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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/08/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 9, the phrase may be amended as “at [[the]]a same position”.
In claim 11, line 4, claim 12, line 5, and claim 13, line 3, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a target pressure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a head rotating mechanism configured to rotate the polishing head” in claim 1 and “a positioning mechanism configured to fix a relative position of the joint member” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
In claim 15, lines 4-6, the phrase “pressing force generated by a pressure chamber … located at a downstream side in a rotating direction of the polishing surface is larger than a pressing force generated by other pressure chamber” renders claim vague and indefinite because it is not sure how to determine a location that is the downstream side on a 360-degree rotating surface. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted that a pressing force generated by one pressure chamber is greater than a pressing force generated by another pressure chamber.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa et al. (US 2018/0304434, hereinafter Sakugawa), in view of Kobata et al. (US 2021/0237224, hereinafter Kobata).
Regarding claim 1, Sakugawa discloses, in fig. 1, a polishing-head system comprising:
a polishing head configured to press a substrate against a polishing surface (¶ 0027, a polishing head 30 presses a substrate against a polishing pad 23 on a polishing table 22);
a head shaft coupled to the polishing head (¶ 0029, the polishing head 30 is connected to a polishing head shaft 27 [corresponds to the recited head shaft]);
a head rotating mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The head rotating mechanism is constituted of, for example, a combination of a motor, timing pulleys, and a belt, and equivalents thereof, ¶ 0025) configured to rotate the polishing head together with the head shaft (¶ 0032, the polishing head shaft 27 is rotated through a timing pulley 70 mounted to a polishing head motor 68, and a timing belt 69 to rotate the polishing head 30);
a multi-path rotary joint arranged around at least a part of the head shaft (¶ 0029, a rotary joint 82 [corresponds to the recited multi-path rotary joint] is mounted to an upper end of the polishing head shaft 27);
a fluid supply line coupled to the multi-path rotary joint (¶ 0043 and figs. 1-2, compressed gas line from a compressed-gas supply source is coupled to the rotary joint 82); and
a pressure regulator attached to the fluid supply line (¶ 0043 and fig. 2, pressure regulators R1 to R5 are attached to the compressed gas supply line),
wherein the polishing head has:
a substrate pressing surface configured to press the substrate against the polishing surface (¶ 0046, a membrane 34 [corresponds to the recited substrate pressing surface] can press different zones of a surface of the substrate W against the polishing surface of the polishing pad 23);
a retainer ring arranged around the substrate pressing surface (¶ 0035, a retainer ring 32 is arranged around the membrane 34 [corresponds to the recited substrate pressing surface]); and
pressure chambers formed by elastic material and configured to generate pressing forces for pressing the retainer ring against the polishing surface (¶ 0005 and 0039, pressure chambers C1-C5 are formed by an elastic membrane 34. The pressure chamber C5 directly presses the retainer ring 32 against the polishing pad 23), and
the pressure chambers are arranged along a circumferential direction of the retainer ring (¶ 0039-40 and fig. 2, pressure chambers C2-C5 are arranges along a circumferential direction of the retainer ring 32. The pressure chamber C5 is arranged along with the retainer ring 32 to press the polishing pad), but does not disclose explicitly the head shaft has shaft flow-passages communicating with the pressure chambers, respectively.
Sakugawa discloses, in fig. 2 and ¶ 0043, that the compressed gas line communicates with the pressure chambers C1-C5 through the rotary joint 82, but does not show explicitly whether the line passes through passages in the head shaft.
Kobata teaches, in an analogous polishing-head system field of endeavor, the head shaft has shaft flow-passages communicating with the pressure chambers, respectively (figs. 1 and 16 and ¶ 0147, a polishing head system comprises a polishing head 7, a polishing-head shaft 18, a rotary joint 25, and a pressure chamber 74. The polishing-head shaft 18 has a gas supply line 77 [corresponds to the recited shaft flow-passages] communicating with the pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa to provide the shaft flow-passages in the head shaft as taught by Kobata so that the fluid supply line is not exposed to an environment during a high-speed rotational operation of the polishing head for safety.
Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the multi-path rotary joint is configured to provide a communication between the fluid supply line and each one of the shaft flow-passages successively each time the head shaft makes one revolution (Kobata ¶ 0158, the polishing head 7 rotates while a controller supplies compressed gas to the pressure chamber 74 through the rotary joint 25; Sakugawa ¶ 0042-43 and 0069, the compressed gas line communicates with the pressure chambers C1-C5 through the rotary joint 82 [corresponds to the recited multi-path rotary joint]. A controller 50 regulates pressure of the fluid supply lines. The controller can open one valve while it closes the other valves. Thus, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the controller of the polishing head system can be configured to supply the compressed gas to each passage for each revolution of the head shaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide successive communication of the fluid supply line for each revolution of the head shaft in order to achieve a precise control of the pressure chambers with desired pressure for an effective polishing operation.
Regarding claim 8, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the polishing head further includes an annular pressure chamber located adjacent to the pressure chambers (Sakugawa, fig. 2, the pressure chamber C4 is an annular pressure chamber located adjacent to the pressure chamber C5 which presses the retainer ring).
Regarding claim 10, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising an operation controller configured to control an operation of the pressure regulator, wherein the pressure chambers include a first pressure chamber, the operation controller is configured to transmit a correcting set-pressure-value, which is larger than a set pressure value of fluid in the fluid supply line, to cause the pressure regulator to correct a pressure in the first pressure chamber when the pressure in the first pressure chamber is smaller than a target value (Sakugawa, ¶ 0042, 0046 and 0049, a controller 50 is coupled to the pressure regulators to send each target pressure value to the pressure chambers C1-C5. The pressure chamber C5 can be designated as the recited first pressure chamber. The pressure regulator maintains the pressure in the pressure chamber at the target pressure value. Therefore, the controller can be configured to correct the pressure of the first pressure chamber when the pressure in the first pressure chamber is smaller than the preset target pressure value by transmitting a high pressure).
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Rhee (US 2020/0355247).
Regarding claim 2, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the shaft flow-passages have shaft openings being open in an outer surface of the head shaft, the multi-path rotary joint has a joint flow-passage communicating with the fluid supply line, the joint flow-passage has a joint opening being open in an inner surface of the multi-path rotary joint, the shaft openings are arranged along a circumferential direction of the head shaft, and the shaft openings and the joint opening are located at the same position in an axial direction of the head shaft.
Rhee teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) field of endeavor, the shaft flow-passages have shaft openings being open in an outer surface of the head shaft, the multi-path rotary joint has a joint flow-passage communicating with the fluid supply line, the joint flow-passage has a joint opening being open in an inner surface of the multi-path rotary joint, the shaft openings are arranged along a circumferential direction of the head shaft, and the shaft openings and the joint opening are located at the same position in an axial direction of the head shaft (abstract, Rhee discloses a rotary union 10 for coupling fluid supply paths and a rotating shaft of a CMP apparatus. See annotated Rhee fig. 2 below for the recited components; ¶ 0048, the shaft communicates with a plurality of fluid supply paths 112-115; figs. 1-2, the rotary joint has a plurality of holes 304, 306, 308, 308 communicating with the fluid paths 112-115 in the shaft 100. Thus, the shaft 100 has openings along a circumferential direction of the shaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the recited passages and openings as taught by Rhee. The device allows supplying fluid through a rotating shaft. It also allows a vertical motion so that a polishing head’s vertical position can be adjusted with respect to a substrate without utilizing a separate apparatus (Rhee ¶ 0008 and 0028).
PNG
media_image1.png
899
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Rhee Fig. 2
Regarding claim 3, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the fluid supply line comprises fluid supply lines, the pressure regulator comprises pressure regulators attached to the fluid supply lines, respectively, the joint flow-passage comprises joint flow-passages communicating with the fluid supply lines, respectively, and the joint opening comprises joint openings arranged along the circumferential direction of the head shaft (see annotated Rhee fig. 2 above, there are multiple joint flow-passages 304, 306, 308, and 310. The joint openings are arranged along the circumferential direction of the shaft 100; Rhee ¶ 0066, fluid is transferred through the hole 304 [corresponds to the recited joint flow-passage] through the fluid supply path 112 [corresponds to the recited shaft flow-passage] into a process chamber 20; Sakugawa ¶ 0040 and fig. 2, the pressure regulators R1-R5 are attached to the compressed gas supply lines. Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee teaches the pressure regulated fluid is supplied to the passages of the rotary joint and the head shaft).
Regarding claim 9, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose a width of the joint opening is larger than a width of each of the shaft openings.
As shown in annotated Rhee fig. 2 above, however, the device comprises the joint opening connected to the shaft opening, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint opening of Rhee so that a width of the joint opening is larger than a width of each of the shaft openings. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. The recited opening sizes render the shaft flow-passage transmits high pressure fluid. The high-pressure fluid may be more effective in controlling the pressure chamber quickly than low pressure fluid. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata and Rhee, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Tischer et al. (DE 19756101C1, hereinafter Tischer).
Regarding claim 4, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the multi-path rotary joint has: a joint member arranged along a circumferential direction of the head shaft; a joint holder arranged around the joint member, and the joint flow-passage extends through the joint member and the joint holder (see annotated Rhee fig. 2 above, the rotary joint has a middle housing 200 [corresponds to the recited joint member] arranged along a circumferential direction of the shaft 100, and an outer housing 300 [corresponds to the recited joint holder] arranged around the middle housing 200. The joint flow-passage extends through the middle housing 200 and the outer housing 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-path rotary joint of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee to provide the joint member and the joint holder as taught by Rhee. This arrangement may provide rotational and axial motion of the joint simultaneously so that it provide a high degree of mobility for the CMP apparatus (Rhee ¶ 0068).
However, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee does not disclose a spring configured to press the joint member against the head shaft.
Tischer teaches, in a spring joint device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a spring configured to press the joint member against the head shaft (fig. 5 and Tischer English translation p. 4:22-35, a clamping plate 21 and a base body 25 are coupled with a spring joint 7 in a recess of the base body 25. Tischer teaches two bodies can be coupled with a spring between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-path rotary joint of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Rhee to provide the spring for pressing the joint member against the head shaft as taught by Tischer. The spring provides a buffer between two coupling objects so that it prevents the coupling surfaces from wearing due to repeated contact between them.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, Rhee, and Tischer, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Hung (US 2022/0186555).
Regarding claim 5, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata, Rhee, and Tischer teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 4, but does not disclose the multi-path rotary joint has a positioning mechanism configured to fix a relative position of the joint member with respect to the joint holder in a circumferential direction of the joint member.
Hung teaches, in an angle adjusting mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the multi-path rotary joint has a positioning mechanism (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The positioning mechanism 68 includes a protrusion 60b formed on the outer surface of each joint member 60, and a recess 62a formed in an inner surface of the joint holder 62, ¶ 0061) configured to fix a relative position of the joint member with respect to the joint holder in a circumferential direction of the joint member (fig. 2 and ¶ 0033, a mechanical device comprises a driving unit 20 and a driving rod 24. The driving unit and the driving rod can be coupled together wherein the driving rod is disposed outside of the driving unit when they are coupled. The driving unit 20 comprises a positioning protrusion 236 which matches with a positioning recess 245 of the driving rod 24. Hung teaches an inner object and an outer object can be fitted into a predetermined position by engaging the positioning protrusion and the positioning recess).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata, Rhee, and Tischer to provide the positioning mechanism as taught by Hung in order to engage the joint holder/member at a right position.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zuniga et al. (US 2021/0402558, hereinafter Zuniga).
Regarding claim 6, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the pressure chambers communicate with the shaft flow-passages, respectively, and the pressure chambers formed by rolling diaphragms, the rolling diaphragms being arranged along the circumferential direction of the retainer ring (Sakugawa, fig. 2 and ¶ 0039 rolling diaphragm 36 forms the pressure chamber C5 along the circumference of the retainer ring 25. The pressure chambers communicate with the gas delivery lines F1-F5 which pass through passages in the head shaft 27), but does not disclose the pressure chambers comprise pressure chamber groups, and each of the pressure chamber groups includes pressure chambers.
Zuniga teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the pressure chambers comprise pressure chamber groups, and each of the pressure chamber groups includes pressure chambers (¶ 0009, a carrier head for a polishing system includes a plurality of pressurizable chambers. There are two groups of chambers: first plurality of pressure chambers and second plurality of pressure chambers. Additionally, there is a plurality of valves selectively coupled to a different pressure chamber of the first plurality of pressure chambers or the second plurality of pressure chambers. Thus, Zuniga teaches a carrier head may include at least two groups of pressure chambers and each group of chambers comprises different pressure chambers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the pressure chamber groups as taught by Zuniga. The pressure chambers of Zuniga are independently pressurizable. Thus, it would be possible to press a substrate in a small spot, a small area, or a large area based on particular needs of good polishing outcome.
Regarding claim 7, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Zuniga teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 6, but does not disclose each of the rolling diaphragms has a cylindrical shape.
Sakugawa discloses the rolling diaphragm, but does not disclose a shape of the diaphragm. Zuniga teaches there can be a plurality of pressure chambers. Thus, the combination of Sakugawa and Zuniga teaches there can be a plurality of pressure chambers formed by rolling diaphragms without designating a shape. On the other hand, specification of the instant application is silent regarding why the rolling diaphragms have to have a cylindrical shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rolling diaphragms of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Zuniga to have any shape as long as the pressure chamber formed by the rolling diaphragm renders a substrate to be pressed against a polishing surface during polishing. The court held that a mere change in shape of a component is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed component was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Shinozaki et al. (KR 20150063931A, hereinafter Shinozaki).
Regarding claim 11, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber during one revolution of the polishing head and the target pressure during one revolution of the polishing head.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber during one revolution of the polishing head and the target pressure during one revolution of the polishing head (Shinozaki English translation, p. 4:5-14, 5:3-14, and 7:20-31, a polishing apparatus comprises a polishing head having pressure chambers. One of the pressure chambers can be designated as the recited first pressure chamber. While a top ring [corresponds to the recited polishing head] rotates, a PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can be configured to determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the operation controller to determine the correcting pressure value as taught by Shinozaki so that the pressure chamber maintains correct pressure for effective polishing of a substrate.
Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shinozaki does not disclose explicitly the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure are integral values.
However, specification of the instant application does not explain why it is necessary to utilize the integral values of the pressures, instead of another pressure values such as an average pressure, maximum pressure, a weighted average pressure, etc. Additionally, specification does not explain why the integral value is calculated over one revolution. An average of integral values over 4π or 6π may provide more accurate pressure value instead of integrating a pressure function over 0 to 2π (one revolution).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize non-integral pressure values such as an average pressure or a maximum pressure value since the applicant has not disclosed that only the integral pressure values must be used to determine the correcting pressure value. It appears that the maximum pressure value, the average pressure value, or another type of average value would perform equally in determining the correcting pressure value. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily utilize non-integral pressure values in determining the correcting pressure value.
Regarding claim 12, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure in the first pressure chamber, wherein the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure- value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber measured by the pressure sensor and the target pressure.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a pressure sensor configured to measure the pressure in the first pressure chamber, wherein the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber measured by the pressure sensor and the target pressure (Shinozaki English translation, p. 28:6-10, a pressure sensor detects a pressure difference between the pressure target value in the pressure chamber and the measured pressure value; p. 7:20-31, the PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can be configured to determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the pressure sensor as taught by Shinozaki so that the controller can regulate the pressure in the pressure chamber for effective polishing of a substrate.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Shinozaki and Ikegami et al. (DE 112015000020B4, hereinafter Ikegami).
Regarding claim 13, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the operation controller is configured to determine the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure (Shinozaki English translation, p. 7:20-31, the PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can be configured to determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing-head system of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the operation controller to determine the correcting pressure value as taught by Shinozaki so that the pressure chamber maintains correct pressure for effective polishing of a substrate.
Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shinozaki does not disclose determining the correcting set-pressure-value is based on a correlation, which is obtained in advance, between the set pressure value and the pressure in the first pressure chamber.
Ikegami teaches, in machine control system field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, determining the correcting set-pressure-value is based on a correlation, which is obtained in advance, between the set pressure value and the pressure in the first pressure chamber (Ikegami English translation, p. 3:1-24, a construction machine control system comprises an actuator including a pressure adjusting valve connected to an oil/fluid passage. A control unit determines an operation value based on correlation data such that a target control pressure acts on the control valve; p. 82:32-38, correlation data are stored in a memory unit, and an implement control unit controls the implement based on the information contained in the memory unit. Therefore, Ikegami teaches in a pressure control system, the correcting pressure can be obtained according to correlation which is acquired and stored in advance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operation controller of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shinozaki to determine the correcting pressure based on the correlation as taught by Ikegami so that the machine always operates with stable pressure and under identical condition (Ikegami English translation, p. 4:3-5).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shin et al. (US 2022/0266415, hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim 14, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata teaches a polishing method for a substrate with the polishing-head system as in the rejection of claim 1, comprising:
pressing the substrate against the polishing surface while rotating the substrate to polish the substrate (Sakugawa ¶ 0034, while the polishing head and the polishing table are rotated so that the substrate rotates, the polishing head presses the substrate against the polishing surface of the polishing pad); and
during polishing of the substrate, applying pressing forces to the retainer ring to press the retainer ring against the polishing surface by supplying fluid into the pressure chambers through the fluid supply line while providing a communication between the fluid supply line and each one of the shaft flow-passages successively (Sakugawa ¶ 0005 and 0039, a pressure chamber C5, formed by an elastic membrane, presses the retainer ring 32 against the polishing pad 23; ¶ 0042-43 and 0069, the compressed gas line communicates with the pressure chambers C1-C5 through the rotary joint 82. A controller 50 regulates pressure of the fluid supply lines. The controller can open one valve while it closes the other valves. Thus, Sakugawa teaches the controller of the polishing head system can be configured to supply the compressed gas to each passage successively to allow the retainer ring to press against the polishing surface), but does not disclose the pressing forces include at least two different pressing forces.
Shin teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the pressing forces include at least two different pressing forces (¶ 0045, a carrier head comprises pressure chambers, and different pressures may be applied to the pressure chambers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the at least two different pressing forces as taught by Shin so that a substrate can be pressed with different pressures at different locations. A part of a substrate may require pressing with high pressure and another part of the substrate may require pressing with low pressure for the overall effective polishing. The different pressing forces make it possible to result in good polishing outcome (Shin ¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 15, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shin teaches the polishing method as in the rejection of claim 14, wherein polishing of the substrate is performed while rotating the polishing surface, and the polishing method comprises regulating pressures in the pressure chambers by the pressure regulator such that a pressing force generated by a pressure chamber, which is one of the pressure chambers, located at a downstream side in a rotating direction of the polishing surface is larger than a pressing force generated by other pressure chamber (Sakugawa ¶ 0034, while the polishing head and the polishing table are rotated so that the substrate rotates, the polishing head presses the substrate against the polishing surface of the polishing pad; Sakugawa ¶ 0042-43 and 0069, the compressed gas line communicates with the pressure chambers C1-C5 through the rotary joint 82. A controller 50 regulates pressure of the fluid supply lines through the pressure regulators R1-R5 attached to the compressed gas supply line; Sakugawa ¶ 0046, a membrane 34 [corresponds to the recited substrate pressing surface] can press different zones of a surface of the substrate W against the polishing surface of the polishing pad 23; Shin ¶ 0045, a carrier head comprises pressure chambers, and different pressures may be applied to the pressure chambers. Therefore, Sakugawa as modified by Shin teaches a controller can regulate pressure regulators so that one pressure chamber applies a greater pressing force than another pressure chamber. See 112(b) rejection regarding the pressure chamber located at a downstream side in a rotating direction of the polishing surface).
Regarding claim 16, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shin teaches the polishing method as in the rejection of claim 14, further comprising causing the pressure regulator to correct a pressure in a first pressure chamber of the pressure chambers based on a correcting set-pressure-value, which is larger than a set pressure value of the fluid in the fluid supply line, when the pressure in the first pressure chamber is smaller than a target pressure (Sakugawa, ¶ 0042, 0046 and 0049, as discussed similarly in claim 10, a controller 50 is coupled to the pressure regulators to send each target pressure value to the pressure chambers C1-C5. The pressure chamber C5 can be designated as the recited first pressure chamber. The pressure regulator maintains the pressure in the pressure chamber at the target pressure value. Therefore, the controller can correct the pressure of the first pressure chamber when the pressure in the first pressure chamber is smaller than the preset target pressure value).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata and Shin, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Shinozaki.
Regarding claim 17, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shin teaches the polishing method as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber during one revolution of the polishing head and the target pressure during one revolution of the polishing head.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber during one revolution of the polishing head and the target pressure during one revolution of the polishing head (Shinozaki English translation, p. 4:5-14, 5:3-14, and 7:20-31, as discussed similarly in claim 11, a polishing apparatus comprises a polishing head having pressure chambers. One of the pressure chambers can be designated as the recited first pressure chamber. While a top ring [corresponds to the recited polishing head] rotates, a PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the method of determining the correcting pressure value as taught by Shinozaki so that the pressure chamber maintains correct pressure for effective polishing of a substrate.
Sakugawa as modified by Kobata, Shin, and Shinozaki does not disclose explicitly the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure are integral values.
However, specification of the instant application does not explain why it is necessary to utilize the integral values of the pressures, instead of another pressure values such as an average pressure, maximum pressure, a weighted average pressure, etc. Additionally, specification does not explain why the integral value is calculated over one revolution. An average of integral values over 4π or 6π may provide more accurate pressure value instead of integrating a pressure function over 0 to 2π (one revolution).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize non-integral pressure values such as an average pressure or a maximum pressure value since the applicant has not disclosed that only the integral pressure values must be used to determine the correcting pressure value. It appears that the maximum pressure value, the average pressure value, or another type of average value would perform equally in determining the correcting pressure value. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily utilize non-integral pressure values in determining the correcting pressure value.
Regarding claim 18, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shin teaches the polishing method as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose measuring the pressure in the first pressure chamber; and determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber measured by the pressure sensor and the target pressure.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, measuring the pressure in the first pressure chamber; and determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber measured by the pressure sensor and the target pressure (Shinozaki English translation, p. 28:6-10, as discussed similarly in claim 12, a pressure sensor detects a pressure difference between the pressure target value in the pressure chamber and the measured pressure value; p. 7:20-31, the PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the method of determining the correcting pressure value by measuring pressure with the pressure sensor as taught by Shinozaki so that the controller can regulate the pressure in the pressure chamber for effective polishing of a substrate.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakugawa in view of Kobata and Shin, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Shinozaki and Ikegami.
Regarding claim 19, Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shin teaches the polishing method as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure.
Shinozaki teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, determining the correcting set-pressure-value that minimizes a difference between the pressure in the first pressure chamber and the target pressure (Shinozaki English translation, p. 7:20-31, as discussed similarly in claim 13, the PID controller generates a valve control signal for minimizing the difference between the measured pressure and the target pressure in a pressure chamber. Therefore, the controller of Shinozaki can be configured to determine the correcting pressure to minimize the difference between the actual pressure and the target pressure in the first pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata to provide the method of determining the correcting pressure value as taught by Shinozaki so that the pressure chamber maintains correct pressure for effective polishing of a substrate.
Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shinozaki does not disclose determining the correcting set-pressure-value is based on a correlation, which is obtained in advance, between the set pressure value and the pressure in the first pressure chamber.
Ikegami teaches, in machine control system field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, determining the correcting set-pressure-value is based on a correlation, which is obtained in advance, between the set pressure value and the pressure in the first pressure chamber (Ikegami English translation, p. 3:1-24, a construction machine control system comprises an actuator including a pressure adjusting valve connected to an oil/fluid passage. A control unit determines an operation value based on correlation data such that a target control pressure acts on the control valve; p. 82:32-38, correlation data are stored in a memory unit, and an implement control unit controls the implement based on the information contained in the memory unit. Therefore, Ikegami teaches in a pressure control system, the correcting pressure can be obtained according to correlation which is acquired and stored in advance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Sakugawa as modified by Kobata and Shinozaki to determine the correcting pressure based on the correlation as taught by Ikegami so that the machine always operates with stable pressure and under identical condition (Ikegami English translation, p. 4:3-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Umemoto et al. (US 2019/0351526) discloses a polishing-head system comprising a rolling diaphragm to form a pressure chamber, and regulated fluid supply lines supply fluid to the pressure chambers.
Kato et al. (US 2020/0368874) discloses a polishing-head system comprising a rolling diaphragm to form a pressure chamber, and regulated fluid supply lines supply fluid to the pressure chambers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723