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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. 0044, line 4, “Fig. 4A” should read “Fig. 3A”.
In para. 0044, line 5, “centerpoint 134” should read “centerpoint 126”.
In para. 0051, line 7, “Relative motion can between” should read “Relative motion between”.
In para. 0056, lines 7-8, the following sentence is incoherent: “a detector of in-situ monitoring system into contact with the face of the substrate”.
In para. 0058, line 5, “is be” should read “is to be”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. The following should be corrected:
Reference character 142 has been used to designate both the notch in Fig. 2 and what appears to be a light beam in Fig. 1.
Reference character 160 has been used to designate both the polishing roller in Fig. 1 and the annular region in Fig. 7A and 8A.
Reference character 126 has been used to designate both the center point of the roller in Fig. 3A and the center point of the disk-shaped polishing pad in Fig. 7A.
Reference character 256 has been used to designate both the axis in Fig. 7B and the axis in Fig. 8B (The latter should be labeled 268).
Reference character 119’ has been used to designate both the circular polishing layer in Fig. 7A-7B and the arc-shaped polishing pad in Fig. 8B (The latter should be labeled 119”)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because lead lines must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated, and lead lines must not cross each other. The following should be corrected:
The lead line for reference character 38 in Fig. 3B must extend to the “spiral path” feature.
The lead lines for reference characters 187 and 152 in Fig. 5-6 must not cross.
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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-12, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “a receive” should read “receive” for grammar.
In claim 1, line 6, “the first axis” should read “the primary axis” for clarity.
In claim 1, line 16, “a substrate” should read “the substrate” to avoid double inclusion (MPEP 2173.05(o) Double Inclusion).
In claim 1, the following items should be corrected to avoid double inclusion (MPEP 2173.05(o) Double Inclusion):
In line 18, “a polishing liquid” should read “the polishing liquid”.
In line 18, “an interface” should read “the interface”.
In line 20, “a detector” should read “the detector”.
In line 20, “an in-situ monitoring system” should read “the in-situ monitoring system”.
In line 25, “a signal” should read “the signal”.
In claim 1, line 16-17, “a cylindrical polishing surface having a primary axis of rotation parallel to the polishing surface” should read “a cylindrical polishing surface of the cylindrical polishing pad having the primary axis of rotation parallel to the plane”.
In claim 2, line 1, “the first axis” should read “the primary axis” for clarity.
In claim 4, line 2, “to the plane of the polishing surface” should read “to the plane”.
In claim 11, line 9, “a front face” should read “the face” to avoid double inclusion.
In claim 12, line 1, “cylindrical polishing surface” should read “the cylindrical polishing surface”.
In claim 15, line 2, examiner recommends amending “a plane of the polishing surface” to “the face of the substrate”.
In claim 20, line 2, “the axis” should read “the primary axis” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10, 17-18, and 20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an in-situ monitoring system electrically coupled to a detector and configured to receive a signal from the detector” is unclear. The instant specification discloses that the detector is part of the in-situ monitoring system (Para. 0009, “The in-situ optical monitoring system includes a light source, a detector, and an optically transmissive polymer window”). Therefore, the limitation is incoherent. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be read as “an in-situ monitoring system comprising a detector and configured to generate a signal”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “bringing a detector of an in-situ monitoring system into contact with the surface of the substrate” is unclear. The instant specification discloses that “the in-situ optical monitoring system includes a light source, a detector, and an optically transmissive polymer window” (Para. 0009). Referring to Fig. 1 of the instant specification, the detector (184) does not contact the surface of the substrate. Therefore, the meets and bounds are unclear. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “bringing the in-situ monitoring system into contact with the surface of the substrate”.
Regarding claim 3, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the first axis is substantially perpendicular to a segment…” has been rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, “substantially perpendicular” will be read as “perpendicular”.
Regarding claim 17, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the primary axis is substantially perpendicular to a segment…” has been rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, “substantially perpendicular” will be read as “perpendicular”.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the detected polishing criteria” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “a detected polishing criteria”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “the roller” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “the cylindrical polishing surface”.
Claims 2 and 4-10 are rejected due to their dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1-4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (US 20180236630 A1), hereinafter Yasuda.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda discloses (Fig. 1-2, 21A-22A) a chemical mechanical polishing system (1000), comprising: a support (400) configured to receive and hold a substrate (Wf) in a plane (See Fig. 1); a rotary drum (504) having a cylindrical surface (The outer surface of guide pin 508) to hold a cylindrical polishing pad (502; See Fig. 2), the rotary drum having a primary axis of rotation (Defined by rotary shaft 510; See annotated Fig. 2) parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotary drum (See annotated Fig. 2) and parallel to the plane (Para. 0113, “the axis of rotation of the polishing pad 502 is parallel to the surface of the substrate Wf”); a first actuator to rotate the drum about the primary axis (Para. 0112, “The holding arm 600 includes a first drive mechanism for imparting… rotary motion [to] the polishing pad 502 in the partial polisher 1000 in FIG. 1. The first drive mechanism can therefore be formed, for example, of a typical motor”); a second actuator (602) to bring the polishing pad on the rotary drum into contact with the substrate (Para. 0115, “The vertical drive mechanism 602 also functions as a pressing mechanism for pressing the polishing pad 502 against the substrate Wf when the substrate Wf is partially polished”); a port (702) for dispensing a polishing liquid to an interface between the polishing pad and the substrate (Para. 0117, “The polishing liquid can therefore be efficiently supplied only to a polished region on the substrate Wf via the polishing liquid supply nozzle 702); an in-situ monitoring system comprising a detector and configured to generate a signal (Para. 0122, “In an embodiment, the partial polisher 1000 may include, although not shown in FIG. 1 or 3, a state detecting section 420 (see FIGS. 22A and 23B, for example) for detecting the state of the polished surface of the substrate Wf. The state detecting section can be a Wet-ITM (in-line thickness monitor) 420 by way of example. The Wet-ITM 420 can detect (measure) the distribution of the thickness of a film formed on the substrate Wf (or distribution of information on film thickness) by moving a noncontact detection head, which is present above the substrate Wf, across the entire surface of the substrate Wf… a detected output is the film thickness or a signal corresponding to the film thickness”); and a controller (900), comprising at least one processor, and a data store coupled to the at least one processor having instructions stored thereon (Para. 0121, “The controller 900 can be configured by installing a predetermined program in a typical computer including a storage device, a CPU, an input/output mechanism, and other components”) which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising bringing a surface of the substrate into contact with a cylindrical polishing surface of the cylindrical polishing pad having the primary axis of rotation parallel to the plane (Para. 0125, “the controller 900 can cause the drive mechanism that drives the stage 400 to cause the substrate Wf to make angularly pivotal motion so that the polishing amount in each of the portions Wf-1, where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker, is greater than the polishing amount in the other portion Wf-2”), supplying a polishing liquid to an interface between the polishing pad and the substrate (Para. 0148, “The polishing recipe is formed of a plurality of process steps. Parameters in the steps, for example, in the partial polisher 1000 include… the selection and flow rate of the polishing pad processing liquid”), causing relative motion between the substrate and the polishing surface, the relative motion including at least rotating the polishing surface about the primary axis while pressing the polishing surface against a front face of the substrate (Para. 0126, “In a case where both Wf-1 and Wf-2 are polished to achieve a desired film thickness, the number of revolutions of the polishing head 500 can be controlled to be greater in Wf-1 than in Wf-2. Further, the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater in Wf-1 than in Wf-2”), monitoring a signal from the in-situ monitoring system (Para. 0123, “a signal detected by the state detecting section 420 is processed by the controller 900”); and modifying a polishing parameter based on the signal (Para. 0125, “the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that… where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater”).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
However, Yasuda fails to disclose in the primary embodiment bringing the in-situ monitoring system into contact with the surface of the substrate.
Nevertheless, Yasuda suggests that a contact-type detection method can be used instead of the Wet-ITM detector for measuring the film-thickness of the substrate, for example, a method using an electric probe (Para. 0122, “as the state detecting section 420, a detector based on an arbitrary method other than the Wet-ITM can instead be used. For example… a contact-type detection method may be employed. As the contact-type detection method, for example, a detection head including a probe through which current can flow is prepared, and the surface of the substrate Wf is scanned with the probe which is in contact with the substrate Wf and through which current is caused to flow. Electrical resistance detection that allows detection of a membrane resistance distribution can thus be employed… In each of the contact-type and noncontact-type detection methods, a detected output is the film thickness or a signal corresponding to the film thickness”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the Wet-ITM detector of Yasuda with a contact-type detection method (e.g., a method using an electric probe), as suggested by Yasuda, to achieve the predictable result of measuring a film-thickness of the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the support is rotatable about a second axis (400A; Para. 0110, “The stage 400 of the partial polisher 1000… is configured to be rotatable and/or angularly pivotable around an axis of rotation 400A”). Therefore, Yasuda discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the primary axis is parallel to a segment extending from the second axis to a centerpoint of the drum (In particular, when the polishing pad has been moved in the y direction, see Fig. 1; Para. 0016, “the partial polisher 1000 shown in FIG. 1 includes a lateral drive mechanism 620 for moving the holding arm 600 in the lateral direction (direction y in FIG. 1)”).
However, Yasuda fails to disclose wherein the primary axis is perpendicular to the segment extending from the second axis to the centerpoint of the drum.
Nevertheless, Yasuda suggests (Fig. 14) an embodiment wherein “the polishing pad 502 in FIG. 14 is configured to be capable of rotary motion and/or angularly pivotal motion around the point where the polishing pad 502 is in contact with the substrate Wf” (Para. 0140). In this case, the primary axis is capable of being positioned perpendicular to the segment extending from the second axis to the centerpoint of the drum (e.g., momentarily during the rotary motion, or fixedly after the angularly pivotal motion; See MPEP 2144 (II) Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the cylindrical polishing pad of Yasuda to be capable of rotary and angularly pivotal motion around the point where the cylindrical polishing pad contacts the substrate, as suggested by Yasuda, to achieve the predictable result of polishing the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the relative motion further comprises moving the polishing surface parallel to the plane of the polishing surface (Para. 0112, “In the portion where the polishing pad 502 is in contact with the substrate Wf, since the polishing pad 502 moves in parallel to the surface of the substrate Wf (direction of tangent to polishing pad 502, direction x in FIG. 1), the “first motion direction,” which is actually the direction of rotary motion of the polishing pad 502, can be considered as the direction of a fixed straight line”). Therefore, Yasuda discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine a thickness of a top-most layer of the face of the substrate, or a thickness profile of the top-most layer of the face of the substrate (Para. 0122, “The state detecting section [420] … can detect (measure) the distribution of the thickness of a film formed on the substrate Wf (or distribution of information on film thickness) … In each of the contact-type and noncontact-type detection methods, a detected output is the film thickness or a signal corresponding to the film thickness; Para. 0123, “a signal detected by the state detecting section 420 is processed by the controller 900”). Therefore, Yasuda discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the polishing parameter is a polishing surface pressure, lateral position, or polishing endpoint (Para. 0125, “the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that… where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater”). Therefore, Yasuda discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Frost (US 6347977 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda fails to disclose wherein the drum has a length greater than its diameter.
Nevertheless, Yasuda suggests that the polishing pad may have a columnar shape (Para. 0131, “FIG. 5 shows an example of the polishing pad 502 usable in the partial polishers 1000 shown in FIGS. 1 and 3… the polishing pad 502 in FIG. 5 has a columnar shape”). Frost teaches (Fig. 2A, 2C-7) a CMP system (200) with a polishing roller (210) having a rotary drum (222 in Fig. 3) with a cylindrical surface to hold a cylindrical polishing pad (220 in Fig. 3; Col. 5, “the roller 210 has a process surface 220 (as shown in FIG. 3) which can be a pad, a brush, or any other suitable material that will work for a desired CMP operation, buffing or cleaning”), wherein the drum has a length greater than its diameter (Fig. 2A), and wherein the polishing roller is suitable for partial polishing (i.e. location specific polishing; Col. 6, “As best illustrated in FIG. 2C, the wafer 202 which is under a rotation 217, has a roller contact region 212a. The roller contact region 212a is defined between the contact surface outlines 212. The contact surface outlines 212 are shown in both a center region of the wafer and an edge region of the wafer to illustrate that the roller is moved to different positions over the wafer 202”; Col. 10, “The roller may move from the center region to the outer region, or the roller may move from the outer region to the center region, or the roller may move in any direction across any region of the wafer surface as the requirements of the process dictate. This may be needed when some known topographical variations must be removed”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cylindrical polishing pad and rotary drum of Yasuda with a cylindrical polishing pad and rotary drum having a length greater than its diameter, as taught by Frost, to achieve the predictable result of polishing an area of the substrate.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oguri et al. (US 6409576 B1), hereinafter Oguri.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses a detector (408) for detecting a notch formed as part of the outer circumference of the substrate to determine a position of the substrate (Para. 0109, “The partial polisher 1000 includes a detection section 408. The detection section 408 is intended to detect the position of the substrate Wf placed on the stage 400. For example, the detection section 408 can detect a notch or an orientation flat formed as part of the substrate Wf or the outer circumference of the substrate to detect the position of the substrate Wf on the stage 400”).
However, Yasuda fails to disclose what the detector is or how it works. In particular, Yasuda fails to disclose wherein the detector receives a reflected signal from an edge portion of the substrate.
Nevertheless, Oguri teaches (Fig. 3A) a detector (photosensor 60) for detecting a notch (1A) formed in the outer circumferential edge of a substrate (1; Col. 8, “The secondary cleaning machine 8 also has a photosensor 60 positioned radially outwardly of the spinning chuck 41 for detecting the notch 1a formed in the outer circumferential edge of the semiconductor substrate 1”), wherein the detector has “a light-detecting element (not shown) for detecting light reflected from the… substrate” (Col. 8) to sense the presence of the notch (Col. 9, “When the notch 1a is not in the detecting position, the light emitted from the light-emitting element is reflected by the outer circumferential edge of the semiconductor substrate 1 and detected by the light-detecting element. When the notch 1a passes through the detecting position, the light emitted from the light-emitting element travels through the notch 1a. Thus, the light is not reflected by the outer circumferential edge of the semiconductor substrate 1, and is not detected by the light-detecting element. The light-detecting element converts the absence of reflected light into an electric signal that is transmitted to the controller 61”).
Accordingly, because Yasuda fails to disclose what the detector is or how it works, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a photosensor, as taught by Oguri, as the detector of Yasuda, as it has been held as obvious to utilize art with a recognized suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07, in particular Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp. [Fed. Cir. 1988]; In this case, a photosensor has been recognized as suitable for the intended purpose of detecting a notch formed in the outer circumferential edge of a substrate).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses determining an angular orientation of the substrate based on the [position of the notch] (Para. 0125, Referring to Fig. 21A, “the controller 900 can grasp the position of each of the portions Wf-1, where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker, with respect to a notch, an orientation flat, or a laser marker on the substrate Wf and use the drive mechanism that drives the stage 400 to cause the substrate Wf to make angularly pivotal motion in such a way that the position falls within the range over which the polishing head 500 swings.”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Oguri discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses modifying a polishing parameter, e.g., the position of the polishing pad, based on the [position of the notch] (Para. 0109, “Using the position of the notch or the orientation flat as a reference allows identification of an arbitrary point on the substrate Wf, allowing partial polishing of a desired region. Further, since information on the position of the outer circumference of the substrate provides information on the position of the substrate Wf on the stage 400 (amount of shift with respect to ideal position, for example), the position to which a polishing pad 502 is moved may be corrected by a controller 900 based on the information.”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Oguri discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20150332943 A1), hereinafter Kobayashi, and Birang et al. (US 5964643 A), hereinafter Birang.
Regarding claim 11, Yasuda discloses (Fig. 1-2, 21A-22A) a method of polishing, comprising: bringing a face of a substrate (Wf) into contact with a cylindrical polishing surface (502) having a primary axis of rotation (Defined by rotary shaft 510; See annotated Fig. 2) parallel to a longitudinal axis of the rotary drum (See annotated Fig. 2) and parallel to the plane (Para. 0113, “the axis of rotation of the polishing pad 502 is parallel to the surface of the substrate Wf”; See Fig. 1); supplying a polishing liquid to an interface between the polishing pad and the substrate (Para. 0117, “The polishing liquid can therefore be efficiently supplied only to a polished region on the substrate Wf via the polishing liquid supply nozzle 702); causing relative motion between the substrate and the polishing surface, the relative motion including at least rotating the polishing surface about the primary axis while pressing the polishing surface against the face of the substrate (Para. 0126, “In a case where both Wf-1 and Wf-2 are polished to achieve a desired film thickness, the number of revolutions of the polishing head 500 can be controlled to be greater in Wf-1 than in Wf-2. Further, the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater in Wf-1 than in Wf-2”); monitoring a signal (Para. 0123, “a signal detected by [a] state detecting section 420 is processed by the controller 900”) from an in-situ monitoring system (420; Para. 0122, “The state detecting section can be a Wet-ITM (in-line thickness monitor) 420 by way of example. The Wet-ITM 420 can detect (measure) the distribution of the thickness of a film formed on the substrate Wf”); and modifying a polishing parameter based on the signal (Para. 0125, “the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that… where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater”).
However, Yasuda fails to disclose bringing an optically transmissive polymer window of an in-situ optical monitoring system into contact with the face of the substrate.
Nevertheless, Kobata does suggest that the Wet-ITM detector can be substituted with alternate detection methods, for example, “a contactless detection method such as… optical methods, can be adopted, and also a contact detection method may be adopted” (Para. 0208).
Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 25) an in-situ optical monitoring system (13A) for measuring the film-thickness of a substrate (W; Para. 0064, 13A is “an optical film-thickness measuring head”), wherein the in-situ optical monitoring system includes an optically transmissive window (45A) that contacts a surface of the substrate (W) during polishing (See Fig. 25). Kobayashi fails to teach wherein the optically transmissive window is an optically transmissive polymer window.
Nevertheless, Birang teaches (Fig. 3C) a similar in-situ optical monitoring system (32; Abstract) with an optically transmissive polymer window (42; Col. 9, “plug 42, which functions as the window for the laser beam, is made of a polyurethane material which lacks the grooving (or open-cell structure) of the surrounding pad material, and is devoid of the additives which inhibit transmissiveness. Accordingly, the attenuation of the laser beam 34 through the plug 42 is minimized.”, polyurethane is a type of polymer) that is configured to contact a surface of a substrate during polishing (14; Col. 9, “the pad 18 is used as the window in the alternate embodiment of FIG. 3B, and is designed to be in contact with the wafer 14… in FIG. 3C… the typical pad material in the region overlying the platen hole 30 has been replaced with a solid polyurethane plug 42”) such that “there is no appreciable gap [between the window and the substrate]. Therefore, very little of [a] slurry 40 is present to cause [a] detrimental scattering of [a light] beam” (Col. 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the detector of Kobata with an optical contact detection method, as suggested by Kobata, such as an in-situ optical monitoring system including an optically transmissive window that contacts a surface of the substrate, as taught by Kobayashi, to achieve the predictable result of measuring the film-thickness of the substrate. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optically transmissive window of Kobata – as modified by Kobayashi – to be formed from polyurethane (a type of polymer), as taught by Birang, as it has been held as obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See MPEP 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein ends of the cylindrical polishing surface are spaced radially inward of an edge of the substrate (See Fig. 1). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses that the distance between opposing ends of the cylindrical polishing surface can range from 1 to 10mm (Para. 0113, “any value of the thickness of the polishing pad 502 ranging from about 1 to 10 mm may be used”), therefore it is possible for both of the opposing ends to be within 40mm of the edge of the substrate. Furthermore, Yasuda discloses that the cylindrical polishing surface is moved over the regions where the film thickness is greater (Para. 0125, “For example, the controller 900 can grasp the position of each of the portions Wf-1, where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… to cause the substrate Wf to make angularly pivotal motion in such a way that the position falls within the range over which the polishing head 500 swings”), wherein such regions “are randomly formed on the processed surface of the substrate Wf” (Para. 0125; e.g., See regions Wf-1 in Fig. 21A where the film-thickness is greater). Consequentially, it is clear that the cylindrical polishing surface (and thereby the opposing ends of the cylindrical polishing surface) is to be positioned within 40mm of the edge of the substrate when the film-thickness in that region needs to be reduced. Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the relative motion further comprises moving the polishing surface parallel to the face of the substrate (Para. 0112, “In the portion where the polishing pad 502 is in contact with the substrate Wf, since the polishing pad 502 moves in parallel to the surface of the substrate Wf (direction of tangent to polishing pad 502, direction x in FIG. 1), the “first motion direction,” which is actually the direction of rotary motion of the polishing pad 502, can be considered as the direction of a fixed straight line”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses rotating the substrate about a second axis (400A; Para. 0110, “The stage 400 of the partial polisher 1000… is configured to be rotatable and/or angularly pivotable around an axis of rotation 400A”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the primary axis is perpendicular to a segment (See annotated Fig. 1) extending from a second axis (See annotated Fig. 1; The axis of the vertical drive mechanism 602) to a centerpoint of the cylindrical polishing surface. Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
511
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Yasuda)
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein a detected polishing criteria comprises a thickness of a top-most layer of the substrate, or a thickness profile of the top-most layer of the substrate (Para. 0122, “In each of the contact-type and noncontact-type detection methods, a detected output is the film thickness or a signal corresponding to the film thickness); Para. 0125, “the polishing amount in each of the portions Wf-1, where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker, is greater than the polishing amount in the other portion Wf-2”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the polishing parameter is a polishing surface pressure, lateral position, or polishing endpoint (Para. 0125, “the controller 900 can control the polishing head 500 in such a way that… where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… the force exerted by the polishing pad 502 is greater”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda discloses wherein the polishing parameter includes a rotation rate of the cylindrical polishing surface or an angle of the primary axis relative to a radius of the substrate (Para. 0125, “where the film on the substrate Wf is thicker… the number of revolutions of the polishing head 500 is greater”). Therefore, the combination of Yasuda with Kobayashi and Birang discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda in view of Kobayashi and Birang, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Frost.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Yasuda as modified by Kobayashi and Birang fails to disclose wherein the cylindrical polishing surface extends across an edge of the substrate.
Nevertheless, Yasuda suggests that the polishing pad may have a columnar shape (Para. 0131, “FIG. 5 shows an example of the polishing pad 502 usable in the partial polishers 1000 shown in FIGS. 1 and 3… the polishing pad 502 in FIG. 5 has a columnar shape”). Frost teaches (Fig. 2A, 2C-7) a CMP system (200) with a polishing roller (210) with a cylindrical polishing surface (220 in Fig. 3; Col. 5, “the roller 210 has a process surface 220 (as shown in FIG. 3) which can be a pad, a brush, or any other suitable material that will work for a desired CMP operation, buffing or cleaning”), wherein the cylindrical polishing surface extends across an edge of the substrate (Fig. 2A; In particular, refer to the position of the roller in Fig. 4A, or when it is contacting the region 212A of Fig. 2C), and wherein the polishing roller is suitable for partial polishing (i.e. location specific polishing; Col. 6, “As best illustrated in FIG. 2C, the wafer 202 which is under a rotation 217, has a roller contact region 212a. The roller contact region 212a is defined between the contact surface outlines 212. The contact surface outlines 212 are shown in both a center region of the wafer and an edge region of the wafer to illustrate that the roller is moved to different positions over the wafer 202”; Col. 10, “The roller may move from the center region to the outer region, or the roller may move from the outer region to the center region, or the roller may move in any direction across any region of the wafer surface as the requirements of the process dictate. This may be needed when some known topographical variations must be removed”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the cylindrical polishing pad and rotary drum of Yasuda with a cylindrical polishing pad and rotary drum having a columnar shape, as taught by Frost, to achieve the predictable result of polishing an area of the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hirose et al. (US 5643056 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAVINO ROJAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/SAVINO ROJAS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723