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 CRF 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/19/2026 has been entered.
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 06/19/2026, claims 1, 3, 10, 15, 18, and 22 have been amended, claims 2, 5, and 19 are cancelled, and new claims 23-25 are added. Claims 9 and 13 were previously cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20-25 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, lowest depths of the first top grooves and second top grooves being less that a lowest depth of the first bottom grooves as recited in claim 1 and a depth of the first top grooves being less than a depth of the second top grooves as recited in claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338, cited on 07/26/2023 IDS), in view of Mukai et al. (US 2017/0312886, hereinafter Mukai), Uzoh et al. (US 6,413,388, cited on 07/26/2023 IDS, hereinafter Uzoh), and Bajaj et al. (CN 107078048A, hereinafter Bajaj).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchner disclose a method, comprising:
attaching a first top pad to a first sub pad to form a first polishing pad (fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, a pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad] is attached to a pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited sub pad]. Therefore, there is a method of attaching the top pad to the sub pad to form a polishing pad), the first top pad comprising a first pattern of first top grooves (Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the first top grooves 356 have a first pattern) and first microchannels (col. 6:13-20, slurry drain holes 354; note the width value of 0.2 mm) extending through a thickness of the first top pad (Kirchner, col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362; see also similarly configured drain holes 308 in Figure 3A. Thus, the slurry drain holes extend through a thickness of the top pad), the first sub pad comprising first bottom grooves (col. 6:22-29 and fig. 3A, a pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited first sub pad] is disclosed as being used with fig. 3B’s pad and it faces the top pad. The pad backing 304 is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 [correspond to the first bottom grooves] in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad);
attaching the first polishing pad to a platen (see fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to a platen 208. Therefore, there is a step of attaching the polishing pad to the platen);
dispensing a first slurry over the first polishing pad (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, slurry is applied to the pad 220);
rotating the first polishing pad (col. 3:10-12, the pad rotates during polishing).
Although Kirchner does not disclose explicitly the method of detaching the first polishing pad from the platen and detaching the first top pad from the first sub pad, Kirchner teaches the method of attaching the first polishing pad to the platen and attaching the first top pad to the first sub pad as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kirchner to detach the first polishing pad from the platen and detach the first top pad from the fist sub pad in order to perform service or replacement of the top pad.
Kirchner discloses that a similar pad 300 can be bonded to its corresponding pad backing 304 by a suitable adhesive and it is known in the art to replace pads when worn or broken. Thus, the second top pad being attachable to the first sub pad to form a second polishing pad.
Note that the second pad's features are identical to the first pad's features. In an analogous art, Mukai at [0054] discloses a polishing pad that uses a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Then the second polishing pad is attached to a platen as shown in Kirchner fig. 2A for the first polishing pad.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Kirchner’s adhesive to specifically be a tacky, pressure sensitive adhesive for adhering the abrasive/polishing layer in view of the teachings in Mukai so that the abrasive layer can be detached and replaced with another abrasive layer. Due to this modification, the adhesive between the pad and backing of Kirchner is now specific to a detachable adhesive such that the first pad is interchangeably attached to the sub pad to form a first polishing pad. Further, the modification results in the ability to replace the first top pad, when worn or broken, with another/new pad such that this new pad is a second top pad of the same character and nature (i.e., one with top surface grooves) of the first top pad. Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (of which Applicant’s specification is devoid), and thus it would have been obvious further in view of Mukai’s teachings to provide an identical second top pad predictably for replacement purposes when the first top pad has become worn or broken without having to replace the entire pad construct (including the sub pad/backing).
However, Kirchner as modified by Mukai does not disclose the lowest depth of the first top grooves is less than a lowest depth of the first bottom grooves; and a lowest depth of the second top grooves is less than the lowest depth of the first bottom grooves.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai teaches the first top grooves, the second top grooves, and the first bottom grooves having depths except for the different groove depths (Kirchner, col. 6:13-20, drain grooves may have a depth of 0.8 mm). On the other hand, specification of the instant application states that the top grooves and the sub grooves may have the same or different depths (¶ 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second top grooves of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to make the depth of the first and second top grooves to be less than the depth of the first bottom grooves in order to achieve different slurry drain rates for quality and effective CMP process. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai still does not disclose the first microchannels being between a lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad and most proximal to an upper surface of the first sub pad.
Uzoh teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first microchannels being between a lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad and most proximal to an upper surface of the first sub pad (fig. 7a and col. 15:12-14, a polishing pad has grooves 770 [correspond to the recited top grooves] on a surface of the polishing pad and channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] are located at a lowest depth of the grooves 770. The channels 772 extend to a bottom surface of the polishing pad. By combining with Kirchner and Mukai, the top pad is disposed on the sub pad, therefore, the microchannel extends to the most proximal to an upper surface of the sub pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to provide the microchannels at the lowest depth of the top grooves as taught by Uzoh in order to improve the control of slurry flow on the pad surface by optimizing fluid dynamics (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh does not disclose the first microchannels having a conical shape.
Bajaj teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first microchannels having a conical shape (fig. 22 and Bajaj English translation, p. 30:22-33, a polishing pad comprises holes 2232 [correspond to the recited microchannels]. The holes 2232 have geometrical shape such as a cone or hollow truncated cone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh to provide its shape to be the conical shape as taught by Bajaj in order to improve effectiveness of polishing operation.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj still does not disclose a largest circular cross-section of the conical shape being at a top of the first microchannel and a smallest circular cross-section of the conical shape at a bottom of the first microchannel.
Bajaj does not disclose whether the hollow truncated cone is upside down. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cone-shaped microchannels of the polishing pad to have the largest cross-section at the top and the smallest cross-section at the bottom of the microchannel so that the holes/microchannels can receive slurry and other fluid at the top of the polishing pad and drain them to below of the polishing pad effectively.
Regarding claim 3, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, does not disclose explicitly a total surface coverage of the first top grooves at an upper surface of the first top pad is less than a total surface coverage of the first bottom grooves at the upper surface of the first sub pad.
Specification of the instant application discloses the total coverage of the top grooves 165 and the sub grooves 185 may be about the same or different (¶ 0039). In one embodiment, the sub grooves may comprise a greater total coverage, but it is also possible that the same sub grooves may comprise a less total coverage in another embodiment.
Kirchner discloses the slurry distribution grooves [correspond to the recited first top grooves] and the slurry drain grooves [correspond to the recited first sub grooves] may be of any size and number. Therefore, the top grooves may have required size and number to cover the top groove, and the sub grooves may have required size and number to have a less coverage of the top pad grooves than the coverage of the top pad grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad and sub pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to provide the grooves to have the recited coverages in order to improve the slurry flow on a CMP pad surface (Kirchner col. 6:6-12). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 4, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the second top pad comprises second microchannels extending through a thickness of the second top pad (Kirchner, col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 (correspond to the recited microchannels) are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362; see also similarly configured drain holes 308 in Figure 3A. Thus, the slurry drain holes extend through a thickness of the top pad. Since the second pad's features are identical to the first pad's features as discussed in claim 1 above, the second microchannels also extend through a thickness of the second top pad).
Regarding claim 23, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first microchannels comprise:
a first set of microchannels aligned with the first top grooves and with the first bottom grooves (Kirchner fig. 3A-3B and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 308 [correspond to the recited microchannels] on the slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited top grooves] extend to the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]. The slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited microchannels] align with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350; annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below also shows the microchannels being aligned with the pad backing slurry drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited sub grooves]), the second microchannels extending from the first top grooves to the sub pad (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below, microchannels 354 from the slurry drain groove 360 extend to the sub pad);
a second set of microchannels aligned with the first top grooves and misaligned with the first bottom grooves (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, one drain holes 308 [corresponds to the recited microchannel] on the slurry drain grooves 360 extends through the polishing pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad] to the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the sub pad]. Some drain holes are misaligned with the pad backing slurry drain groove 325 [corresponds to the recited sub groove]); and
a third set of microchannels misaligned with the first top grooves and aligned with the first bottom grooves (Uzoh, figs. 7d-7f, a set of channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] extend from a top surface of a polishing pad. Unlike the polishing pad shown in fig. 7c which shows the microchannels extending from top grooves, the microchannels shown in figs. 7d-7f do not extend from the top grooves. Kirchner teaches the polishing pad having slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited top grooves]. By combining with Kirchner, some microchannels are misaligned with the top grooves, but aligned with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350. See annotated Kirchner fig. 3A below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to be misaligned with the first top grooves as taught by Uzoh in order to provide optimal fluid dynamics for electrolyte solution to flow (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
1157
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kirchner Fig. 3A
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Campbell et al. (US 6,217,412, hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 6, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising:
dispensing a second slurry over the second polishing pad (Kirchner, fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, slurry is applied to the pad 220; Mukai ¶ 0003, 0054, the first pad is replaced with the second pad, and a second polishing is carried out. Therefore, a second slurry is dispensed to the second polishing pad); and
rotating the second polishing pad (Kirchner, col. 2:55-3:12, Kirchner teaches rotating the polishing pad by rotating the platen; Mukai ¶ 0003, 0054, the first pad is replaced with the second pad, and a second polishing is carried out. Therefore, the second polishing pad is rotated during polishing), but does not disclose rotating the first polishing pad comprises a first rotation speed, rotating the second polishing pad comprises a second rotation speed, and wherein the first rotation speed is different than the second rotation speed.
Campbell teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first polishing pad comprises a first rotation speed, rotating the second polishing pad comprises a second rotation speed, and wherein the first rotation speed is different than the second rotation speed (col. 2:29-35, wafer polishing is done by using a first polishing pad, followed by a second polishing pad after replacing the first polishing pad; col. 4:46-54, rotational speed of the second polishing pad may be increased).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to provide the different rotation speeds for the first and second polishing pads as taught by Campbell in order to make sure a removal rate is acceptable throughout the entire polishing process (Campbell col. 4:46-54).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0336236, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 7, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the first pattern is different than the second pattern.
Chen teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first pattern is different than the second pattern (figs. 2 ,4 and ¶ 0031, a polishing surface may have concentric grooves, spiral grooves, radial grooves, cross-hatching, or any geometric pattern. As discussed in claim 1, any polishing pad can be the first polishing pad or the second polishing pad, therefore, any different grooves can be the first top grooves and the second top grooves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to provide the different patterns as taught by Chen in order to achieve effective polishing operation in consideration of mechanism among substrate, polishing liquid, and polishing surface (Chen ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, Bajaj, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 7, wherein one of the first pattern and the second pattern comprises concentric circles, and wherein the other of the first pattern and the second pattern comprises radial lines (Chen, ¶ 0031, a polishing surface may have concentric grooves and radial grooves. As discussed in claim 1, any polishing pad can be the first polishing pad, the second polishing pad, or more. Therefore, one polishing pad can have the concentric grooves and another pad can have the radial grooves).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Uzoh, and Bajaj to provide top pads having concentric grooves and radial grooves as taught by Chen in order to achieve effective polishing operation in consideration of mechanism among substrate, polishing liquid, and polishing surface (Chen ¶ 0032).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338, cited on 07/26/2023 IDS), in view of Mukai et al. (US 2017/0312886, hereinafter Mukai), Bajaj et al. (CN 107078048A, hereinafter Bajaj), Allison et al. (KR 20130110216A, hereinafter Allison), and Chen et al. (US 2015/0336236, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 10, Kirchner discloses a method of performing a wafer polishing step, wherein the first polishing pad comprising:
a first bottom pad, the first bottom pad comprising first bottom grooves along a top surface of the first bottom pad; and a first top pad, a bottom surface of the top pad facing the top surface of the first bottom pad (col. 6:22-29 and fig. 3A, a pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited bottom pad] is disclosed as being used with fig. 3B’s pad and it faces the top pad. The pad backing 304 is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 [correspond to the first bottom grooves] in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad),
the first top pad (fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, a pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad]) comprising:
first top grooves along a top surface of the first top pad (Kirchner, figs. 3A and 3B, the pad has the first top grooves 356 on a top surface);
first microchannels connecting the first top grooves to the first bottom grooves (Kirchner, fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 308 [correspond to the recited first microchannels] extend to the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited first bottom grooves] from the first top grooves 356),
second microchannels extending from the first top grooves to the first bottom pad and being misaligned with the first bottom grooves (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above, some microchannels are misaligned with the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited first bottom grooves]), but does not disclose the method comprises performing a first part of the wafer polishing step with a first polishing pad, performing a second part of the wafer polishing step with a second polishing pad, wherein the second polishing pad comprising: a second top pad, the second top pad comprising second top grooves along a top surface of the second top pad; and the first bottom pad.
Mukai teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the method comprises performing a first part of the wafer polishing step with a first polishing pad, performing a second part of the wafer polishing step with a second polishing pad (¶ 0003, substrate processing is carried out in two polishing operations principally; ¶ 0054, after the first polishing, the first pad is detached and replaced with the second pad. Therefore, the second polishing is executed with the second pad), wherein the second polishing pad comprising: a second top pad, the second top pad comprising second top grooves along a top surface of the second top pad; and the first bottom pad (¶ 0054, the first pad can be detached from the support (equivalent to the bottom pad) and the first pad is replaced with the second pad. In other words, the second top pad is attached to the first bottom pad to form a second polishing pad).
As discussed in claim 1, the second pad's features are identical to the first pad's features. Therefore, the second top pad comprises second top grooves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second top pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai to provide the second top grooves for slurry drainage so that effective polishing outcome can be achieved.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kirchner to provide the second polishing with the second top pad as taught by Mukai in order to improve accuracy of planarization of a substrate (Mukai ¶ 0003).
However, Kirchner as modified by Mukai does not disclose a first diameter of the first microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of first the microchannels at the first bottom grooves.
As discussed in claim 1, Bajaj teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first microchannels having a conical shape (fig. 22 and Bajaj English translation, p. 30:22-33, a polishing pad comprises holes 2232 [correspond to the recited microchannels]. The holes 2232 have geometrical shape such as a cone or hollow truncated cone), and it is obvious to have a first diameter of the first microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of the first microchannels at the first bottom groove.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of the polishing pad to have the first diameter of the microchannels at the first top grooves being greater than a second diameter of the microchannels at the first bottom grooves so that the holes/microchannels can receive slurry and other fluid and drain them effectively.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Bajaj does not disclose the first bottom grooves comprising a plurality of circles, an outermost circle of the plurality of circles being at an outer edge of the first bottom pad, and an inner circle of the plurality of circles being within the outermost circle.
Allison teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first bottom grooves comprising a plurality of circles, an outermost circle of the plurality of circles being at an outer edge of the first bottom pad, and an inner circle of the plurality of circles being within the outermost circle (fig. 1, there is a plurality of concentric grooves 104. The inner circular grooves are disposed within the outermost groove; Allison English translation, p. 5:16-20, a polishing pad includes a groove on an outermost edge of the polishing pad. Kirchner teaches the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited bottom pad] comprises drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves] (fig. 3A) wherein the drain grooves can be arranged in any desired pattern (col. 6:6-12). Therefore, by combining with Kirchner, the recited first bottom pad may comprise a plurality of circles including the outermost circle at the outer edge of the recited first bottom pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom grooves of Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Bajaj to provide a plurality of circles including one at the outermost edge of the bottom pad as taught by Allison in order to facilitate slurry removal from the pad.
Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, and Allison does not disclose the inner circle is free of a conduit within the first bottom pad connecting the inner circle to the outer edge of the first bottom pad.
Chen teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the inner circle is free of a conduit within the first bottom pad connecting the inner circle to the outer edge of the first bottom pad (fig. 2, the concentric grooves 200 are free of conduit within a pad connecting an inner concentric groove to an outer edge of the pad. As discussed above, Kirchner teaches the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited bottom pad] comprises drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves] (fig. 3A) wherein the drain grooves can be arranged in any desired pattern (col. 6:6-12). Therefore, by combining with Kirchner, the recited non-conduit feature of a top pad can be duplicated to the bottom pad. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pad not to have conduit connecting the inner circle to the outer edge of the pad as taught by Chen so that slurry flows only through the grooves. It helps the slurry flow control.
Regarding claim 11, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein performing the first part of the wafer polishing step comprises:
dispensing a slurry over the first polishing pad (Kirchner, fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, slurry is applied to the pad 220);
rotating the first polishing pad (Kirchner, col. 3:10-12, the pad rotates during polishing); and
pressing a semiconductor wafer against the first polishing pad (Kirchner, fig. 2A and col. 2:64-67, a carrier head 202 is moved toward the polishing pad. The carrier head 202 carries a wafer 210, thus it presses the wafer against the polishing pad).
Regarding claim 12, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 10, further comprising, after performing the first part of the wafer polishing step, replacing the first top pad with the second top pad (Mukai, ¶ 0003, substrate processing is carried out in two polishing operations principally; ¶ 0054, After the first polishing, the first pad is detached and replaced with the second pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen to replace the top pad after the first polishing step as taught by Mukai in order to improve accuracy of planarization of a substrate (Mukai ¶ 0003).
Claims 14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Uzoh.
Regarding claim 14, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the first microchannels are angled downward and outward from a center of the top surface of the first top pad.
Uzoh teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first microchannels are angled downward and outward from a center of the top surface of the first top pad (figs. 7e, 7f and col. 15:6-19, a polishing pad has grooves 770 on a surface of the polishing pad and channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] through the polishing pad (fig. 7a). Figs. 7e and 7f show the channels are angled and extending downward. They can be disposed outward from a center of the top pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen to provide the slanted microchannels as taught by Uzoh in order to improve the control of slurry flow on the pad surface.
Regarding claim 24, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose the first top pad further comprises third microchannels extending from the top surface of the first top pad to the first bottom grooves and being misaligned with the first top grooves.
Uzoh teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top pad further comprises third microchannels extending from the top surface of the first top pad to the first bottom grooves and being misaligned with the first top grooves (figs. 7d-7f, a set of channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] extend from a top surface of a polishing pad. Unlike the polishing pad shown in fig. 7c which shows the microchannels extending from top grooves, the microchannels shown in figs. 7d-7f do not extend from the top grooves. Kirchner teaches the polishing pad having slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited top grooves]. By combining with Kirchner, some microchannels are misaligned with the top grooves, but aligned with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350. See annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen to be misaligned with the first top grooves as taught by Uzoh in order to provide optimal fluid dynamics for electrolyte solution to flow (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Tjaden.
Regarding claim 21, Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose a depth of the first bottom grooves extends a partial thickness of the first bottom pad.
Tjaden teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a depth of the first bottom grooves extends a partial thickness of the first bottom pad (fig. 4 and col. 5:20-23, a lower pad 312 (corresponds to the recited bottom pad) comprises grooves 330A, 330B wherein the grooves extend a partial thickness of the lower pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom pad of Kirchner as modified by Mukai, Bajaj, Allison, and Chen to provide the groove extending the partial thickness of the bottom pad as taught by Tjaden. The partial thickness grooves instead of the full thickness grooves, may help the bottom pad to withstand great amount of pressure during polishing operation to maintain a structural integrity of the polishing apparatus.
Claims 15, 16, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner (US 6,692,338, cited on 07/26/2023 IDS), in view of Allison et al. (KR 20130110216A, hereinafter Allison), Tjaden et al. (US 6,135,856, hereinafter Tjaden), Uzoh et al. (US 6,413,388, cited on 07/26/2023 IDS, hereinafter Uzoh), Prasad et al. (CN 1805826A, hereinafter Prasad), and Tanoue et al. (US 6527969, hereinafter Tanoue).
Regarding claim 15, Kirchner discloses a method, comprising:
attaching a first polishing pad to a platen (see fig. 2A, polishing pad 220 is attached to a platen 208. Therefore, there is a step of attaching the polishing pad to the platen), the first polishing pad comprising:
a first top pad comprising first top grooves and first microchannels, the first top grooves being along a top surface of the first top pad, the first microchannels extending from the first top grooves to a bottom surface of the first top pad (fig. 3B, slurry distribution grooves 356 [corresponds to the top groove] are disposed on the polishing surface 358 of the polishing pad; col. 5:51-52 and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 354 [corresponds to the microchannel] are disposed on the polishing surface of the polishing pad and are aligned with pad bottom drain grooves 362; see also similarly configured drain holes 308 in Figure 3A);
a first bottom pad comprising first bottom grooves, the first bottom grooves being along a top surface of the first bottom pad (col. 6:22-29 and fig. 3A, a pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited bottom pad] is disclosed as being used with fig. 3B’s pad and it faces the top pad. The pad backing is disclosed as having drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves] in the backing’s top surface adjacent the other pad);
dispensing a slurry over the first polishing pad (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-59, slurry is applied to the pad 220);
rotating the platen (col. 3:10-12, the pad rotates during polishing); and
polishing a wafer with the first polishing pad and the slurry (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-67, a wafer 220 is polished by contacting a polishing surface 212 of the polishing pad 220 while dispensing slurry from a conduit 206),
wherein polishing the wafer with the first polishing pad removes first particles from the wafer (col. 1:12-23, in chemical mechanical polishing, a polishing pad rotates to remove a layer of a wafer. The removed particles by polishing are the recited first particles because claim does not define what the first particles are), but does not disclose the first top grooves comprising a first circular groove at an outer edge of the first top pad, and the first bottom grooves comprising a second circular groove at an outer edge of the first bottom pad.
Allison teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the first top grooves comprising a first circular groove at an outer edge of the first top pad, and the first bottom grooves comprising a second circular groove at an outer edge of the first bottom pad (fig. 1, there is a plurality of concentric grooves 104; Allison English translation, p. 5:16-20, a polishing pad includes a groove on an outermost edge of the polishing pad. Therefore, the first top pad comprises the first circular groove at the outer edge of the top pad. Kirchner teaches the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the recited bottom pad] comprises drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves] (fig. 3A) wherein the drain grooves can be arranged in any desired pattern (col. 6:6-12). Therefore, by combining with Kirchner, the recited first bottom pad may comprise the second circular groove at the outer edge of the bottom pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom grooves of Kirchner to provide a plurality of circles including one at the outermost edge of the bottom pad as taught by Allison in order to facilitate slurry removal from the pad.
Kirchner as modified by Allison does not disclose a depth of the first bottom grooves extending a partial thickness of the first bottom pad.
Tjaden teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a depth of the first bottom grooves extending a partial thickness of the first bottom pad (fig. 4 and col. 5:20-23, a lower pad 312 (corresponds to the recited bottom pad) comprises grooves 330A, 330B wherein the grooves extend a partial thickness of the lower pad).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bottom pad of Kirchner as modified by Allison to provide the groove extending the partial thickness of the bottom pad as taught by Tjaden. The partial thickness grooves instead of the full thickness grooves, may help the bottom pad to withstand great amount of pressure during polishing operation to maintain a structural integrity of the polishing apparatus.
Kirchner as modified by Allison and Tjaden does not disclose a particular microchannel of the first microchannels comprising opposing sidewalls extending from the first top grooves to the bottom surface of the first ton pad.
Uzoh teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, a particular microchannel of the first microchannels comprising opposing sidewalls extending from the first top groove to the bottom surface of the first top pad (fig. 7a and col. 15:6-23, a polishing pad has grooves 770 on a surface of the polishing pad and channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] through the polishing pad (fig. 7a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Allison and Tjaden to provide the microchannels extending from the top groove as taught by Uzoh in order to improve the control of slurry flow on the pad surface.
Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, and Uzoh does not disclose the entireties of the opposing sidewalls of the microchannel being non-parallel to one another in a side view cross-section.
Prasad teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the entireties of the opposing sidewalls of the microchannel being non-parallel to one another in a side view cross-section (fig. 3, a polishing layer 12 [corresponds to the recited top pad] comprises an aperture 20 [corresponds to the recited microchannel] wherein the entireties of the opposing sidewalls of the aperture 20 is non-parallel to one another in a side view cross-section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannel of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, and Uzoh to provide the non-parallel sidewalls along entireties of the opposing sidewalls as taught by Prasad. The aperture of Prasad has a conical shape with a large area on an upper side of the polishing pad so that it can collect large amount of used slurry for improving a polishing process.
Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, and Prasad does not disclose filtering the first particles from an exit portion of the slurry; and recycling the filtered exit portion of the slurry into the slurry.
Tanoue teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, filtering the first particles from an exit portion of the slurry; and recycling the filtered exit portion of the slurry into the slurry (fig. 1 and col. 5:25-6:50, rejuvenating polishing slurry method includes recovering slurry waste (A), filtering solids (E and F), and supplying recycled polishing slurry (L)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, and Prasad to provide the filtering and recycling slurry as taught by Tanoue for decreasing cost, safe waste disposal, and environment protection (Tanoue col. 1:40-46).
Regarding claim 16, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein each of the first microchannels connects one of the first top grooves to a corresponding one of the first bottom grooves (Kirchner, fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, slurry drain holes 308 [correspond to the recited microchannels] extend to the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves]).
Regarding claim 22, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the first microchannels comprise an outer microchannel at the outer edge of the first top pad (Allison English translation, p. 5:16-20, Allison teaches the circular groove at the outer edge of the first top pad as discussed above in claim 15; Kirchner, fig. 3B, the top pad 350 includes a plurality of slurry drain holes 354 [correspond to the recited first microchannels] on the concentric groove 356. By combining Kirchner and Allison, there can be the recited outer microchannel at the outer edge of the first top pad), and wherein the outer microchannel connects the first circular groove of the first top grooves to the second circular groove of the first bottom grooves (Kirchner, fig. 3A and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, fig. 3A shows similarly configured slurry drain holes 308 [correspond to the recited microchannels] which extend to the pad backing drain grooves 325 [correspond to the recited bottom grooves] from the first top grooves 356. Therefore, by combining Kirchner with Allison, the recited outer microchannel connects the first top grooves to the first bottom grooves).
Regarding claim 25, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the first microchannels comprise:
a first exemplary microchannel aligned with the first top grooves and misaligned with the first bottom grooves (see annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above and col. 5:1-21, 5:41-52, and 6:22-29, one drain holes 308 [corresponds to the recited microchannel] on the slurry drain grooves 360 extends through the polishing pad 300 [corresponds to the recited top pad] to the pad backing 304 [corresponds to the sub pad]. Some drain holes are misaligned with the pad backing slurry drain groove 325 [corresponds to the recited sub groove]); and
a second exemplary microchannel misaligned with the first top grooves and aligned with the first bottom grooves (Uzoh, figs. 7d-7f, a set of channels 772 [correspond to the recited microchannels] extend from a top surface of a polishing pad. Unlike the polishing pad shown in fig. 7c which shows the microchannels extending from top grooves, the microchannels shown in figs. 7d-7f do not extend from the top grooves. Kirchner teaches the polishing pad having slurry drain grooves 360 [correspond to the recited top grooves]. By combining with Kirchner, some microchannels are misaligned with the top grooves, but aligned with the radial slurry drain grooves 362 [correspond to the recited sub grooves] on the bottom of the pad 350. See annotated Kirchner fig. 3A above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the microchannels of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue to be misaligned with the first top grooves as taught by Uzoh in order to provide optimal fluid dynamics for electrolyte solution to flow (Uzoh, col. 15:12-14).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Mukai.
Regarding claim 17, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, and Tanoue teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the top pad comprises top grooves and microchannels, wherein the top grooves are along a top surface of the top pad, wherein the microchannels connect the top grooves to the first bottom grooves of the first bottom pad as discussed in claim 15, but does not disclose the second top pad, second top grooves, second microchannels. Kirchner also does not disclose removing the first polishing pad from the platen; replacing the first top pad with a second top pad to form a second polishing pad, attaching the second polishing pad to the platen; and polishing the wafer with the second polishing pad.
Mukai teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, replacing the first top pad with a second top pad (¶ 0054). As discussed in claim 1, the second top pad has the identical features of the first top pad, therefore, the second pad has the recited second top grooves and second microchannels. Mukai further teaches replacing the first top pad with a second top pad to form a second polishing pad (¶ 0054). Since Kirchner teaches attaching the polishing pad to the platen; and polishing the wafer with the polishing pad (fig. 2A and col. 2:55-67), Kirchner as modified by Mukai teaches attaching the second polishing pad to the platen; and polishing the wafer with the second polishing pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden and Uzoh to provide the second top pad having the second top grooves and the second microchannels as taught by Mukai for replacement purposes when the first top pad has become worn or broken without having to replace the entire pad construct (including the sub pad/backing).
Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai teaches polishing the wafer with the second polishing pad removes second particles from the wafer (Kirchner col. 1:12-23, in chemical mechanical polishing, a polishing pad rotates to remove a layer of a wafer. Claim does not define what the second particles are. Thus, any particles removed by the recited second polishing pad of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai can be the second particles).
Finally, although Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai does not disclose explicitly the method of removing the first polishing pad from the platen, Kirchner teaches the method of attaching the first polishing pad to the platen as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kirchner to remove the first polishing pad from the platen in order to perform service or replacement of the top pad.
Regarding claim 18, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 17, wherein a depth of the first top grooves is less than a depth of the second top grooves.
As discussed similarly in claim 1, Kirchner as modified by Mukai and Uzoh teaches the first top grooves and the second top grooves having depths except for the different groove depths (Kirchner, col. 6:13-20, drain grooves may have a depth of 0.8 mm). On the other hand, specification of the instant application is silent regarding reason why the depth of the first top grooves needs to be less that the depth of the second top grooves. Specification of the instant application presents only that the depth of the sub grooves may be greater than the depth of the top grooves (¶ 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second top grooves of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai to make the depth of the first top grooves is less than that of the second top grooves in order to achieve different slurry drain rates for quality and effective CMP process. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner in view of Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai, as applied to claim 17 above, and in further view of Hirose et al. (WO 2004043648A1, hereinafter Hirose).
Regarding claim 20, Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 17, further comprising: removing the second polishing pad from the platen; and polishing the wafer with the third polishing pad (as discussed in claims 15 and 17 above, Kirchner teaches the method of removing the polishing pad from the platen and polishing the wafer with a polishing pad), but does not disclose replacing the first bottom pad with a second bottom pad to form a third polishing pad.
Hirose teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a method of replacing a lower layer of a polishing pad (Hirose English translation, p. 8:7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, and Mukai to replace the bottom pad as taught by Hirose. A bottom pad can be deformed due to pressure provide on a polishing pad. Thus, replacing the bottom pad ensures the consistent polishing outcome (Hirose English translation, p. 8:7-11).
Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, Mukai, and Hirose does not disclose explicitly forming and polishing with a third polishing pad. However, Mukai and Hirose teach replacing the top pad or the bottom pad to form a new polishing pad. Since a second polishing pad can be made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing method of Kirchner as modified by Allison, Tjaden, Uzoh, Prasad, Tanoue, Mukai, and Hirose to form third or additional polishing pad in order to maintain the good polishing outcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Bajaj does not teach the recited conical shape of the first microchannels. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues the holes 2232 of the polishing pad 2200 do not connect a top pad and a bottom pad such that they are not used for drainage of slurry. However, the microchannels for draining the slurry is taught by Kirchner. Among various possible shapes of the microchannels, claim 1 recites the conical shape, thus Bajaj is cited to teach the holes disposed on the polishing pad can have the conical shape. While another cited references such as Uzoh teaches another configuration of the microchannels, Bajaj just teaches the microchannel of the polishing pad can have the conical shape.
Applicant also asserts Bajaj does not present some articulated reasoning of obviousness, however, the court rejects notion that “an express written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references” (MPEP 2143.01(I)). The holes of the Bajaj are formed to enhance the polishing operation.
Applicant further asserts the Examiner’s analysis regarding an orientation of the Bajaj’s conical holes is flawed. Bajaj does not disclose the orientation of the conical hole explicitly. Applicant explains detailed reasons for having the conical microchannel having a largest circular cross-section at a lowest depth of the first top grooves of the first top pad in the Applicant’s Arguments p. 18, and it cannot be simply concluded that it is obvious to have the largest cross-section of the conical microchannel at a top of the polishing pad. However, specification of the instant application does not provide such explanation. In ¶ 0040-41, specification presents various configurations of the microchannels such as rectangular, triangular, trapezoidal, parallelogrammical, or any combination thereof. Specification does not provide particular reason for need of the particular configuration.
The Examiner’s reason for obviousness regarding the orientation of the conical microchannels is not post hoc rationalization, nor impermissible hindsight. In chemical mechanical polishing operation, slurry is applied on a top surface of a polishing pad, and the slurry needs to be drained from the top surface of the polishing pad through channels or holes. If the adopted channels have the conical configuration, the smallest cross-section of the conical channel would not be disposed at the top surface of the polishing pad in draining the slurry. In order to receive the slurry, the largest cross-section of the cone-shaped microchannel should be disposed at the top surface of the polishing pad.
Next, Applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest the groove depth relationships between the first top pad, the first sub pad, and the second top pad. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues it is improper to reject the recited groove depth claim limitations by relying on the change in size rationale (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Applicant asserts the different groove depths of the top pad and the bottom pad are not a mere dimensional variation. However, the only explanation of the groove depth dimension is that the top grooves 165 and the sub groove 185 may have the same or different depths from the top surfaces of the top pad 160 and the sub pad 180, respectively (¶ 0037). Despite the explanation in the Applicant’s Arguments, p. 21, specification and claims of the instant application do not present those reasoning.
Applicant also argues Examiner’s rejection by the duplication of parts rationale (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)) along with the size change rationale (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) would contradict each other. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The duplication of parts rationale is adopted to explain grooves on a top surface of top pads can be duplicated to have grooves on a top surface of bottom pads. Then, it is obvious to have the different dimensions of the grooves for the top pads and the bottom pads because the size of an existing part can be modified. Therefore, the two rationales are utilized accordingly without being contradicting each other.
On the other hand, Applicant asserts specification of the instant application provides reason for having the particular dimensions of the groove depths. However, what specification of the instant application presents is a user can select a desired combination of the top pad and the sub pad to achieve the specifications for the particular CMP process needed (¶ 0023). A polishing pad comprises grooves and microchannels, and their dimension can be varied for particular needs. For example, the amended claim 1 (dated on 06/19/2026) recites “wherein the lowest depth of the first top grooves is less than a lowest depth of the first bottom grooves”. Prior to this amendment, the same claim (dated on 11/11/2025) recites “wherein the lowest depth of the first top grooves is greater than a lowest depth of the first bottom grooves”. Applicant confirms that the depths of the same grooves can be changed for different needs, and that is what Kirchner teaches. Kirchner teaches a polishing pad comprising grooves and microchannels. The grooves of Kirchner may have depth between 0.2 to 2 mm, and the grooves may be of any size and number and arranged in any desired pattern to improve control of the slurry flow on a CMP pad surface (col. 6:6-21). It is not reasonable to assert that Kirchner does not disclose all recited variations of the configuration although it teaches the variation is possible to improve the slurry control on the polishing pad.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Allison.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that “the first bottom grooves comprising a plurality of circles, an outermost circle of the plurality of circles being at an outer edge of the first bottom pad” and “the first bottom grooves comprising a second circular groove at an outer edge of the first bottom pad”. Examiner acknowledges Kirchner discloses the polishing pad comprises a plurality of circular grooves, but it does not disclose explicitly whether the circular groove is disposed at an outermost edge of the polishing pad. Therefore, the Allison reference is cited to teach that a polishing pad includes a groove on the outermost edge of the polishing pad (Allison English translation, p. 5:16-20 and fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (KR 101986826B1) discloses a polishing pad comprising concentric and radial grooves wherein a center of the polishing pad has no grooves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights