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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 28-30 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.
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.
Claim 5 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 limitation of “wherein for each channel, a cross-sectional flow area decreases continuously” in combination with the limitation in claim 1 of “wherein the at least one channel includes a protrusion extending from the inner wall of the at least one channel into a flow path” was not described in the specification in such a way as to convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolles US 6,527,624.
Re claim 1, Tolles discloses a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus [fig. 1], comprising:
a polishing pad 32;
a polishing head 70 configured to receive a wafer 10 and to hold the wafer against the polishing pad; and
a retaining ring 110 [figs. 2-7] configured to engage with the polishing head, wherein the retaining ring is formed with channels 130 configured for flowing a slurry in a flow direction from outside the retaining ring to inside the retaining ring, wherein the channels have a cross-sectional flow area that decreases in the flow direction [112 to 132];
wherein at least one channel is defined by an inner wall [walls of channel 130], and wherein the at least one channel includes a protrusion 142 extending from the inner wall of the at least one channel into a flow path defined by the at least one channel
Re claim 7, Tolles further teaches wherein for each channel, the cross-sectional flow area decreases step-wise [from 112 to 132, fig. 3].
Re claim 6, Tolles further teaches the protrusion is a baffle for decreasing a cross-sectional flow area [construed as passage 140, 142 between the trough and channel 132; the definition of a baffle is a device used to restrain the flow of a fluid and the passage 140, 142 restrain the flow between trough 112 and channel 132];
PNG
media_image1.png
342
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 28, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 5,695,392 (Kim ‘392) in view of Kim US 8,858,302 B2 (Kim ‘302).
Re claim 1, Kim ‘392 discloses a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (figs. 1-6), comprising:
a polishing pad 18;
a polishing head 28 configured to receive a wafer 30 and to hold the wafer against the polishing pad 18; and
a retaining ring 45 configured to engage with the polishing head 28, wherein the retaining ring is formed with channels 46 configured for flowing a slurry in a flow direction from outside the retaining ring to inside the retaining ring;
wherein at least one channel is defined by an inner wall of the retaining ring [inner wall of channel 46].
Kim ‘392 discloses a chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus (figs. 1-6), comprising:
a polishing pad 18;
a polishing head 28 configured to receive a wafer 30 and to hold the wafer against the polishing pad; and
a retaining ring 300 [fig. 10] configured to engage with the polishing head, wherein the retaining ring comprises:
an annular wall encircling the wafer and having an outer surface 312 and an inner surface 308; and
a channel 302 extending from the outer surface to the inner surface, wherein the channel extends in a curvilinear direction;
wherein at least one channel is defined by an inner wall surface of the retaining ring [inner wall of channel 46].
Kim ‘392 does not teach, and wherein the at least one channel includes a protrusion extending from the inner wall of the at least one channel into a flow path defined by the at least one channel.
Kim ‘302 teaches wherein the at least one channel includes a protrusion [between grooves 34, fig. 6] extending from the inner wall of the at least one channel into a flow path defined by the at least one channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protrusions of Kim ‘302 with the channels of Kim ‘392 in order to yield the predictable result of applying a vertical force to the slurry so that the slurry is not attached onto the surface of the channel [“the water WA flowing along the minute grooves 34 may apply a vertical force to the slurry S with respect to the surface of the slurry inflowing portions 32, so that the slurry S may not attach onto the surface of the slurry inflowing portions 32, e.g., onto the surface of the minute grooves 34 that are filled with water. Accordingly, the slurry S may not contact the surface of the slurry inflowing portions 32, e.g., the surface of the minute grooves 34, but may float above the water WA.”]
Re claim 2, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein each cross- sectional flow area decreases in the flow direction by 5% to 95%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cross-sectional flow area decreasing by 5 to 95 % since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, in this case, the general condition of a decreasing cross-sectional flow area, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Re claim 3, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein each channel has a maximum cross-sectional flow area of from 5 to 500 square millimeters (mm2) [width of 1.5 inches = 38.1 mm, “[t]he preferred size of the outlet opening 218 ranges between a width slightly larger than 0.5 inch and 1.5 inches”; height of 2 mm, “the channels 210 extend above the height of the workpiece, and in the preferred embodiment, the depth d is approximately 2 millimeters”; area = 76.2 square millimeters].
Re claim 5, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein for each channel, the cross-sectional flow area decreases continuously [see figs. 6, 10].
Re claim 8, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein each channel 46 extends in a respective linear direction [fig. 6].
Re claim 9, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein each channel 46 extends in a respective curvilinear direction [fig. 10].
Re claim 34, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein the protrusion forms an angle with the inner wall, and wherein the angle is from 1 to 90 degrees.
Re claim 35, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 28. Kim ‘392 further teaches wherein the inner wall surface of the retaining ring includes a first sidewall surface, a second sidewall surface, and an upper wall surface interconnecting the first sidewall surface and the second sidewall surface, and wherein the protrusion connects to only one of the first sidewall surface, the second sidewall surface, and the upper wall surface.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US 5,695,392 (Kim ‘392) in view of Kim US 8,858,302 B2 (Kim ‘302) and in further view of Hemfel Jr. US 5,597,346
Re claims 4, Kim ‘392 and Kim ‘302 teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1 but fail to teach wherein each channel has a length of from 0.5 to 50 millimeters (mm); wherein the channel has an inner channel wall formed with a curvature radius of from 5 to 50 millimeters; wherein the channel is formed with a diameter of from 2 to 20 millimeters; and wherein the channel makes an angle of about 90 degrees with the outer surface.
However, Hemfel Jr. teaches the length, the radius of curvature [fig. 5], and the diameter [aperture] of the channel are result effective variables to control the operational speed, resulting wafer throughput, and to improve results [“constructing slurry channels 58 in outer rim portion 56 of carrier 16, is possible to economically adapt an existing CMP system for improved operational speed and resulting wafer throughput, as well as to provide improved results for each polished semiconductor wafer 14. The aperture of channels 58 depends on the radius from center of curvature 64 to curved line 66, for example. This may vary according to the desired angle that slurry channel 58 is to assume. Thus for example, if it is desired that channel 58 have a greater length than appears in FIG. 5, radius 70 may be longer. On the other hand, if a greater angle is desired than appears in FIG. 5, radius 70 may be shorter and center of curvature 64 closer to outer rim portion 56”].
In view of the prior art teachings that the claimed features above are result effective variables, it has been held that optimizing said features, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21-27 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show wherein the at least one baffle comprises a plurality of baffles arranged periodically along a length of the channel in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claim 32-33 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show wherein the flow path has an upstream cross-sectional flow area immediately upstream of the protrusion and a downstream cross-sectional flow area immediately downstream of the protrusion in combination with the other claim limitation and wherein the upstream cross-sectional flow area and the downstream cross-sectional flow area are equal or wherein the protrusion is a first protrusion, and wherein the channel includes a second protrusion extending from the inner wall of the channel into the flow path, wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion are distanced from one another in a flow directions in combination with the other claim limitation.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723