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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4 September, 2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the platen disposed on the slurry supply unit as claimed must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note that fig. 3 shows slurry supply units (arms 180-1,180-2, and 180-3), but those are disposed above the platens (190-1, 190-2, and 190-3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 slurry storage unit” in claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20; “a slurry supply unit” in claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20; “a slurry stock solution supply device in claims 2-5, 14, and 17-20; and “a cleaning solution supply unit” in claim 6.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “cleaning solution supply unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure recites no corresponding structure and the elements are shown only as blocks in the figures. Because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation covers all ways of performing a function, the presence of such limitations in claim 6 indicates that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Claim 6 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.
The claim limitation “cleaning solution supply unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure recites no corresponding structure and the elements are shown only as blocks in the figures. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeng et al. (US 6048256, "Obeng") in view of Deshpande et al. (US PGPub 2022/0193858, "Deshpande"), as evidenced by Byers et al. (US 9770804, "Byers").
Regarding claims 1, 10, 12-13, 17, and 20, Obeng teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) system comprising:
a plurality of storage tanks (120a-120h) configured to supply a set of slurry components including an oxidant, a surfactant, an abrasive, a buffer, a corrosion inhibitor, an acid, a base, and water (Obeng figs. 1-2 and 3:51-4:6),
a plurality of supply lines (122a-122h) connected to the plurality of storage tanks and configured to transfer the slurry components stored in each tank (see Obeng figs. 1-2 and 3:51-4:6); a
a plurality of flow rate control units (123a-123h) respectively disposed on each of the plurality of supply lines and configured to control the flow rate a flow rate of each of the slurry components (meters 123 are used by controller to meter rates at which components are introduced, see Obeng figs. 1-2 and 3:51-4:6)
a mixer (211) connected to plurality of supply lines downstream of the metering device and configured to prepare the slurry (Obeng figs. 1-2 and 5:18-37)
a slurry storage unit (212) connected to the mixer and configured to store the slurry prepared in the mixer (Obeng figs. 1-2 and 5:18-37);
a slurry supply unit (dispenser 115, see Obeng fig. 1) connected to the slurry storage unit and configured to draw out the slurry stored in the slurry storage unit (slurry from 212 is dispensed onto pad/platen 170, see Obeng figs. 1-2 and 5:18-37);
a platen disposed under the slurry supply unit and a polishing pad disposed on the platen and supplied the slurry from the slurry supply unit (platen/pad 170, Obeng fig. 2 and); and
a controller (140) configured to control the plurality of flow rate control units to control a mixing ratio of the slurry components according to the CMP process performed once using the polishing pad (slurry composition is mixed based on need for current material being polished rather than in bulk, see Obeng 5:38-62).
Although Obeng does not explicitly teach that the slurry components include a slurry stock solution, that the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide, or that the water is deionized (DI) water. However, the use of slurry compositions including DI water, an abrasive solution (such as colloidal silica), and an oxidant such as hydrogen peroxide are well known in the art (Byers 1:38-52). The use of such components as slurry components in the system of Obeng such that the system included storage tanks storing each of them in addition to tanks storing other additives (such as the surfactant, buffer, or corrosion inhibitor described by Obeng) would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, as their use represents no more than the simple substitution of one known set of slurry components for another, and the results of such a substitution would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Obeng as modified does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to control the predetermined flow rate to be a flow rate according to the CMP process performed once using the polishing pad.
However, Deshpande teaches a CMP system (200) including a slurry supply system (216), a plurality of polishing fluid component sources (287a, 287b), a polishing fluid distribution system (281) including a plurality of valves (285a), pumps (285b), flow controllers (285c) and a polishing fluid mixing apparatus (285d) linked to the fluid component sources (see Deshpande fig. 2c and [0089]-[0092]), as well as a controller (28) and sensors associated therewith (Deshpande [0095]); the controller configured to adjust the composition and flow rate of slurry based on a recipe associated with a particular substrate (adjusting polishing parameters according to a recipe, see Deshpande [0104]; polishing recipe is for a single substrate, see Deshpande [0107]; polishing parameters include slurry flow rate and slurry composition, see Deshpande [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Deshpande regarding control of polishing parameters for a single substrate into the CMP system of Obeng such that its controller was configured to control the predetermined flow rate to be a flow rate according to the CMP process performed once using the polishing pad, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
6. Obeng teaches the CMP apparatus of claim 1 further comprising: a cleaning solution supply unit connected to the mixer and configured to supply a cleaning solution to the mixer to perform cleaning, wherein the controller controls the cleaning solution supply unit to perform cleaning after the slurry prepared in the mixer is supplied to the slurry storage unit (tanks may include water and detergent supplies usable to flush the mixing chamber and dispenser, Obeng 4:31-56).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Obeng as modified further teaches that the mixer further comprises a pH sensor configured to measure pH of the slurry (Obeng 4:16-41).
Regarding claims 11 and 18 Obeng as modified does not explicitly teach that the controller controls the flow rate control units based on a database including slurry mixing ratio data applied to respective semiconductor substrates on which the CMP process is performed using the polishing pad.
However, Deshpande further teaches that control over polishing parameters may be performed by an AI algorithm trained using a database of training data associated with different polishing parameters used in different polishing processes (Deshpande fig. 3 and [0117]-[0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the additional teachings from Deshpande regarding the use of an algorithm trained on a database of polishing data to control polishing parameters into the CMP system of Obeng such that its controller was configured to control the flow rate control units based on a database including slurry mixing ratio data applied to respective semiconductor substrates on which the CMP process is performed using the polishing pad, as doing so would result in improved polishing system uniformity (Deshpande [0143]).
Claims 2-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeng in view of Deshpande as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 6910954, "Kim").
Regarding claims 2-4 and 14, Obeng as modified teaches the CMP apparatus of claims 1 and 10, but does not teach that the slurry stock solution supply device is disposed outside the CMP apparatus.
However, Kim teaches a slurry mixing apparatus (10) for supplying chemicals to a CMP apparatus, comprising a slurry stock solution supply device (slurry bottle 1) is connected to the mixer via a supply line (61) and is disposed outside the slurry mixing apparatus (see Kim fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to further modify the apparatus of Obeng as modified according to the teachings of Kim regarding a location for a slurry bottle such that the slurry stock solution supply device is disposed outside the CMP apparatus, as one of ordinary skill would understand that doing so would allow for pre-treatment of the stock slurry via shaking to reduce settling while isolating the CMP apparatus from any vibrations associated with shaking the slurry bottle (need to shake undiluted slurry purchased from a supplier, Kim 5:29-37; one of ordinary skill in a high-precision mechanical art such as CMP polishing would be aware that excessive vibration leads to undesirable variation in process outputs and should be isolated from the system whenever possible).
Regarding claim 5, Obeng as modified teaches the CMP apparatus of claim 4, and further teaches that each slurry component has a dedicated line and metering device (Obeng 3:51-4:6), but does not explicitly teach that the slurry stock solution storage tank comprises a plurality of slurry stock solution storage tanks, the first supply line comprises a plurality of supply lines, respectively connected to the plurality of slurry stock solution storage tanks, and the plurality of slurry solution storage tanks are configured to store slurry stock solutions, including the slurry stock solution, having different compositions.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
The apparatus of Obeng is designed to allow a common slurry delivery system to be used for multiple processes (Obeng 1:66-2:22 and 2:41-46), which Obeng teaches may require different stock slurries based on the particular material being removed (e.g., oxide polishing or metal polishing process, see Obeng 1:28-36). From this, one of ordinary skill would infer that Obeng teaches that multiple stock slurry supply lines should be present, as multiple base slurries may be needed for different polishing stages. Consequently, Obeng implicitly teaches that the supply line between the system and a stock slurry tank should be a plurality of lines. Although the claim language recites that the different storage tanks are configured to store different slurry stock solutions having different compositions, the slurry stock solution supply device is explicitly claimed as outside the CMP apparatus of claim 4, and consequently is outside the scope of the invention and simply describes an intended use of the claimed plurality of slurry supply lines. Because the supply lines suggested by Obeng as modified would be capable of receiving different compositions of slurries from different base tanks, they satisfy the claim limitation.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obeng in view of Deshpande as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Byers.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Obeng as modified teaches the CMP apparatus of claims 8 and 10, wherein the mixer further comprises a pH sensor configured to measure a pH of the slurry (Obeng 4:16-41), but does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to drain the slurry, stored in the slurry storage unit, when the pH of the slurry measured by pH sensor is outside of a reference range.
However, Byers teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus including a pH sensor configured to measure a pH of a mixed slurry (analytical module 300 is part of mixing section and includes pH sensors as part of analytical package 310, see Byers 53:38-58 and fig. 1b), and a control unit configured to drain the slurry, stored in the slurry storage unit, when the pH of the slurry measured by the pH sensor is outside of a reference range (in extreme cases, slurry having a parameter such as pH that is outside of a specified range is disposed of by the controller, see Byers 45:43-46:17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Obeng according to the teachings of Byers regarding disposing of slurry in response to pH measurements falling outside a threshold range, as doing so would ensure that proper diagnostics may be performed to ensure that the slurry and slurry mixing equipment are operating properly and that improper slurry is not used in a CMP process (Byers 45:43-46:17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 September, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a)-(b), simply amending a functionally claimed element to reflect its place in a device is distinct from demonstrating the presence of underlying structure. Indicating that a functional element is connected to other parts of a device does not indicate underlying structure of that element itself that enables it to carry out its claimed function. Although the claimed “cleaning solution supply unit” is depicted as connected to the mixer, that connection does constitute the necessary recitation of the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the claimed function of supplying a cleaning solution to the mixer to perform cleaning.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723