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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A6, Species B2, Species C3, and Group II drawn to claims 6-15 and 17-20 in the replies filed on 12/24/2025 and 07/30/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/2025.
It is noted that on an interview with the applicant’s representative on 03/13/2026, claim 16 was withdrawn due to being drawn to a non-elected species.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sridhar teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising: a platen (platen 102); a polishing pad (polishing pad 106, equivalent to polishing pad 200a in Fig. 2A) on the platen, the polishing pad comprising a plurality of grooves (grooves 218); wherein the polishing pad comprises a light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) within at least some of the plurality of grooves [Fig. 1, 2A & 0063, 0071, 0077].
Sridhar does not specifically disclose a light irradiator in the platen.
Hu teaches a light irradiator (one or more IR lamps 252) in the platen (platen assembly 230) [Fig. 2A & 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platen of Sridhar to include a light irradiator to achieve more efficient temperature control, thereby improving removal rates and lowering substrate defects [Hu - 0063].
Furthermore, the limitations “the light irradiator configured to irradiate light toward the polishing pad, and through which the light is transmitted from the light irradiator,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that placing the IR lamps 252 of Hu in the platen 102 of Sridhar would result in light being irradiated towards the polishing pad. It's further noted that the light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) of Sridhar can comprise of polycarbonate [Sridhar - 0087]. The instant applicant utilized polycarbonate as a possible material for the light transmission pattern [IA - 0048]. Since the light transmission pattern of Sridhar comprises the same material as the instant application, it would be capable of light transmission.
Regarding Claim 7:
Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light includes infrared light.
Hu teaches wherein the light includes infrared light (the lamps 252 are IR lamps) [Fig. 2A & 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platen of Sridhar to include a light irradiator to achieve more efficient temperature control, thereby improving removal rates and lowering substrate defects [Hu - 0063].
Regarding Claim 8:
Sridhar teaches wherein the polishing pad further comprises a base pattern (first polishing element 204a).
Regarding Claim 10:
Sridhar teaches wherein the base pattern comprises a polymer (the first polishing element 204a may comprise of polyurethanes) [Sridhar - 0087].
Regarding Claim 12:
Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein an upper surface of the platen comprises at least one opening through which light from the light irradiator can be transmitted to the polishing pad.
Hu teaches wherein an upper surface of the platen comprises at least one opening through which light from the light irradiator can be transmitted to the polishing pad (as evidenced by Fig. 2A, the platen assembly 230 has one or more openings for IR lamps 252 to be disposed in) [Fig. 2A & 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platen of Sridhar to include a light irradiator to achieve more efficient temperature control, thereby improving removal rates and lowering substrate defects [Hu - 0063].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901), as applied to claims 6-8, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20100083902).
The limitations of claims 6-8, 10, and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Sridhar teaches wherein the base pattern comprises a lower pattern (protruding sidewalls 224) and an upper pattern (upper surface 208), and wherein the lower pattern and the upper pattern have different physical properties from each other (the portion of the first polishing element with the protruding sidewalls 224 is a different shape from the portion without, as such, the two portions would have different physical properties) [Sridhar - Fig. 2A, 2D & 0071, 0077].
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the base pattern comprises a lower pattern and an upper pattern on an upper surface of the lower pattern.
Kim does not specifically disclose "wherein the base pattern comprises a lower pattern and an upper pattern on an upper surface of the lower pattern." However, Kim does disclose that making a component a plurality of components (i.e., split up) could be beneficial to reduce the effects of thermal expansion [Kim - Abstract, 0009, 0069]. It is noted that the insulator 40 of Kim can comprise of PEEK [Kim - 0087] and the polishing elements of Sridhar can also comprise of PEEK [Sridhar - 0087]. It’s also noted that that the use of a one piece construction instead of multiple parts would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04 V B).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901), as applied to claims 6-8, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Anjur et al. (US 6117000), with Brugarolas et al (US 9457449) and Ward et al. (US 20180340095) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 6-8, 10, and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light transmission pattern comprises at least one of polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate.
Anjur teaches a polishing pad comprising polyethylene (the polishing pad may comprise polyethylene) [Col. 6 lines 16-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) to comprise of polyethylene because Anjur discloses that such is a suitable material for a polishing pad [Anjur - Col. 6 lines 16-39]. Brugarolas et al (US 9457449) and Ward et al. (US 20180340095) also disclose that polyethylene is a suitable polishing pad material [Brugarolas - Col. 4 lines 58-67; Ward - 0038]. It's further noted that the polishing elements of Sridhar may contain at least one oligomeric and/or polymeric segments [Sridhar - 0087].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901), as applied to claims 6-8, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170018405), with Swaminathan et al. (US 20160379851) and Si et al. (US 20070032090) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 6-8, 10, and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light irradiator comprises a plurality of light source portions radially spaced outward from a center of an upper surface of the platen by respective different distances.
Kobayashi does not specifically disclose "wherein the light irradiator comprises a plurality of light source portions radially spaced outward from a center of an upper surface of the platen by respective different distances." However, it does disclose that placing independently powered heating lamps in a concentric pattern with radially spaced lamps helps with uniform heating distribution [Kobayashi - Fig. 3 & 0054]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light irradiator of Modified Sridhar to be radially spaced outward, as in Kobayashi, to improve control over heat distribution, thereby helping create a more uniform heating profile [Kobayashi - 0054]. Swaminathan et al. (US 20160379851) and Si et al. (US 20070032090) also discloses that arranging lamps to be independently powered in a radially spaced concentric pattern helps achieve temperature uniformity [Swaminathan - 0070, 0073; Si - 0032].
Regarding Claim 14:
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of light source portions are concentric.
Kobayashi teaches wherein the plurality of light source portions are concentric (the IR lamps 62-1 to 62-5 are concentrically arranged) [Fig. 3 & 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light irradiator of Modified Sridhar to be radially spaced outward, as in Kobayashi, to improve control over heat distribution, thereby helping create a more uniform heating profile [Kobayashi - 0054]. Swaminathan et al. (US 20160379851) and Si et al. (US 20070032090) also discloses that arranging lamps to be independently powered in a radially spaced concentric pattern helps achieve temperature uniformity [Swaminathan - 0070, 0073; Si - 0032].
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901), as applied to claims 6-8, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Kondou et al (US 20060011610), with Benjamin et al. (US 20050211385) and Ono et al. (US 20180240681) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 6-8, 10, and 12 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light transmission pattern comprises a first sub-transmission pattern that is in direct optical communication with the light irradiator and a second sub-transmission pattern that is not in direct optical communication with the light irradiator.
Although Kondou does not specifically disclose "wherein the light transmission pattern comprises a first sub-transmission pattern that is in direct optical communication with the light irradiator and a second sub-transmission pattern that is not in direct optical communication with the light irradiator," Kondou does disclose that heating element spacing is a result effective variable. Specifically, Kondou teaches that heating element spacing can be adjusted to change a heating profile [Kondou - 0043]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to find an optimum spacing between heating elements to obtain a desired heating profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value for a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. SEE MPEP 2144.05. Benjamin et al. (US 20050211385) further discloses that heater power density (wherein the heater can be a plurality of heating lamps) can be selected to change a heating profile (it is noted that changing the spacing between heating elements would change the heating density in a specific area) [Benjamin - 0028, 0044]. Ono et al. (US 20180240681) also discloses that heating lamp spacing can determine a heating profile [Kondou - 0068].
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901).
Regarding Claim 17:
Sridhar teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus, comprising: a rotatable platen (platen 102); a polishing pad (polishing pad 106, equivalent to polishing pad 200a in Fig. 2A) on the platen, the polishing pad comprising a polishing surface (upper surface of polishing pad 106),
a plurality of grooves formed in the polishing surface (grooves 218), wherein the polishing pad comprises a light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) within at least some of the plurality of grooves; a carrier head assembly (carrier head 108) above the polishing pad and configured to support a wafer facing the polishing surface; a slurry supplier (delivery arm 118) configured to supply a polishing slurry between the wafer and the polishing pad [Fig. 1, 2A & 0063-0064, 0071, 0077].
Sridhar does not specifically disclose a light irradiator in the platen.
Hu teaches a light irradiator (one or more IR lamps 252) in the platen (platen assembly 230) [Fig. 2A & 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platen of Sridhar to include a light irradiator to achieve more efficient temperature control, thereby improving removal rates and lowering substrate defects [Hu - 0063].
Furthermore, the limitations “the light irradiator configured to irradiate light toward the light transmission pattern,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that placing the IR lamps 252 of Hu in the platen 102 of Sridhar would result in light being irradiated towards the polishing pad. It's further noted that the light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) of Sridhar can comprise of polycarbonate [Sridhar - 0087]. The instant applicant utilized polycarbonate as a possible material for the light transmission pattern [IA - 0048]. Since the light transmission pattern of Sridhar comprises the same material as the instant application, it would be capable of light transmission.
Regarding Claim 18:
Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light includes infrared light.
Hu teaches wherein the light includes infrared light (the lamps 252 are IR lamps) [Fig. 2A & 0048-0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the platen of Sridhar to include a light irradiator to achieve more efficient temperature control, thereby improving removal rates and lowering substrate defects [Hu - 0063].
Regarding Claim 19:
The limitations of claim 19 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that placing the IR lamps 252 of Hu in the platen 102 of Sridhar would result in light being irradiated towards the polishing pad and heating up a slurry. It's further noted that the light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) of Sridhar can comprise of polycarbonate [Sridhar - 0087]. The instant applicant utilized polycarbonate as a possible material for the light transmission pattern [IA - 0048]. Since the light transmission pattern of Sridhar comprises the same material as the instant application, it would be capable of light transmission.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (US 20200325353) in view of Hu et al. (US 20070227901), as applied to claims [ 2 ] above, and further in view of Anjur et al. (US 6117000), with Brugarolas et al (US 9457449) and Ward et al. (US 20180340095) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 17-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Modified Sridhar teaches wherein the polishing pad comprises at least one of polyurethane, polyester, polyether, felt, epoxy, polyimide, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, latex, nitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), and isoprene rubber, (the first polishing element 204a may comprise of polyurethanes) [Sridhar - 0087].
Modified Sridhar does not specifically disclose wherein the light transmission pattern comprises at least one of polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate.
Anjur teaches a polishing pad comprising polyethylene (the polishing pad may comprise polyethylene) [Col. 6 lines 16-39].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light transmission pattern (second polishing element 206a) to comprise of polyethylene because Anjur discloses that such is a suitable material for a polishing pad [Anjur - Col. 6 lines 16-39]. Brugarolas et al (US 9457449) and Ward et al. (US 20180340095) also disclose that polyethylene is a suitable polishing pad material [Brugarolas - Col. 4 lines 58-67; Ward - 0038]. It's further noted that the polishing elements of Sridhar may contain at least one oligomeric and/or polymeric segments [Sridhar - 0087].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure. Huang et al. (US 10189143) and Nagahara et a. (US 6168508) teach CMP apparatuses [Huang – Fig. 3; Nagahara – Fig. 2B]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718