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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites “multiple conditioners”, but claim 1 recites “a conditioner”. Applicant’s specification does not support using a single conditioner and multiple conditioners in the same embodiment as Applicant’s specification only supports using either a single conditioner or multiple conditioners (see 0013 and 0034 of Applicant’s specification). Examiner finds that Applicant is mixing embodiments in claim 22 and therefore examiner is unable to examine claim 22 as it is unclear which embodiment is attempting to be claimed. Examiner notes that if claim 22 were to be rewritten in an independent form to specifically only claim using multiple conditioners, then claim 22 would be considered drawn to another embodiment and would be withdrawn from consideration as it is not the originally presented embodiment (see 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP 821.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 8-13, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20050260924), hereinafter Wu, in view of Chen et al. (US20150170978), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method of conditioning a polishing pad comprising: conditioning the polishing pad (Fig. 2 step 251, 0035 and 0041, where the conditioning of step 251 is similar to that of step 211 (see 0041)) using a conditioner (Fig. 1A element 140); tracking a number of iterations of the conditioning of the polishing pad (Fig. 2 step 271, 0043, where replacing the polishing pad after "predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means" means that the number of iterations of the conditioning of the polishing pad is being tracked); outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the number of iterations reaching an iteration limit (Fig. 2 the signal sent at step 275, 0043, "Determination 271 can be machine-implemented so that replacement automatically to occurs after… a predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means (140) has been made" where the replacement being automatic means that a signal is output for replacing the polishing pad after reaching the iteration limit); and repeating the conditioning in response to the number of iterations failing to reach the iteration limit (0043, where performing step 280 corresponds to repeating the conditioning in response to the number of iterations failing to reach the iteration limit).
Wu fails to disclose detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning; and repeating the conditioning in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range.
Chen is also concerned with a method of conditioning a polishing pad and teaches detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning (Fig. 6, steps (in sequential order) 202, 204, and 206); and repeating the conditioning in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range (Fig. 6 steps (in sequential order) 308, 310, and 314, 0046-0047). It 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 to modify the method of Wu to include detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning; and repeating the conditioning in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range, as taught by Chen, because Chen teaches that detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning and repeating the conditioning in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range improves the "quality of post CMP thickness control" (0062).
Regarding claim 2, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses beginning a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Wu, Fig. 2 steps (in sequential order) 255, 260, and 261; 0027, 0041-0042, and claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses stopping the CMP process in response to the number of iterations reaching the iteration limit (Wu, Fig. 2 step 275, 0043, where the CMP process is temporarily stopped).
Regarding claim 5, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses conditioning the polishing pad comprises translating the conditioner across the polishing pad (Wu, 0029, where "sweeping" corresponds to translating).
Regarding claim 8, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses detecting the roughness of the polishing pad comprises detecting the roughness of the polishing pad at a plurality of locations on the polishing pad (Chen, 0030, where a "surface scan" corresponds to detecting the roughness of the polishing pad at a plurality of locations on the polishing pad).
Regarding claim 9, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the iteration limit ranges from 3 to 5. Wu, as modified, discloses that there is an iteration limit, but is silent to the specific number of iterations or a relative range for the number of iterations to fall within. In other words, Wu, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose (a) definite values the iteration limit is to possess/range between is 3 to 5. The number of iterations for the iteration limit of conditioning the polishing pad is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that aging (i.e. reduction of efficacy) of the polishing pad is directly proportional to the number of iterations of conditioning the polishing pad, as disclosed by Wu, as modified, (Wu, 0043). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that there is an iteration limit, was disclosed in the prior art by Wu, as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the iteration limit disclosed by Wu, as modified, to be 3 to 5 based on the material of the polishing pad, the material of the conditioning pad, the amount of time and the amount of material removed from the polishing pad for each conditioning process. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for the claimed iteration limit range in the specification as paragraph 0034 of Applicant's specification states that the iteration limit "ranges from about 3 to about 5 iterations" which means that an iteration limit outside of the 3 to 5 range is possible.
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a method of conditioning a polishing pad comprising: tracking a number of iterations of conditioning of the polishing pad (Fig. 6 step 271, 0043, where replacing the polishing pad after "predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means" means that the number of iterations of the conditioning of the polishing pad is being tracked); determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit (Fig. 2 step 271, 0043); and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the number of iterations reaching an iteration limit (Fig. 2 the signal sent at step 275, 0043, "Determination 271 can be machine-implemented so that replacement automatically to occurs after… a predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means (140) has been made" where the replacement being automatic means that a signal is output for replacing the polishing pad after reaching the iteration limit).
Wu fails to disclose detecting a roughness of the polishing pad; determining whether the detected roughness satisfies a roughness threshold; determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit is in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold; and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness failing to satisfy the roughness threshold.
Chen is also concerned with a method of conditioning a polishing pad and teaches detecting a roughness of the polishing pad (Fig. 6, steps (in sequential order) 202, 204, and 206); determining whether the detected roughness satisfies a roughness threshold (Fig. 6 steps (in sequential order) 308 and 310); and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness failing to satisfy the roughness threshold (Fig. 6 step 310, 0046-0048). It 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 to modify the method of Wu to include detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning; and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad failing to satisfy the roughness threshold, as taught by Chen, because Chen teaches that detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range improves the "quality of post CMP thickness control" (0062).
Wu, as modified, then yields determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit (Wu, Fig. 2 step 271, 0043) in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold (Chen, Fig. 3, steps (in sequential order) 308 and 310, where determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold would take place directly after step 251 disclosed in Wu, which is before step 271 and therefore the determining of the number of iterations occurs in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold as step 251 occurs prior to step 271 and step 251 must be completed before performing step 271).
Regarding claim 11, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses performing a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process (Wu, Fig. 2 steps (in sequential order) 255, 260, and 261; 0027, 0041-0042, and claim 1) in response to the detected roughness satisfying the roughness threshold (Chen, Fig. 6, steps (in sequential order) 310 and 312).
Regarding claim 12, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses performing the CMP process comprises performing the CMP process regardless of the number of iterations (Wu, Fig. 2, 0043, where because the process is automated, even if the number of iterations surpasses the iteration limit, the process simply continues until the CMP process is performed again).
Regarding claim 13, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses
Regarding claim 16, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses conditioning the polishing pad (Wu, Fig. 2 step 251, 0035 and 0041, where the conditioning of step 251 is similar to that of step 211 (see 0041)) using a conditioner (Wu, Fig. 1A element 140).
Regarding claim 17, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further discloses stopping the CMP process in response to the number of iterations being equal to or greater than the iteration limit (Wu, Fig. 2 step 275, 0043, where the CMP process is temporarily stopped) and the detected roughness failing to satisfy the roughness threshold (Chen, Fig. 6 steps (in sequential order) 310 and 312, 0047).
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses a system for controlling a polishing pad, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 1A element 180, 0030) configured to store instructions thereon (0030); and a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions (0030, where the “computer programs 185…cause the computer 180 to carry out operations described herein” corresponds to a processor connected to the non-transitory computer readable medium configured to execute the instructions) for: tracking a number of iterations of conditioning of the polishing pad (Fig. 6 step 271, 0043, where replacing the polishing pad after "predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means" means that the number of iterations of the conditioning of the polishing pad is being tracked); determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit (Fig. 2 step 271, 0043); and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the number of iterations reaching an iteration limit (Fig. 2 the signal sent at step 275, 0043, "Determination 271 can be machine-implemented so that replacement automatically to occurs after… a predefined number of sweep by the conditioner means (140) has been made" where the replacement being automatic means that a signal is output for replacing the polishing pad after reaching the iteration limit).
Wu fails to disclose detecting a roughness of the polishing pad; determining whether the detected roughness satisfies a roughness threshold; determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit is in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold; and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness failing to satisfy the roughness threshold.
Chen is also concerned with a system for controlling a polishing pad and teaches detecting a roughness of the polishing pad (Fig. 6, steps (in sequential order) 202, 204, and 206); determining whether the detected roughness satisfies a roughness threshold (Fig. 6 steps (in sequential order) 308 and 310); and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness failing to satisfy the roughness threshold (Fig. 6 step 310, 0046-0048). It 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 to modify the system of Wu to include detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning; and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad failing to satisfy the roughness threshold, as taught by Chen, because Chen teaches that detecting a roughness of the polishing pad following the conditioning and outputting a signal for replacing the polishing pad in response to the detected roughness of the polishing pad being outside of a threshold roughness range improves the "quality of post CMP thickness control" (0062).
Wu, as modified, then yields determining whether the number of iterations is equal to or greater than an iteration limit (Wu, Fig. 2 step 271, 0043) in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold (Chen, Fig. 3, steps (in sequential order) 308 and 310, where determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold would take place directly after step 251 disclosed in Wu, which is before step 271 and therefore the determining of the number of iterations occurs in response to determining that the detected roughness fails to satisfy the roughness threshold as step 251 occurs prior to step 271 and step 251 must be completed before performing step 271).
Regarding claim 21, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses detecting the roughness of the polishing pad occurs following each iteration of the conditioning (Chen, Fig. 6, 0047, where element 202 corresponds to detecting the roughness of the polishing pad following each iteration of the conditioning).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20050260924), hereinafter Wu, in view of Chen et al. (US20150170978), hereinafter Chen, and in further view of Chen et al. (US20140273767), hereinafter Chen’.
Regarding claim 4, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose conditioning the polishing pad comprises rotating the conditioner relative to the polishing pad.
Chen’ is also concerned with a method of conditioning a polishing pad and teaches conditioning the polishing pad (Fig. 3 element 110) comprises rotating the conditioner (Fig. 3 element 166) relative to the polishing pad (0030-0031 and 0039). It 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 to modify the method of Wu, as modified, to include rotating the conditioner relative to the polishing pad to condition the polishing pad because adding relative rotation on top of translational movement (where translational movement is disclosed in Wu 0029, where "sweeping" corresponds to translational movement) increases the material removal efficiency. Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided criticality for this limitation in the specification.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20050260924), hereinafter Wu, in view of Chen et al. (US20150170978), hereinafter Chen, and in further view of Kim et al. (US20180229343), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose detecting the roughness of the polishing pad comprises detecting the roughness of the polishing pad using a plurality of sensors, wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is at a different location relative to the polishing pad.
Kim is also concerned with a method of conditioning a polishing pad and teaches detecting the roughness of the polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 130) comprises detecting the roughness of the polishing pad using a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1 elements 222, 224, and 226; 0033-0034), wherein each sensor of the plurality of sensors is at a different location relative to the polishing pad (Fig. 1). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Wu, as modified, discloses the invention except that detecting the roughness of the polishing pad uses a single sensor instead of a plurality of sensors each at a different location relative to the polishing pad. Kim shows that a plurality of sensors each at a different location relative to the polishing pad is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both methods of roughness detection are used to detect the surface roughness of a polishing pad). Therefore, because these roughness detecting types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a plurality of sensors each at a different location relative to the polishing pad for a single sensor.
Claims 7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20050260924), hereinafter Wu, in view of Chen et al. (US20150170978), hereinafter Chen, and in further view of Jin (CN209319538U), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 7, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses detecting the roughness of the polishing pad comprises detecting the roughness of the polishing pad using light (Chen, 0066).
Wu, as modified, fails to disclose that the light is both visible light and infrared light.
Jin is also concerned with using light to measure physical properties of a surface layer and teaches that the light is both visible light and infrared light (0069 and 0084, where 0069 discusses using a light with a wavelength between 1nm and 1050 nm and 0084 discusses using two different wavelength bands (which have crossover in the bands) for two different light sources and since the wavelength is taught to be both in the visible spectrum (approximately 380nm to 700nm) and the infrared spectrum (780nm to 1mm) there are several scenarios where both visible light and infrared light will be used to measure the physical property). It 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 to modify the method of Wu, as modified, to detect the roughness of the polishing pad (i.e. a physical property of the polishing pad) using both visible and infrared light, as taught by Jin, because Jin teaches that using two different light sources with different, but overlapping, wavelengths allows for the physical property (i.e. surface roughness) to “be obtained more accurately” (0085).
Regarding claim 19, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further discloses a sensor (Chen, Fig. 1 element 160), wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for detecting the roughness of the polishing pad based on an output from the sensor (Chen, 0036, where the “processor 162” corresponds to the processor disclosed in Wu).
Wu, as modified, fails to disclose that there are a plurality of sensors.
Jin is also concerned with using sensors to measure physical properties of a surface layer and teaches using a plurality of sensors (0084, where “the first group of thickness sensors 150 and the second group of thickness sensors” corresponds to a plurality of sensors). It 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 to modify the system of Wu, as modified, to detect the roughness of the polishing pad (i.e. a physical property of the polishing pad) using a plurality of sensors because Jin teaches that this allows for using two different light sources, specifically a visible and an infrared light, which have different, but overlapping, wavelengths allows for the physical property (i.e. surface roughness) to “be obtained more accurately” (0085).
Regarding claim 20, Wu, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses a first sensor of the plurality of sensors (Jin, 0084, where any one of “the first group of thickness sensors 150” corresponds to a first sensor) is configured to detect light having a first wavelength (Jin, 0084), and a second sensor of the plurality of sensors (Jin, 0084, where any one of “the second group of thickness sensors 250” corresponds to a second sensor) is configured to detect light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Jin, 0084, where the light sources “having different spectra from each other” means that there is at least a first and second light source with different wavelengths from each other).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18, Applicant argues that Wu fails to disclose “tracking a number of iterations of the conditioning of the polishing pad” because Wu specifically distinguishes between number of sweeps and conditioning operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that tracking the number of sweeps and the number of conditioning operations is equivalent in Wu. Applicant seems to acknowledge that they are equivalent on page 7 of the Arguments/Remarks by stating “if Wu tracks 50 sweeps and each conditioning operation comprises 5 sweeps, Wu would have tracked 50 sweeps but only 10 iterations of conditioning”. Examiner agrees that Wu discloses using a set number of sweeps per conditioning operation and that by tracking sweeps (e.g. 50 sweeps), the number of conditioning operations is also being tracked (e.g. 10 conditioning operations). Examiner finds that because there are a set number of sweeps per operation, tracking the number of sweeps is the exact same as tracking the number of conditioning operations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723