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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US-2020/0164482).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Chen (US-2020/0164482) discloses a polishing pad comprising:
a light-transmitting member (window 80); and
a polishing layer (polishing pad 20), wherein
the polishing layer (polishing pad 20) includes a polishing surface for polishing an object (wafer 40) to be polished (Fig. 2), and the polishing pad (polishing pad 20) includes a through hole (openings 86, 88) penetrating from the polishing surface to an opposite surface thereof (Fig. 2),
the light-transmitting member (window 80) is arranged so that the light-transmitting member (window 80) is in the through hole (86, 88) when viewed from the polishing surface side of the polishing pad in a thickness direction of the polishing pad (pad 20) (Fig. 2) (“an opening 86, 88 is formed in the platen 10 or polishing pad 20, and the window 80 or pad window 85 is mounted in the opening 86, 88.”) [Chen; paragraph 0035], and
(i) a water contact angle of a surface on the polishing surface side of the light-
transmitting member is 80 degrees or less, or
(ii) the surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting member is coated
with a hydrophilic resin (hydrophilic surfactant 84) (“the transparent structural layer 82 may be formed of polyurethane”) [Chen; paragraph 0042].
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein when the through hole of the polishing layer (20) is a first through hole (opening 88), the polishing pad further includes an additional layer having a second through hole (opening 86) having a smaller equivalent circle diameter than the first through hole (88) (Fig. 2), the additional layer is located opposite the polishing surface of the polishing layer (Fig. 2), when the polishing pad is viewed in the thickness direction from the polishing surface side (Fig. 2), the first through hole (88) and the second through hole (86) at least partially overlap each other (Fig. 2), and the light-transmitting member is arranged so that the light-transmitting member is in the first through hole (“the window 80 or pad window 85 is mounted in the opening 86, 88”) [Chen; paragraph 0035], when viewed from the polishing surface side of the polishing pad in the thickness direction of the polishing pad (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-2020/0164482) in view of Fujii (US-2008/0160881).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 13, wherein (ii) a surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting member is coated with a hydrophilic resin, but fails to disclose the hydrophilic resin is a resin having an ion-bonding hydrophilic group.
However, Fujii (US-2008/0160881) teaches a hydrophilic resin is a resin having an ion-bonding hydrophilic group (anionic group) (“In addition, the kinds of the hydrophilic groups are not particularly limited, and the hydrophilic groups may be of the same kinds or different kinds. The hydrophilic group includes, for instance, nonionic groups representatively exemplified by ether group (oxyethylene group and the like) and hydroxyl group; anionic groups representatively exemplified by carboxylate groups, sulfonate groups, sulfuric ester groups, and phosphate groups; cationic groups representatively exemplified by quaternary ammonium salts. Among them, ionic hydrophilic groups such as anionic groups and cationic groups are preferable, from the viewpoint of the clogging prevention of the polishing pad, and the anionic groups are more preferable.”). Since Fujii teaches that hydrophilic resins that are having an ion-bonding hydrophilic group are preferable in polishing enviornments, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent a teaching, to use a commonly used type of hydrophilic resin in the polishing arts for the hydrophilic resin of Chen.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Chen, as modified by Fujii, discloses the polishing pad according to claim 4, wherein the ion-bonding hydrophilic group contains an ammonium cation (“examples of the hydrophilic polymer compound in which two or more hydrophilic polymers are admixed include hydrophilic monomer-modified polyvinyl alcohols, representatively exemplified by cationically modified- or carboxylated polyvinyl alcohols; copolymers of a hydrophilic monomer and (meth)acrylic acid (or (meth)acrylate), representatively exemplified by acrylamide/acrylic acid copolymer; copolymers of a hydrophilic monomer and a quaternary ammonium monomer, representatively exemplified by acrylic acid/dimethyldiallylammonium chloride copolymer; and the like”) [Fujii; paragraph 0040].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-2020/0164482) in view of Kawasaki (WO2015029294A1).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein (ii) a surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting member (82) is coated with a hydrophilic resin (84) (“The hydrophilic surfactant 84 may be applied to one or both surfaces of the transparent structural layer using any suitable techniques. In various embodiments, the hydrophilic surfactant 84 is applied to one surface 87 of the transparent structural layer 82, as shown in FIG. 3A. In other embodiments, the hydrophilic surfactant 84 is applied to one surface 89 of the transparent structural layer 82, as shown in FIG. 3B. In further embodiments, the hydrophilic surfactant 84 is applied to both surface 87 and surface 89 of the transparent structural layer 82, as shown in FIG. 3C. However, as is understood, in various embodiments, the hydrophilic surfactant 84 can be applied to one or both of surface 87 and surface 89 of the transparent structural layer 82 of the window 80, the pad window 85, or both.”) [Chen; paragraph 0040], but fails to disclose the resin-coated surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting member has a water contact angle of 50 degrees or less.
However, Kawasaki (WO2015029294A) teaches a surface on the polishing surface side a polishing member has a water contact angle of 50 degrees or less (“In the polishing pad A, the contact angle measured immediately before polishing the 21st wafer is relatively high, about 65 degrees, and is in a water-repellent state. Then, as the polishing pad A is repeatedly polished, the contact angle of the polishing pad also decreases. The contact angle immediately before polishing about the 40th and subsequent wafers was stable in a hydrophilic state in the range of 20 to 30 degrees. On the other hand, in the polishing pad B, the contact angle of the 21st wafer immediately before polishing was already about 25 degrees, and after that, the contact angle of the polishing cloth was stable in the range of 20 to 30 degrees.”) [Kawasaki Translation; page 3, final paragraph]. Since a typical water contact angle for a polishing surface of a polishing pad is less than 80 degrees, as taught by Kawasaki, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the surface of Chen, including the surface of the window, to have a water contact angle of 50 degrees or less, as taught by Kawasaki, in order to limit the number of defects (“When the contact angle is measured and it is confirmed that the contact angle falls to a range of 20 to 30 degrees and is stabilized, the subsequent polishing is determined as the main polishing. By doing so, the number of LPDs of the wafer obtained in this polishing process is stable at a small level, and the wafer loss due to dummy polishing can be suppressed to a necessary minimum.”) [Kawasaki Translation; page 4, second paragraph].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-2020/0164482) in view of Birang (US-6,537,133).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein when the polishing surface is an upper surface and the opposite surface thereof is a lower surface (Fig. 2), but fails to disclose the surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting resin member is lower than the polishing surface.
However, Birang (US-6,537,133) teaches the surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting resin member is lower than the polishing surface (Fig. 3A) (“This protrusion of the insert 38 is intended to minimize the gap between the top surface of the insert 38 and the surface of the wafer 14. By minimizing this gap, the amount of slurry 40 trapped in the gap is minimized. This is advantageous because the slurry 40 tends to scatter light traveling through it, thus attenuating the laser beam emitted from the laser interferometer 32. The thinner the layer of slurry 40 between the insert 38 and the wafer 14, the less the laser beam 34 and light reflected from the wafer, is attenuated. It is believed a gap of approximately 1 mm would result in acceptable attenuation values during the CMP process. However, it is preferable to make this gap even smaller. The gap should be made as small as possible while still ensuring the insert 38 does not touch the wafer 14 at any time during the CMP process.”) [Birang; col. 6, lines 49-63]. Since Birang teaches to windows in polishing pads, such as that shown by Chen, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the window of Chen to be lower than the polishing surface so that the window does not contact the wafer during polishing [Birang; col. 6, lines 49-63].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US-2020/0164482) in view of Allison (US-9,017,140).
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the polishing surface includes a groove, and when the polishing surface is an upper surface and the opposite surface thereof is a lower surface, a top portion of the light-transmitting member is at the same level as or lower than a bottom portion of the groove.
However, Allison (US-9,017,140) teaches a polishing surface including a groove (grooves 26), and when the polishing surface is an upper surface and the opposite surface thereof is a lower surface (Fig. 3), a top portion of a light-transmitting member (LAT 40) is at the same level as a bottom portion of the groove (26) (Figs. 3 and 4). Allison teaches that having the LAT surrounded by a plateau plane 42 has several advantages including ease of manufacturing and improved slurry flow over the LAT (“the LAT 40 is surrounded by a plateau plane 42, e.g., the plateau plane is preferably about 5 to about 50 mils wide and surrounds the whole perimeter of the rectangular LAT. This plateau plane has several advantages associated with it in the present pad. These advantages include ease of manufacturing and improved slurry flow over the surface of the LAT. Moreover, the plateau plane provides extra room to allow the support member to be removed from the cured LAT after the compression molding step.”) [Allison; col. 6, lines 59-67] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to put the LAT in the groove as taught by Allison in order for ease of manufacturing as well as relatively improved slurry flow [Allison; col. 6, lines 59-67].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, wherein (i) a water contact angle of a surface on the polishing surface side of the light-transmitting member is 80 degrees or less, and a surface of the light-transmitting member opposite to the polishing surface has a water contact angle greater than 80 degrees.
The prior art does not disclose making the surface of the window have a different hydrophilicity than the pad, particularly where the water contact angle of the light-transmitting member is 80 degrees or less and the water contact angle of the polishing pad is greater than 80 degrees. While references such as WO2015029294A1 do teach a water contact angle, the water contact angle for the pad is typically less than 70 degrees and there is not mention of having the pad have a different water contact angle than the water contact angle of the window. Therefore, the prior art fails to anticipate or make obvious claim 2.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Chen discloses the polishing pad according to claim 1, but fails to anticipate or render obvious “wherein in the resin having an ion-bonding hydrophilic group, a cationic moiety of the ion-bonding hydrophilic group is covalently bonded to a monomer constituting the resin and is ion-bonded to an anionic moiety of the ion-bonding hydrophilic group” as claimed.
Claim 9, and those depending therefrom including claims 10-12, 14-17, and 21-23, are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious “a polishing surface for polishing an object to be polished” and “the polishing pad includes a through hole penetrating from the polishing surface to an opposite surface thereof” wherein “(iii) the light-transmitting resin member includes a hydrophilic monomer graft-polymerized on a surface of the polishing surface side thereof [emphasis added]; or (iv) the light-transmitting resin member includes, at least on a surface on the polishing surface side thereof, a resin containing a structural unit derived from a polyfunctional (meth)acrylate monomer having two or more polymerizable functional groups and having a -C2-4 alkylene-O- unit” as claimed emphasis added].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2007058374, US-20110274914, and US-2003/0129931 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723