DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner agrees with Applicant in that Takahashi only discloses a radiation thermometer, which would be irrelevant to the previous (and current) rejection. However, Takashi does teach measuring the temperature of the wafer with an embedded sensor 7 [¶46, “temperature sensor 7 measures the temperature of the surface (i.e., the lower surface to be polished) of the wafer W indirectly through the polishing pad 2”]. Moreover, the main modification in the rejection comes from the combination of Brezoczky and Kobayashi. In response to applicant's argument that Brezoczky is directed to 3D printing systems, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, while Brezoczky is directed to 3D printing systems, is still analogous art per MPEP 2141.01(a) because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of determining the temperature of an object while being manufactured with non-contact type sensor [¶3 of instant application]. Applicant further argues Brezoczky does not teach using a microwave sensor to measure substrate temperature through a pad and slurry nor the technical challenges associated with such measurement. For this argument, the Examiner relies on Kobayashi. Kobayashi teaches a polishing apparatus [fig. 19] using a microwave sensor 252 embedded in the table 18 and connected to a controller [254, 54. fig. 19]. Kobayashi explicitly teaches how a polishing apparatus uses a microwave sensor through a pad and slurry to monitor substrate conditions [Abstract, figs. 2 & 19]. Applicant further argues that Kobayashi only discloses a microwave sensor 252 to measure film thickness not temperature. Applicant is noted that it has been held that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the substrate temperature senso of Takashi with the microwave sensor of Brezoczky while using known methods of embedding microwave sensors, as taught by Kobayashi, to yield the predictable result of determining the temperature of the wafer while polishing with a non-contact type sensor.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejections are still valid and deemed proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US 2016/0121452 A1 in view of Brezoczky US 2018/0111319 A1 and Kobayashi US 2007/0243795 A1.
Re claim 1, Takahashi discloses a polishing apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a polishing table 3 configured to rotatably support a polishing pad 2;
a polishing head 1 configured to rotatably hold a substrate W and press the substrate against the polishing pad 2;
a temperature sensor 7 in the polishing table; and
a controller 9 configured to determine a surface temperature of the substrate [¶54, “temperature sensor 7, while sweeping across the surface of the wafer W, may measure the temperature of the lower surface of the polishing pad 2 at a plurality of measuring points and the polishing operation controller 9 may calculate an average of temperature measurement values obtained at the plurality of measuring points”].
Takahashi does not teach the temperature sensor is a microwave detection sensor embedded in the table and configured to generate microwave detection data by detecting microwaves; and that the controller determines the surface temperature of the substrate based on the microwave detection data.
However, Further, Brezoczky teaches well-known temperature sensor including a microwave/imager sensor [¶312, “[t]he temperature sensor may comprise … Special sensor microwave/imager”]. The system of Brezoczky would be capable of determining a surface temperature based on microwave data. Brezoczky is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of determining the temperature of an object while being manufactured.
Furthermore, Kobayashi teaches a polishing apparatus [fig. 19] using a microwave sensor 252 embedded in the table 18 and connected to a controller [254, 54. fig. 19]. The system of Kobayashi would be capable of generating microwave detection data by detecting microwaves.
Thus, Takahashi and Brezoczky, each disclose an apparatus having a temperature sensor. Takahashi and Kobayashi, each disclose a polishing apparatus having a temperature sensor in a table of a polishing pad. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the microwave/image sensor of Brezoczky could have been substituted for the temperature sensor of Takahashi because both sensors serve the purpose of providing a temperature measurement. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution by embedding the temperature sensor in the polishing table, as disclosed by Kobayashi. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of measuring a temperature of the substrate while polishing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the microwave/image sensor of Brezoczky for the temperature sensor of Takahashi according to known methods taught by Kobayashi, to yield the predictable result of determining the temperature of the wafer while polishing with a non-contact type sensor.
Re claim 2, Takahashi, Brezoczky, and Kobayahsi teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1.
Takahashi further teaches wherein the controller 9 is configured to:
generate temperature distribution information indicating a temperature distribution of the substrate along a direction perpendicular to a surface of the substrate based on the microwave detection data [as discussed by Brezoczky and Kobayahsi above]: and
Takahashi does not specifically teach determine a highest temperature among temperature distribution information as the surface temperature of the substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the highest temperature, in order to yield the predictable result of having an accurate average and radial temperature distribution of the surface of the substrate as explain in ¶ 54 [“temperature sensor 7, while sweeping across the surface of the wafer W, may measure the temperature of the lower surface of the polishing pad 2 at a plurality of measuring points and the polishing operation controller 9 may calculate an average of temperature measurement values obtained at the plurality of measuring points”] and ¶87 [“the polishing operation controller 9 can obtain data of a temperature distribution along the radial direction of the wafer W”].
Re claim 3, Takahashi, Brezoczky, and Kobayahsi teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1.
Takahashi further teaches wherein the controller 9 is configured to:
generate temperature distribution information indicating the temperature distribution of the substrate along a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate based on the microwave detection data [as discussed by Brezoczky and Kobayahsi above];
determine an average temperature of the temperature distribution as the surface temperature of the substrate [¶54, “temperature sensor 7, while sweeping across the surface of the wafer W, may measure the temperature of the lower surface of the polishing pad 2 at a plurality of measuring points and the polishing operation controller 9 may calculate an average of temperature measurement values obtained at the plurality of measuring points”]..
Re claim 4, Takahashi, Brezoczky, and Kobayahsi teach the invention as discussed above for claim 1.
Takahashi further teaches wherein the controller is configured to:
generate temperature distribution information indicating the temperature distribution of the substrate in a radial direction of the substrate based on the plurality of microwave detection data along the radial direction of the substrate and a rotational speed of the polishing table and a rotational speed of the polishing head [as discussed by Brezoczky and Kobayahsi above]; and
determine the temperature distribution in the radial direction of the substrate [¶87, “the polishing operation controller 9 can obtain data of a temperature distribution along the radial direction of the wafer W”].
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi US 2016/0121452 A1 in view of Kobayashi US 2007/0243795 A1 and Brezoczky US 2018/0111319 A1 and in further view of Motoshima US 2013/0023186 A1.
Re claim 5, Takahashi, Kobayashi, and Brezoczky teach the invention as claimed above but fail to teach a pad temperature adjustment device configured to adjust a surface temperature of the polishing pad, and wherein the controller is configured to operate the pad temperature adjustment device based on the determined surface temperature of the substrate to adjust the surface temperature of the polishing pad so that the surface temperature of the substrate reaches a target temperature.
Motoshima teaches a pad temperature adjustment device configured to adjust a surface temperature of the polishing pad [20, 21, 22], and wherein the controller is configured to operate the pad temperature adjustment device based on the determined surface temperature of the substrate to adjust the surface temperature of the polishing pad so that the surface temperature of the substrate reaches a target temperature [Abstract, “[t]he polishing apparatus is configured to control a temperature of the polishing surface of the polishing pad by blowing a gas on the polishing pad during polishing. The polishing apparatus includes a pad temperature control mechanism having at least one gas ejection nozzle for ejecting a gas toward the polishing pad”, ¶44, “a controller configured to control the flow rate of the gas ejected from the at least one gas ejection nozzle by comparing a preset temperature as a control target”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pad control mechanism of Motoshima with the polishing apparatus of the combination of Takahahsi, in order to yield the predictable result of controlling the temperature of the polishing surface of the wafer while polishing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723