DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 21, and 27 have been amended. Claims 9-20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 33, and 34 have been canceled. Claims 35-38 have been added. Claims 1-8, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, and 35-38 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-10, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the movable pad condition” should be “the movable pad conditioner” for clarity and to avoid an antecedent error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”, and Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), hereby “Ref. D”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1: Ref. A teaches a method, comprising: securing a substrate onto a substrate carrier and against a polishing pad,; dispensing, via a movable feeder of a polishing system, a slurry onto the polishing pad; moving an irradiation source to follow a movement; and performing a polishing process, with the slurry, on the substrate (Claims 1, 15, 17 of Ref. A).
Ref. A does not disclose wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad and the irradiation source to specifically follow a movement of the movable pad conditioner and irradiate a region surrounding the movable pad conditioner.
Ref. B in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Ref. A with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Ref. B for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. D teaches irradiating a region (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24) surrounding the movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiating region as taught by Ref. D for the purpose of having ample space to activate the slurry as it travels to the polishing position, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. C in an analogous polishing method (0014), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) to follow (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) and capable of following (“the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) a movement of the movable pad conditioner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Ref. A with the moving configuration as taught by Ref. C for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Regarding claim 2: Ref. A discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an oxidizability of the slurry via irradiating the slurry with an irradiation of the irradiation source (Claims 1 and 15 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 3: Ref. A discloses the method of claim 2, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises generating, via the irradiation source, a light with a wavelength from 200 nm to 500 nm (Claims 1-3 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 4: Ref. A discloses the method of claim 2, wherein: a wavelength of the irradiation is about 500 nm; and irradiating the slurry comprises increasing the oxidizability of the slurry by decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 200 nm (Claims 1-3 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 6: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the polishing process comprises: performing a first polishing process using the slurry; increasing an oxidizability of the slurry via the irradiation source; and performing a second polishing process using the slurry (Claims 1, 8, 15 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 7: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 2, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises controlling a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” Col. 9, lines 27-31 of Ref. C) between the irradiation source and the substrate carrier.
Regarding claim 8: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 2, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises determining an irradiation angle of the irradiation source with respect to the polishing pad (Claims 15 and 20 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 36: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 1, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7 of Ref. C) to follow (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051] of Ref. C) the movement of the movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1 of Ref. B) and irradiate the region (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24 of Ref. D) surrounding the movable pad condition and performing the polishing process are performed concurrently (“a slurry enhancement module disposed over the polishing pad and configured to enhance an oxidizability of the slurry, wherein the slurry enhancement module is configured to move and follow the feeder while the slurry is being dispensed” of Ref. A).
Claims 21, 24, 37, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, and Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 21: Ref. A teaches a method, comprising:
securing a substrate onto a substrate carrier;
providing a slurry towards a polishing pad;
transferring the substrate to the polishing pad,
moving the substrate carrier on the polishing pad to polish the substrate (Claims 1 and 15 of Ref. A); and
irradiating the slurry by an irradiation of an irradiation source at an irradiation acute angle (Claim 20 of Ref. A) with respect to the polishing pad, wherein
a wavelength of the irradiation is about 500 nm (Claims 2 and 3 of Ref. A); and
irradiating the slurry (Claim 2 of Ref. A) comprises increasing an oxidizability of the slurry by decreasing the wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 200 nm (Claims 2 and 3 of Ref. A).
Ref. A does not disclose wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad; moving the irradiation source to follow the movable pad conditioner across the polishing pad.
Ref. B in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Ref. A with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Ref. B for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. C in an analogous polishing method (0014), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) to follow (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.”; “the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) the similar configuration movable pad conditioner (150 Fig. 6) across the similar configuration polishing pad (120 Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Ref. A with the moving configuration as taught by Ref. C for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Regarding claim 24: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry comprises irradiating the slurry within a proximity of the substrate carrier (Claims 1 and 15 of Ref. A).
Regarding claim 37: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry further comprises following the substrate (movable pad conditioner 150 Fig. 6 of Ref. B) within a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Ref. C) of the irradiation source from the substrate.
But does not teach on moving the irradiation source comprises following specifically within a separation of between 5 mm and 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an irradiation source following the substrate within a separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “between 5 mm and 100 mm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 38: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry (Claims 1 and 15 of Ref. A) further comprises adjusting a vertical distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Ref. C) between the irradiation source and the polishing pad.
But does not teach adjusting a vertical distance specifically from 5 cm to about 40 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “adjust a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad from 5 cm to about 40 cm.”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “adjusting a vertical distance from 5 cm to about 40 cm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”, and Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), hereby “Ref. D”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 27: Ref. A teaches a method, comprising:
securing a substrate onto a substrate carrier;
transferring the substrate carrier onto a polishing pad,
providing, through a feeder outlet, a slurry towards the polishing pad;
moving the substrate carrier on the polishing pad to polish the substrate;
irradiating the slurry by an irradiation of an irradiation source to increase an oxidizability of the slurry (Claims 1 and 15 of Ref. A), wherein
a wavelength of an irradiation of the irradiation source is about 400 nm (Claims 2 and 3 of Ref. A): and
increasing an oxidizability of the slurry by decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 250 nm (Claims 2 and 3 of Ref. A); and
Ref. A does not disclose wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad;
irradiating the slurry comprises irradiating a region surrounding the movable pad conditioner and moving the irradiation source across the polishing pad in a horizontal direction to follow the movable pad conditioner, wherein the irradiation source is separate from the substrate carrier.
Ref. B in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Ref. A with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Ref. B for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. B also teaches wherein the irradiation source (129 Fig. 1) is separate from the substrate carrier (114 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Ref. A with the irradiation source separate from the substrate carrier orientation as taught by Ref. B for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. C in an analogous polishing method (0014), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) across the polishing pad in a horizontal direction to follow (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.”; “the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) the similar configuration movable pad conditioner (150 Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Ref. A with the moving configuration as taught by Ref. C for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Ref. D teaches wherein irradiating the slurry (218 Fig. 4) comprises irradiating a region (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24) surrounding the movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiating region as taught by Ref. D for the purpose of having ample space to activate the slurry as it travels to the polishing position, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Regarding claim 29: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 27, wherein irradiating the slurry comprises adjusting an irradiation angle (Claim 20 of Ref. A) with respect to the polishing pad.
Regarding claim 30: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Ref. C) comprises following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051] of Ref. C) the substrate within a distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Ref. C), but does not teach wherein a ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8.
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 ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8 which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 31: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Ref. C) comprises following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051] of Ref. C) the substrate within a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Ref. C) of the irradiation source.
But does not disclose a separation between 5 mm and 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an irradiation source following the substrate within a separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “between 5 mm and 100 mm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 32: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Ref. C) comprises adjusting a vertical distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Ref. C) of the irradiation source and the polishing pad.
But does not teach on adjusting a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad specifically from 3 cm to 20 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “adjust a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad from 3 cm to 20 cm.”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “adjusting a vertical distance from 3 cm to 20 cm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”, Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), hereby “Ref. D”, and Kodera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,695,601 A), hereby “Ref. E”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 5: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a wavelength of the irradiation source is about 500 nm, and decreasing the wavelength of the irradiation of the irradiation source to no less than about 200 nm based on the polishing rate (Claims 1-3 of Ref. A).
Ref. A does not disclose detecting a polishing rate of the polishing process.
Ref. E teaches detecting a polishing rate of the polishing process (“detect a polishing rate” Col. 3, lines 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing process of Ref. A with the detecting feature as taught by Ref. E for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the polishing process.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”, and Terry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,980,996 A), hereby “Ref. F”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 26: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 21, but does not teach wherein irradiating the slurry comprises controlling an irradiation power of the irradiation source from 0 Watts to 500 Watts.
Ref. F teaches controlling an irradiation power of the irradiation source from 0 Watts to 500 Watts (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation power of Ref. A with the power controlling feature as taught by Ref. F for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an adjustable irradiating source which further enables its flexibility of irradiating numerous types of slurries and having the ability of precisely choosing the optimum power amount.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11752592 B2, hereby “Ref. A”, in view of Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), hereby “Ref. B”, Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), hereby “Ref. C”, Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), hereby “Ref. D”, and Krebs (U.S. Pub. No. 20160113393 A1), hereby “Ref. G”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 35: Ref. A teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the irradiation source is affixed to an adjustable member (“The UV light source 250 is then aimed at the relative low point and activated, the intensity is increased, or both. In particular embodiments, the UV light source 250 is aimed at a relative low point in the polishing pad and activated at maximum intensity. In embodiments where the UV light source 250 can be aimed at a relative low point, the UV light source can be directed at an angle ranging from 0 degrees to 45 degrees.” [0052] of Ref. C), and wherein moving the irradiation source to follow the movable pad conditioner comprises following the movement of the movable pad conditioner with the adjustable member (“UV light tracking device” [0051] of Ref. C).
But does not teach the irradiation source is specifically affixed to an adjustable beam.
Ref. G teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (300 Fig. 7) is specifically affixed to an adjustable beam (200 Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the irradiation source of Ref. A with the adjustable beam as taught by Ref. G for the purpose of having the necessary structure to support and adjust the irradiation source as required.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, 30-32, 37, and 38 are 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.
Claims 4, 5, 21, and 27 recite: “no less than”, and nowhere in the specification is language supported. At best, paragraph [0030] discloses: “within an ultraviolet wavelength range (e.g., wavelengths from about 200 nm to about 450 nm, from about 200 nm to about 400 nm, or from about 250 nm to about 400 nm)”. “About” as defined by Merriam-Webster is: “reasonably close to”. “Reasonably close to” and “no less than”, based on common definitions, are not considered synonymous nor equal.
Paragraph [0029] discloses: “Irradiation 261 can be a short wavelength electromagnetic radiation, such as an ultraviolet light irradiation, an ultraviolet laser irradiation, a microwave irradiation, and an x-ray irradiation,”.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0030] further describes how the “the ultraviolet wavelength range is greater than the above-noted upper limits, irradiation 261 may damage polishing pad 202's chemical composition”. However, does not detail specifically how an under 200nm wavelength range would be detrimental to any part of the process. Microwaves are also outside the given ranges and similarly, criticality to the claimed ranges cannot be determined. For at least the reasons above, the limitation is new matter.
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 4, 5, 21, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, 37, and 38 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.
Claims 4, 5, 21, and 27 recite: “a wavelength of the irradiation is about 500 nm…about 200 nm”, and is unclear what encompasses “about”, as it could include a range above the given range. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed as “a wavelength of the irradiation is 500 nm…to no less than 200 nm”.
Claims 32, 37, and 38 and recite a range including “about”, and similar to claims 4, 5, 21, and 27, it is also unclear what encompasses “about”, as it could include a range above the given range. Similar to the claims 4, 5, 21, and 27, the ranges of claims 32, 37, and 38 have been construed without the “about”.
Claim 37, which depends on claim 21, recites: “wherein irradiating the slurry further comprises following the substrate”. Claim 21 recites: “the irradiation source to follow the movable pad conditioner”. It is unclear which member is being followed. Per paragraph 0041 of the specification, “In some embodiments, irradiation source 262 can be moved, via beam 264, by following the movement of outlet 210B, following the movement of substrate carrier 206, following the movement of substrate 211 or following the movement of conditioner 208 to respectively irradiate the proximity of outlet 210B, irradiate the proximity of substrate carrier 206, irradiate the proximity of substrate 211 or irradiate the proximity of conditioner 208”.
For examination purposes, and with the support of the specification, claim 37 has been construed following the “movable pad conditioner” consistent with claim 21 since there is no support for following both simultaneously.
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 1-3, 6-8, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Lu (U.S. Patent No. 7,052,374 B1), Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022), and Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Gotkis teaches a method, comprising: securing a substrate (202 Fig. 4) onto a substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4) and against a polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4), a movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4); dispensing (Col. 12, lines 9-16), via a feeder (219b Fig. 4) of a polishing system, a slurry (218 Fig. 4) onto the polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4); an irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32) and irradiate a region (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24) surrounding the movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4); and performing a polishing process, with the slurry (218 Fig. 4), on the substrate (202 Fig. 4).
But is silent on the feeder specifically being movable;
wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad; and
moving the irradiation source to follow a movement of the movable pad.
Lu in an analogous polishing system (“adjustable slurry dispensing device for use with a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus” Abstract) teaches a moveable feeder (100 Fig. 4; “translate”; “sweep” Col. 4, lines 50-58)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing method of Gotkis with moveable feeder as taught by Lu for the purpose of delivering the slurry to a wide variety of locations over the polishing pad to optimize the polishing process (Col. 4, lines 11-15 of Lu).
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Gotkis with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Kung et al. in an analogous polishing method (Col. 2, lines 32-40), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) capable of following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.”; “the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) a movement of the similar configuration movable pad (150 Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis with the moving configuration as taught by Kung et al. for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface.
Referring to Claim 2: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising increasing an oxidizability (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) of the slurry via irradiating the slurry with an irradiation of the irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32).
Referring to Claim 3: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein increasing the oxidizability (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) of the slurry (218 Fig. 4) comprises generating, via the irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32), but is silent on a light with a wavelength from 200 nm to 500 nm.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (129 Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031 and 0047), a light (129 Fig. 1) with a wavelength from 200 nm to 500 nm (“ultraviolet wavelength ranges (e.g., about 355 nm” Paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis with the wavelength as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the necessary wavelength for altering/ enhancing the polishing fluid.
Referring to Claim 6: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing the polishing process comprises: performing a first polishing process (“wetting the polishing pad 208” Col. 8, lines 32-37) using the slurry (218 Fig. 4); increasing an oxidizability (using lamp 220, Col. 8, lines 37-50) of the slurry via the irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32); and performing a second polishing process (“activated” Col. 9, lines 12-33) using the slurry (218 Fig. 4).
Referring to Claim 7: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34 of Gotkis) comprises controlling a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]of Kung et al.) between the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.) and the substrate carrier (130 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.).
Referring to Claim 8: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 2, but is silent on wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises determining an irradiation angle of the irradiation source with respect to the polishing pad.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises determining an irradiation angle (“angle of incidence of the beam” Paragraph 0051) of the irradiation source (128 Fig. 1) with respect to the polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the irradiation angle as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the irradiation source positioned in a manner which maximizes the light source’s coverage area.
Referring to Claim 36: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7 of Kung et al.) to follow the movement of the movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4 of Gotkis) and irradiate the region (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24) surrounding the movable pad condition and performing the polishing process (“to activate the slurry 218 as the slurry 218 is directed to the conditioning interface of the conditioning head 210 and the polishing head 208' and subsequently to the polishing interface of the polishing head 208' and the wafer 202” Col. 12, lines 12-16) are performed concurrently (“to activate the slurry 218 as the slurry 218 is directed to the conditioning interface of the conditioning head 210 and the polishing head 208'” Col. 12, lines 12-15).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Lu (U.S. Patent No. 7,052,374 B1), Kung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,551,936 B2), and Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), as applied above in claim 2, and in further view of Redfield (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0339397 A1)
Referring to Claim 4: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 2, wherein
irradiating the slurry comprises increasing an oxidizability (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) of the slurry (218 Fig. 4), but is silent on a wavelength of the irradiation is about 500 nm; and by decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 200 nm.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (129 Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031 and 0047), a light (129 Fig. 1) with a wavelength from 200 nm to 500 nm (“ultraviolet wavelength ranges (e.g., about 355 nm” Paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis with the wavelength as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the necessary wavelength for altering/ enhancing the polishing fluid.
Redfield in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation (“The apparatus can include different energy sources, e.g., different UV lights, to provide the different wavelengths or intensities. Alternatively, the same energy source can driven at different power levels to provide the different intensities.” [0087])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wavelength of the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the wavelength as taught by Redfield for the purpose of having the appropriate wavelength needed for efficiently oxidizing the slurry.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Lu (U.S. Patent No. 7,052,374 B1), and Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), and Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Kodera et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,695,601 A) and Iwano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0329370 A1).
Referring to Claim 5: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising: detecting a polishing rate of the polishing process; and adjusting a wavelength or a power of an irradiation of the irradiation source based on the polishing rate.
Kodera et al. teaches detecting a polishing rate of the polishing process (“detect a polishing rate” Col. 3, lines 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing process of Gotkis as modified with the detecting feature as taught by Kodera et al. for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the polishing process.
Iwano et al. in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches adjusting a wavelength or a power of an irradiation of the irradiation source based on the polishing rate (“The relationship between absorbance for light with a wavelength of 290 nm and polishing rate is shown in FIG. 3, and the relationship between absorbance for light with a wavelength of 400 nm and polishing rate is shown in FIG. 4.” [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wavelength and polishing rate of Gotkis as modified with the relationship between them as taught by Iwano et al. for the purpose of improving the polishing rate and absorbance of light ([0179 of Iwano et al.])
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Lu (U.S. Patent No. 7,052,374 B1), Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022), and Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), as applied above in claim 1, and in further view of Krebs (U.S. Pub. No. 20160113393 A1).
Referring to Claim 35: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the irradiation source is affixed to an adjustable member (“The UV light source 250 is then aimed at the relative low point and activated, the intensity is increased, or both. In particular embodiments, the UV light source 250 is aimed at a relative low point in the polishing pad and activated at maximum intensity. In embodiments where the UV light source 250 can be aimed at a relative low point, the UV light source can be directed at an angle ranging from 0 degrees to 45 degrees.” [0052]), and wherein moving the irradiation source to follow the movable pad conditioner comprises following the movement of the movable pad conditioner with the adjustable member (“UV light tracking device” [0051] of Kung).
But is silent on the irradiation source is specifically affixed to an adjustable beam.
Krebs teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (300 Fig. 7) is specifically affixed to an adjustable beam (200 Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the adjustable beam as taught by Krebs for the purpose of having the necessary structure to support and adjust the irradiation source as required.
Claims 21, 24, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022), Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), and Redfield (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0339397 A1).
Referring to Claim 21: Gotkis teaches a method, comprising:
securing a substrate (202 Fig. 4) onto a substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4);
providing a slurry (218 Fig. 4) towards a polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4);
transferring the substrate (202 Fig. 4) to the polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4), a movable pad (210 Fig. 4);
moving the substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4) on the polishing pad (206 Fig. 4) to polish the substrate (202 Fig. 4); and
irradiating the slurry (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) by an irradiation of an irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32)
and
irradiating the slurry comprises increasing an oxidizability (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) of the slurry.
But is silent on:
wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad;
while moving the irradiation source to follow the movable pad conditioner across the polishing pad at an irradiation acute angle with respect to the polishing; wherein
a wavelength of the irradiation is about 500 nm and by decreasing the wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 200 nm.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Gotkis with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Bajaj et al. also teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (129 Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031 and 0047 comprises controlling an irradiation wavelength of the irradiation source from no less than about 200 nm to about 500 nm (“ultraviolet wavelength ranges (e.g., about 355 nm” Paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the wavelength as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the necessary wavelength for altering/ enhancing the polishing fluid.
Redfield in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation (“The apparatus can include different energy sources, e.g., different UV lights, to provide the different wavelengths or intensities. Alternatively, the same energy source can driven at different power levels to provide the different intensities.” [0087])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wavelength of the irradiation source of Gotkis with the wavelength as taught by Redfield for the purpose of having the appropriate wavelength needed for efficiently oxidizing the slurry.
Kung et al. in an analogous polishing method ([0014]), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) capable of following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.”; “the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) the similar configuration movable pad conditioner (150 Fig. 6) across the similar configuration polishing pad (120 Fig. 6) at an irradiation acute angle (“the UV light source can be directed at an angle ranging from 0 degrees to 45 degrees.” [0052]) with respect to the polishing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis with the moving configuration as taught by Kung et al. for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface.
Referring to Claim 24: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry (218 Fig. 4) comprises irradiating the slurry within a proximity (shown in Fig. 4) of the substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4).
Referring to Claim 37: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry further comprises following the substrate (movable pad conditioner 150 Fig. 6) within a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Kung et al.) of the irradiation source.
But is silent on moving the irradiation source comprises following specifically within a separation of between 5 mm and 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an irradiation source following the substrate within a separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “between 5 mm and 100 mm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 38: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 21, wherein irradiating the slurry (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34 of Gotkis) further comprises adjusting a vertical distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Kung et al) between the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.) and the polishing pad.
But is silent on adjusting a vertical distance specifically from 5 cm to about 40 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “adjust a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad from 5 cm to about 40 cm.”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “adjusting a vertical distance from 5 cm to about 40 cm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1), and Redfield (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0339397 A1), as applied above in claim 21, and in further view of Terry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,980,996 A).
Referring to Claim 26: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 21, but is silent on wherein irradiating the slurry comprises controlling an irradiation power of the irradiation source from 0 Watts to 500 Watts.
Terry et al. teaches controlling an irradiation power of the irradiation source from 0 Watts to 500 Watts (Claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation power of Gotkis as modified with the power controlling feature as taught by Terry et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an adjustable irradiating source which further enables its flexibility of irradiating numerous types of slurries and having the ability of precisely choosing the optimum power amount.
Claims 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotkis (U.S. Patent No. 6,503,129 B1), Bajaj et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0273752 A1), Redfield (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0339397 A1), and Kung et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0039022 A1).
Referring to Claim 27: Gotkis teaches a method, comprising:
securing a substrate (202 Fig. 4) onto a substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4);
transferring the substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4) onto a polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4), a movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4);
providing, through a feeder outlet (219b Fig. 4), a slurry (218 Fig. 4) towards the polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4);
moving the substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4) on the polishing pad (208’ Fig. 4) to polish (Col. 12, lines 9-16) the substrate;
irradiating the slurry by an irradiation of an irradiation source (220 Fig. 4; “the lamp 220 may be an IR or a UV lamp” Col. 12, line 32) to increase an oxidizability (“activation of slurry” Col. 8, lines 27-34) of the slurry and irradiating the slurry comprises irradiating a region surrounding (“Although in this embodiment slurry 218 is activated after it has been guided onto the conditioning head 210, in a different embodiment, the supply of slurry 218 may be activated while slurry 218 is in the container 219a.” Col. 12, lines 21-24) the movable pad conditioner (210 Fig. 4), wherein the irradiation source (220 Fig. 4) is separate from the substrate carrier (206 Fig. 4).
But is silent on:
wherein a movable pad conditioner extends over a top surface of the polishing pad;
a wavelength of an irradiation of the irradiation source is about 400 nm: and increasing an oxidizability of the slurry by decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation to no less than about 250 nm; and
moving the irradiation source across the polishing pad in a horizontal direction to follow the movable pad conditioner.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method teaches wherein a similar configuration movable pad conditioner (126 Fig. 1) extends over a top surface of the similar configuration polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polishing system of Gotkis with the movable pad conditioner orientation as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having an alternate configuration of the polishing system, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Bajaj et al. also teaches a similar configuration irradiation source (129 Fig. 1; Paragraph 0031 and 0047 comprises controlling an irradiation wavelength of the irradiation source from no less than about 250 nm to about 400 nm (“ultraviolet wavelength ranges (e.g., about 355 nm” Paragraph 0047).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the wavelength as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the necessary wavelength for altering/ enhancing the polishing fluid.
Redfield in an analogous method (Abstract) and teaches decreasing a wavelength of the irradiation (“The apparatus can include different energy sources, e.g., different UV lights, to provide the different wavelengths or intensities. Alternatively, the same energy source can driven at different power levels to provide the different intensities.” [0087])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wavelength of the irradiation source of Gotkis with the wavelength as taught by Redfield for the purpose of having the appropriate wavelength needed for efficiently oxidizing the slurry.
Kung et al. in an analogous polishing method (Col. 2, lines 32-40), wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7) across the similar configuration polishing pad (120 Fig. 6) in a horizontal direction (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) capable of following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051]; “In other embodiments, the UV light source is dynamic, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051]) the similar configuration movable pad conditioner (150 Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis with the moving configuration as taught by Kung et al. for the purpose of ensuring the substrate is evenly exposed to the irradiation source and adequately treated throughout the surface .
Referring to Claim 29: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 27, but is silent on wherein irradiating the slurry comprises adjusting an irradiation angle with respect to the polishing pad.
Bajaj et al. in an analogous method, wherein increasing the oxidizability of the slurry comprises determining an irradiation angle (“angle of incidence of the beam” Paragraph 0051) of the irradiation source (128 Fig. 1) with respect to the polishing pad (108 Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the irradiation source of Gotkis as modified with the irradiation angle as taught by Bajaj et al. for the purpose of having the irradiation source positioned in a manner which maximizes the light source’s coverage area.
Referring to Claim 30: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.) comprises following (“In some embodiments, the UV light source includes a UV light tracking device.” [0051] of Kung et al.) the substrate (160 Fig. 1 of Kung et al.) within a distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Kung et al.), but is silent on wherein a ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8.
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 ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a ratio between the distance and a diameter of the polishing pad is from 0.01 to 0.8 which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 31: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 6 and 7 of Kung et al.) comprises following the substrate (160 Fig. 1 of Kung et al.) within a separation (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Kung et al.) of the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.).
But is silent on moving the irradiation source comprises following the substrate specifically within a separation of the irradiation source from the substrate between 5 mm and 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an irradiation source following the substrate within a separation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “between 5 mm and 100 mm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to Claim 32: Gotkis as modified teaches the method of claim 27, wherein moving the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.) comprises adjusting a vertical distance (“the UV light source is dynamic, meaning that the area at which the UV light is aimed, an angle at which the UV light is transmitted, or the position of the UV light can be changed, such that a specific area of the polishing pad can be targeted.” [0051] of Kung et al) of the irradiation source (250 Figs. 5A and 5B of Kung et al.).
But is silent on adjusting a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad specifically from 3 cm to 20 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to “adjust a vertical distance of the irradiation source and the polishing pad from 3 cm to 20 cm.”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is “adjusting a vertical distance from 3 cm to 20 cm” which achieves the recognized result of irradiating the slurry, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights