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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/23/26 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 13, 16 are pending per the latest amendment in the NOA sent 4/23/26.
Claim
Claims 1-10, 13, 16 are pending, in which the latest amendment to claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13 were on 4/23/26.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure, filed 8/8/23, is objected to because it is not in narrative form and not limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. It contains 2 pages of the WO 2022/1777767A9 . See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (JP2000031100A).
With respect to claims 1, 6, 9, 13 Kim describes a CMP process comprising: providing a source of CMP slurry having material additives including alkaline, oxidizing agent, acids, surfactants, and/or abrasive particles (pages 2, 3); modifying the source of the CMP slurry to form a modified CMP slurry by directing a source of acoustic wave energy with a megasonic frequency 700 to 1000 kHz with an ultrasonic generator 26 or 31
PNG
media_image1.png
304
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which also modifies the material additives; applying the modified CMP slurry to the polishing apparatus at which the substrate is positioned (pages 4-6); modifying a surface of the substrate or claimed a passivation layer of the substrate by chemical reactions with the modified slurry to form a water-soluble material through which moisture is easily permeated by reacting with the alkaline slurry, or oxidizing a surface of the substrate, which would change the layer of the substrate to increase removal rates at a given polishing pressure or to maintain removal rates at a reduced polishing pressure and polishing the substrate at a given polishing pressure or reduced polishing pressure (page 2, 3).
The modified CMP slurry would produce a slurry having at least enhancing removal rate properties of the material additives, lower wafer-level defects, and reducing a surface roughness properties of the material additives and enable polishing the layer or passivation layer with increase removal rate at a given polishing pressure or maintain removal rates at a reduced polishing pressure because the wave energy of ultrasonic and megasonic frequency used to modify the slurry is the same as that of the claimed invention as described in page 7 of the specification where megasonic, ultrasonic frequency spectrum is responsible for the enhancements or advantages of the supplied slurry. The advantages using the megasonic wave disclosed by Kim include the modified CMP slurry prevents stagnation, aggregation of the abrasive particles, drying of the supplied slurry to reduce scratches and increase yield of the substrate (page 2, 3).
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5 the material additives including abrasive particles, acids, alkaline solution would be in the slurry prior to directing the source of megasonic wave energy and being used/applied at the polishing apparatus.
With respect to claims 7, 8, fig. 3 above shows the CMP slurry is modified by the megasonic energy 26 inside a covered seal container 13 to form a fluid-tight seal having inlet and outlet connected to supply pipe 19 and 24 to form a continuous flow path from the container to the polishing pad and the modified CMP slurry 12 is supplied to the polishing pad.
With respect to claim 16, the method comprises a mechanical action including rotation movement of the substrate (page 2) (please also see Liu 2019/0164771A1 for more of known mechanism of a CMP apparatus).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Stark et al. (US 2006/0026906A1).
With respect to claim 4, Kim doesn’t teach mixing the material additives to the source of the slurry contemporaneously with applying the megasonic waver energy at the source of the slurry. Stark teaches a versatile system for providing slurry for point-of-use mixing or condition of multi-components or material additives 108 from resevoirs 110, 122, 130 while applying megasonic energy source 106 at the slurry to modify the properties of the material additives 108 (fig. 1; para 14, 15, 36). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the multi-components or additives of a slurry, to either the seal container 13 or to the supply pipe 30 of Kim’s apparatus, at least contemporaneously with applying of the megasonic energy, in light of Stark’s point-of-use system, because Stark teaches that “it provides optimal slurry mixing or conditioning by non-stressful agitation or activation of slurry components or slurry. The system of the present invention significantly reduces or eliminates slurry nonconformities, providing consistent and reliable CMP results. The present invention further eliminates the need for labor intensive monitoring and adjustment of slurry composition” and it can be “added on to an already existing CMP apparatus” (para 14, 15).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 7 above.
With respect to claim 10, Kim doesn’t teach that the wave megasonic energy is also applied along the flow of the CMP slurry between the sealed container and the polishing pad and inside a sealed container (claim 7). However, he shows that the megasonic energy is applied either to the sealed container 13 (fig. 3) or along the supplied pipe 30 at the nozzle 32 (fig. 4). Therefore, in the absent of an expected results, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to provide the megasonic wave energy both at the sealed container 13 and along the supplied pipe 24 at the nozzle 29 because Kim teaches that it is desired to completely prevent the formation of aggregated secondary particles with the megasonic wave energy (page 3, 4) and by supplying the megasonic wave energy at both locations, it would ensure provide such results.
Liu 2019/0164771A1 is cited for known mechanism of a CMP apparatus having rotational polishing pad and substrate (para 27).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights