configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a radial distance from the central axis, the radial distance being greater than about 40% of the pad radius; and
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius, the second fluid delivery arm configured to provide a second fluid to a second point on the pad, the second point disposed a radial distance from the central axis, the radial distance being greater than about 40% of the pad radius;
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly.
a controller
10. The apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a metrology unit connected to the controller and configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate.
9. The apparatus of claim 8, further comprising a metrology unit connected to the controller and configured to measure a polishing rate near an edge of a substrate.
11. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises:
a base plate;
a swivel actuator coupled to the base plate;
an extension member extending over the pad; and
a nozzle coupled to the extension member and disposed over the pad.
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second fluid delivery arm comprises: a base plate; a swivel actuator coupled to the base plate; an extension member extending over the pad; and a nozzle coupled to the extension member and disposed over the pad.
12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad.
11. The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first fluid delivery arm overlaps an entirety of a radial position occupied by the carrier assembly over the pad.
13. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising:
a fluid source; and
a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
12. The apparatus of claim 10, further comprising: a fluid source; and a temperature control unit fluidly coupled to the fluid source and the second fluid delivery arm.
14. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the carrier assembly is disposed a distance of at least 10% of a total radius of the pad from a center of the pad and no more than 90% of the total radius of the pad from the center of the pad.
13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the carrier assembly is disposed a distance of at least 10% of a total radius of the pad from a center of the pad and no more than 90% of the total radius of the pad from the center of the pad.
Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent 11724355 do not explicitly teach
a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly and adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Kiesel teaches a system for controlling chemical mechanical polishing including
a controller (125) adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly (paragraph 0060, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area) and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly (paragraphs 0060 and 0056-0057, wherein Kiesel teaches the movement of the slurry outlets can be controlled and changed automatically depending on process conditions such as inline wafer removal profile measurement, even slurry distribution over platen radius or wafer diameter, minimizing slurry consumption, and reducing defects due to uneven slurry distribution over wafer area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent 11724355 to incorporate the teachings of Kiesel to provide a controller adapted to cause movement of the second fluid delivery arm to control a radial entry point of the second fluid under the carrier assembly and to control a distance between the second point on the pad and the carrier assembly.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller and functions of the controller as taught by Kiesel. Incorporating the controller would promote even distribution of the fluid over the wafer diameter [0060 of Kiesel] which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent 11724355, as modified, do not explicitly teach
a controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly.
However, Tolles teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein slurry is delivered to the polishing article’s surface by fluid nozzles 154 to aid in polishing the substrate [0060]. Additionally, Tolles teaches the fluid nozzles track with the sweeping motion of the carrier head so the slurry is deposited adjacent to the carrier head [0060].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent 11724355 to incorporate the teachings of Kiesel to provide the controller adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the controller is adapted to have the second fluid delivery arm track the carrier assembly. Doing so would provide fluid adjacent to the carrier head [0060 of Tolles] which prevents damage to the workpiece and promotes even processing of the workpiece.
Claim 1 of US Patent 11724355, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 60% of the pad radius
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius.
However, Kiesel teaches a system for controlling chemical mechanical polishing including
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 60% of the pad radius (fig. 3, wherein a first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 50 % of the pad radius).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Claim 1 of US Patent 11724355 to incorporate the teachings of Kiesel to provide
a first fluid delivery arm extending over at least 60% of the pad radius.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate wherein the first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 60% of the pad radius. Incorporating the controller would promote even distribution of the fluid over the wafer diameter [0060 of Kiesel] which promotes quality of the workpiece. Additionally, incorporating wherein the first fluid delivery arm extends over at least 60% of the pad radius allows the first fluid delivery arm to dispense fluid across the entire pad which promotes quality of the workpiece.
Claim 1 of US Patent 11724355, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius,
However, Huang teaches a chemical mechanical planarization system wherein a second fluid delivery arm (128 of fig. 1b) extends over less than 60% of the pad radius.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Claim 1 of US Patent 11724355 to incorporate the teachings of Huang to provide
the second fluid delivery arm extending over less than 60% of the pad radius.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the second fluid delivery arm such that it extends over less than 60% of the pad radius. Doing so would provide less moving parts which decreases maintenance requirements. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the fluid delivery arm to deliver fluid to the pad.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kiesel fails to teach the amended language of claim 1 (pages7-8 of Applicant’s remarks). However, Kiesel alone was not relied upon to teach the amended language. Rather, Kiesel et al. (US PGPUB 20080132152), hereinafter Kiesel, in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20190054590), hereinafter Huang, and further in view of Tolles et al. (US PGPUB 20180207770), hereinafter Tolles, was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claim 3 is allowable by virtue of dependency. However, claim 1 was rejected above. Claim 3 has been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the specific extension ratios and fails to teach the amended tracking language. Applicant also argues there is no motivation provided in the references to incorporate the teachings of Huang. Further, Applicant argues the modification would destroy the invention of Kiesel by substituting the system of Huang (pages 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the teachings of Huang included:
Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fluid delivery arm extension for another known fluid delivery arm extension to obtain the predictable results of providing fluid to a polishing operation.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kiesel, as modified, to include wherein the second fluid delivery arm extends over less than 60% of the pad radius since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Kiesel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed extension since the second fluid delivery arm would continue to be capable of delivering fluid to the polishing operation. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
In response to applicant's argument that combining the teachings of Huang with the teachings of Kiesel would destroy the invention of Kiesel, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Specifically, the teachings of Huang were not bodily incorporated and rather only the teaching of a different delivery arm extension was incorporated via simple substitution (MPEP 2143).
Overall, Kiesel was modified with the teachings of Huang to teach a different delivery arm extension that was incorporated via simple substitution. The language was also determined to be obvious in view of Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984), wherein the language is determined to be a recitation of relative dimensions. Additionally, newly relied upon reference Tolles was relied upon to teach the amended tracking language. See above rejection for more details.
Claims depending from independent claims 1 and 9 have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues Kiesel in view of Lin fails to teach the amended tracking language. Additionally, Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Lin with Kiesel. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine the teachings of Lin included:
Doing so would prevent waste of the polishing fluid when the workpiece is not being polished. Additionally, doing so would conserve the polishing fluid.
Additionally, Kiesel in view of Lin alone was not relied upon to teach the amended tracking language. Rather, newly relied upon Tolles was relied upon to teach the amended language. See above rejection for more details.
The claims depending from claim 15 have been rejected accordingly.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, Applicant argues the previously cited prior art fails to overcome the deficiencies of the amended language. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See above response to arguments for more details. The double patenting rejections have been updated and maintained.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 at (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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights