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 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:
Light emitting structure in claims 1 and 3-5: [0031-0034]
Light receiving structure in claims 1 and 3-5: [0031-0034]
Irradiating changing mechanism in claim 2: [0091-0097]
Data processing device in claim 5: [0027-0032]
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 6-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 6-8 recites at least one step or instruction for measuring surface properties of a polishing pad, which is grouped under mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6: A surface property measuring method for a polishing pad, comprising:
irradiating the polishing pad with a plurality of lights from different irradiating directions as viewed from a polishing-surface side of the polishing pad; receiving a plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding respectively to the plurality of lights irradiating the polishing pad; obtaining intensity distributions of the plurality of reflected lights; and determining an index value based on the intensity distributions, the index value indirectly indicating a surface property of the polishing pad (receiving the lights, obtaining distributions and determining an index value require observations, evaluation and judgements, which are grouped under mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent claims 7 and 8 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Claim 7: The surface property measuring method according to claim 6 wherein:
irradiating the polishing pad with the plurality of lights from the different irradiating directions comprises irradiating the polishing pad with light while changing an irradiating direction of the light; and receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad comprises receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding to lights irradiating the polishing pad from different irradiating directions (receiving the lights from a plurality of locations requires further observations, then used in the evaluation and judgment, which are grouped under mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 8: The surface property measuring method according to claim 7, wherein:
irradiating the polishing pad with the plurality of lights from the different irradiating directions comprises irradiating the polishing pad with the plurality of lights from a plurality of irradiating directions, the plurality of lights being emitted by a plurality of light sources (additional element); and receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad comprises receiving, by a plurality of light-receiving elements (additional element), the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding to the plurality of lights irradiating the polishing pad from the plurality of irradiating directions (receiving the lights from a plurality of locations requires further observations, then used in the evaluation and judgment, which are grouped under mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III)).
Each of Claims 9-15 recites at least one step or instruction for judging surface properties of a polishing pad, and is grouped under mental processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 9: A surface property judging method for a polishing pad, comprising:
irradiating a plurality of points on a surface of the polishing pad with laser light; receiving a plurality of reflected lights from the surface of the polishing pad; determining intensity distributions of the plurality of reflected lights at the plurality of points on the surface of the polishing pad (receiving the lights, obtaining distributions and determining an index value require observations, evaluation and judgements, which are grouped under mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III));
calculating a wavelength composition ratio from the intensity distributions determined at the plurality of points, the wavelength composition ratio indirectly indicating a surface property of the polishing pad (calculating is grouped under mathematical calculations in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III)); and judging whether the surface property of the polishing pad is good or not based on the wavelength composition ratio (judging is grouped under mental processes in accordance with MPEP 2106.4(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent Claims 10-15 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Claim 10 recites what values are used in wavelength ratios calculations, claim 11 wherein the calculation depends upon an average, claim 12 wherein the judgement is an evaluation of whether the pad is good or not, claims 13 and 14 are combinations of claims 11 and 12, adding judging the values against the threshold. Claim 15 recites terminating a “break-in process”, which in the specification is described as polishing pad seasoning, but the process isn’t recited positively as occurring within the judgment method, thus generally linking the abstract idea to a technological environment.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 6 and 9 (and claim 6’s dependents 7-8, and claim 9’s dependents 10-15) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because claim 9-15 recite no additional elements and the additional elements of claims 6-8, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
More specifically, the additional elements of: light sources and light receiving elements, are considered to generally link the use of abstract idea to conditioning polishing pads.
Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 6 and 9 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and therefore each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of claims 6 or 9 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
Claims 6 and 9 recite no additional elements that may fall under the category of generically claimed computer components, which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. Though not explicitly claimed, a processor (such as the one recited in applicant’s paragraph’s [0027-0032]) and memory are used as tools to perform the above-identified abstract ideas.
The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claims 6-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Matsuo (US PG Pub No. 20180015590).
In regards to claim 1, Matsuo discloses
a surface property measuring apparatus (surface measuring device 30) for a polishing pad (polishing pad 2) used for polishing a substrate, comprising:
a light-emitting structure (light source 31, [0058-0061], [0081-0088]) configured to irradiate the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) with light from a plurality of directions as viewed from a polishing-surface side of the polishing pad ([0085]: Fig. 7 shows the light source is swingable); and
PNG
media_image1.png
236
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a light-receiving structure (light receiver 33, [0058-0060], [0083-0088]) configured to receive reflected light traveling in a plurality of directions from the surface of the polishing pad ([0085], see fig. 7).
In regards to claim 5, Matsuo discloses
the surface property measuring apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a data processing device (processor 40, [0054-0061], [0066], [0068]) electrically coupled ([0058] processor and light receiver are connected, CMP apparatus is an electronic device) to the light-receiving structure (light receiver 33, [0058-0060], [0083-0088]),
the data processing device being configured to determine an index value ([0065]) based on intensity distributions of a plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) corresponding to a plurality of lights irradiating the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) from different directions, the index value indirectly indicating a surface property of the polishing pad.
Claims 6-10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Kamiki (US PG Pub No. 20210370461).
In regards to claim 6, Kamiki discloses
a surface property measuring method for a polishing pad (polishing pad 2), comprising:
irradiating the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) with a plurality of lights from different irradiating directions as viewed from a polishing-surface side of the polishing pad ([0106]: plurality of light sources 31);
receiving a plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding respectively to the plurality of lights irradiating the polishing pad ([0106]);
obtaining intensity distributions of the plurality of reflected lights ([0078], [0080], [0085-0086]); and
[0078] In the polishing apparatus configured as shown in FIG. 1, the distribution of reflected light from the pad surface obtained in the surface-property measuring device 30 of the polishing pad is arithmetically calculated to obtain a surface property value of the pad in the processor 40, and the calculated result is transferred to the controller 23….
determining an index value based on the intensity distributions, the index value indirectly indicating a surface property of the polishing pad ([0065]).
In regards to claim 7, Kamiki discloses
the surface property measuring method according to claim 6 wherein:
irradiating the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) with the plurality of lights from the different irradiating directions comprises irradiating the polishing pad with light while changing an irradiating direction of the light ([0138], [0142-0143]); and
receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) comprises receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding to lights irradiating the polishing pad from different irradiating directions ([0138], (0142-0143]).
[0138] Further, as shown in FIG. 9, the polishing apparatus may have a displacement mechanism 80 for adjusting a position of the surface-property measuring device 30 in a horizontal direction, along the support arm 50. The displacement mechanism 80 serves as a mechanism for moving the position of the surface-property measuring device 30 in the horizontal direction, along a longitudinal direction of the support arm 50.
[0142] When the position of the surface-property measuring device 30 in the horizontal direction is to be adjusted (i.e., changed), the bolt 82 is loosen to move the support base 72 (i.e., the surface-property measuring device 30) along the slotted hole 81 to a desired position. Then, the bolt 82 is screwed in the threaded hole of the support base 72 again to thereby fix the position of the surface-property measuring device 30 in the horizontal direction.
[0143] According to the present embodiment, the displacement mechanism 80 enables the position of the surface-property measuring device 30 in the horizontal direction to be adjusted, so that the surface-property measuring device 30 can measure the surface properties at any position (i.e., a desired position) of the polishing pad 2.
In regards to claim 8, Kamiki discloses
the surface property measuring method according to claim 6, wherein:
irradiating the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) with the plurality of lights from the different irradiating directions comprises irradiating the polishing pad with the plurality of lights from a plurality of irradiating directions ([0138], (0142-0143]),
the plurality of lights being emitted by a plurality of light sources ([0106]); and
receiving the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad (polishing pad 2) comprises receiving, by a plurality of light-receiving elements ([0106]: the surface-property measuring device 30 may have a plurality of light sources 31, and may have a plurality of light receivers 33),
the plurality of reflected lights from the polishing pad corresponding to the plurality of lights irradiating the polishing pad from the plurality of irradiating directions ([0138], [0142-0143]).
In regards to claim 9, Kamiki discloses
a surface property judging method for a polishing pad (polishing pad 2), comprising:
irradiating a plurality of points on a surface of the polishing pad with laser light ([0209]);
[0209]: the polishing apparatus utilizes the surface property measuring device 30 to acquire image information of the polishing pad 2 at a plurality of measurement points
receiving a plurality of reflected lights ([0076-0081]) from the surface of the polishing pad ([0106]: plurality of light sources 31 and light receivers 33);
determining intensity distributions of the plurality of reflected lights at the plurality of points on the surface of the polishing pad ([0078], [0080], [0085-0086]);
calculating a wavelength composition ratio from the intensity distributions determined at the plurality of points, the wavelength composition ratio indirectly indicating a surface property of the polishing pad ([0087-0089]); and
judging whether the surface property of the polishing pad is good ([0091]: abnormality detection in surface properties) or not based on the wavelength composition ratio ([0087-0089]).
In regards to claim 10, Kamiki discloses
the surface property judging method according to claim 9, wherein calculating the wavelength composition ratio from the intensity distributions determined at the plurality of points comprises calculating wavelength composition ratios from the intensity distributions ([0087-0088], finding the rations at a plurality of measurement points; [0209]), respectively.
In regards to claim 12, Kamiki discloses
the surface property judging method according to claim 10, wherein judging whether the surface property of the polishing pad is good or not based on the wavelength composition ratio comprises:
determining whether the wavelength composition ratios are within a predetermined reference range ([0096], [0198]); and
[0096] The polishing apparatus may have an abnormality judgement unit for judging an abnormality of the surface properties of the polishing pad when the obtained surface property value of the polishing pad is compared with a preset range of the surface property value of the pad in the processor 40 (see FIGS. 1 and 2), and falls outside the preset range. When the abnormality is judged in the abnormality judgement unit, the display unit 41 (see FIG. 2) issues an alarm of the abnormality…
judging that the surface property of the polishing pad is good when all of the wavelength composition ratios are within the predetermined reference range ([0091], [0096]: the obtained surface property value … is compared with a preset range … and falls outside the preset range. When the abnormality is judged in the abnormality judgement unit, the display unit 41 (see FIG. 2) issues an alarm of the abnormality).
In regards to claim 15, Kamiki discloses
the surface property judging method according to claim 9, further comprising terminating a break-in process of the polishing pad when the surface property of the polishing pad is determined to be good ([0174]: property values determining dressing as not necessary reflect a good surface property).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo in view of Kamiki (US PG Pub No. 20210370461).
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Matsuo discloses
the surface property measuring apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising “an irradiating-direction changing mechanism” configured to change an irradiating direction of the light (claim 2), wherein that mechanism comprises a motor to rotate the light-emitting structure and receiving structure, with a shaft coupled to the motor (claim 3). Matsuo discloses that the light source “swings” and changes, direction, but is silent to the means by which this motion occurs.
Kamiki, which discloses a polishing apparatus having a surface-property measuring device for measuring surface properties of a polishing pad, teaches a moving unit 53 (fig. 9-12; [0118]-[0120]) that rotates the surface property device (30), which results in a change in an irradiating direction. Further, the moving unit (53) of Kamiki, includes a rotating motor (59, [0127]) configured to rotate the light-emitting structure (light source 31, [0058-0061], [0081-0088]) and the light-receiving structure (light receiver 33, [0058-0060], [0083-0088]), and a shaft (rotational shaft 58, [0127]) coupled to the rotating motor.
Matsuo and Kamiki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polishing apparatus with surface-property measuring devices in the form of light generators and receivers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matuso to include the teachings of Kamiki, and provide a moving unit (53), including shaft and rotating motor, to functionally swing the light sources in order to gather data from multiple areas on the polishing pad.
In regards to claim 4, Matsuo discloses
the surface property measuring apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the light-emitting structure (light source 31, [0058-0061], [0081-0088]) includes “a plurality of light sources” facing in different directions; and that the light-receiving structure (light receiver 33, [0058-0060], [0083-0088]) includes “a plurality of light-receiving elements” facing in different directions.
Kamiki, which discloses a polishing apparatus having a surface-property measuring device for measuring surface properties of a polishing pad, teaches a plurality of light sources and receiving elements:
[0106] … Changing of the inclination angle of the mirror 37 enables an angle at which the laser beam enters the polishing pad 2 to be adjusted. Further, the light source 31 and/or the light receiver 33 may be configured to be swingable. The surface-property measuring device 30 may have a plurality of light sources 31, and may have a plurality of light receivers 33.
Matsuo and Kamiki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of polishing apparatus with surface-property measuring devices in the form of light generators and receivers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matuso to include the teachings of Kamiki, and provide a plurality of light sources and receivers, pursuant of MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), finding would have been to duplicate parts.
The instant case, to have a plurality of light sources and receivers is only a slight variation therefrom and would not produce an unexpected outcome and would have therefore constituted an obvious mechanical choice expedient at the time of applicants' invention, as plurality of sources and receivers would be able to gather more data on the polishing pad surface properties in a faster manner. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiki in view of Birang (US Patent No. 7153185) and Budiarto (US PG Pub No. 20160181134).
In regards to claim 11, Kamiki discloses
the surface property judging method according to claim 9, but fails to disclose explicitly “calculating an average of the intensity distributions” when calculating the wavelength composition ratio ([0087-0089]) from the intensity distributions determined at the plurality of points comprises and calculating ([0087-0089]) the wavelength composition ratio “from the average of the intensity distributions.”
Birang discloses a CMP apparatus and method using eddy current and optical monitoring systems, applying signals from the monitoring systems on an output line and extracted by a computer. Birang teaches:
Col. 12 lines 39-52: In addition, computer 90 can be programmed to associate each measurement from … optical monitoring system 140 from each sweep beneath the substrate with a radial position on the substrate… computer 90 can be programmed to sort the measurements into radial ranges, to determine minimum, maximum and average measurements for each sampling zone…
Budiarto, which discloses a system for monitoring the status of reflected signals from a wafer teaches:
[0040] There are various procedures to ensure quality control of light spectrum data. For example, the procedures to ensure the validity and quality of the data include: …c) normalization of the spectrum of the light output 214 with respect to the wavelength-averaged light in the reflected light 218 to reduce the effect of any instability at the light re-launch stage.
[0042] Additionally, in order to increase the signal-to-noise ratio in order to improve sensitivity of the monitoring and deposition control system 200, the reference fiber 206 can be utilized. One example of how to increase the signal-to-noise ratio includes normalizing light spectra received by the spectrometer 210 to its own wavelength average. This can help minimize instability caused by achromatic shifts during delivery of the light output 214 or collection of the reflected light 218.
Kamiki and Birang are considered analogous to the claimed apparatus as they are in the same field of endeavor, CMP apparatus and using optical monitoring systems. Budiarto addresses a common problem, which is ensuring quality data when receiving an optical signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamiki, and utilize an average of measurements for determining ratios for threshold determination in order to decrease noise and erroneous values and provide clear threshold calculation values to ensure quality wafers are produced, given one of ordinary skill would have been aware of averaging values, thus could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723