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 .
This action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 8/6/2026
Claims 1-4, and 6-20 are pending
Claim 5 is canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 6, filed 8/6/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn because of the Applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
Applicant's arguments, filed 8/6/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on page 7, Applicant argues “Comparing an acoustic/vibration signature against a library of acoustic/vibration signatures is not the same as comparing first and second segments of the same sweep of the acoustic sensor. Therefore, Yavelberg does not disclose ‘determine[ing] a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep’”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Tang teaches selecting portions of the acoustic signal based on the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor when the sensor is beneath the carrier head (Par. [0041]), and Weins teaches separately processing acoustic signals associated with different monitored segments, including a signal 46 corresponding to segment 12 and a signal 52 corresponding to segment 14, and determining a difference between the respective signals by subtraction (Col. 3, lines 12-50). Thus, the combination of Tang and Weins teaches or suggests identifying respective acoustic signal segments associated with different monitored portions and determining a difference between those segments. Yavelberg further teaches determining mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head from acoustic/vibration information and controlling the polishing apparatus based on the determined condition (Pars. [0052] - [0053]). Therefore, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7, Applicant further argues “Claims 9 and 14, although different in scope from claim 1 and from each other, recite similar subject matter and are allowable for at least the same reasons. The dependent claims are allowable at least depending on their respective base claim”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because for the reasons discussed above, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches or suggests the corresponding disputed limitations of claims 9 and 14. The dependent claims are likewise not allowable merely by virtue of their dependency because their respective base claims remain rejected.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 6-7, and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. USPGPUB 2016/0256978 A1 (hereinafter Tang) in view of Weins et al. US 4,549,437 A (hereinafter Weins), and further in view of Yavelberg USPGPUB 2015/0360343 A1 (hereinafter Yavelberg).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Par. [0007], “chemical mechanical polishing apparatus”), comprising:
a platen to support a polishing pad (Par. [0007] “platen to support a polishing pad,”), the platen having a recess (Par. [0042] “recess 164 in the platen 120”);
a carrier head to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad (Par. [0003] “carrier head provides a controllable load on the substrate to push it against the polishing pad”), wherein the carrier head comprises a retaining ring to retain the substrate below the carrier head (Fig. 1, Par. [0036] “The carrier head 140 can include a retaining ring 142 to retain the substrate 10 below a flexible membrane 144.” – as seen in Figure 1, substrate and retaining ring are below the carrier head);
a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish the substrate (Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125, and each carrier head is rotated about its central axis 155 and translated laterally across the top surface of the polishing pad”; Par. [0005] “substrate is monitored in-situ during polishing, e.g., by monitoring the torque required by a motor to rotate the platen or carrier head” – because the motor rotates the platen or carrier head, and the substrate is held against the polishing pad during polishing, such rotation generates relative motion between the platen and the carrier head to polish the substrate.);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system comprising an acoustic sensor arranged in the recess that receives acoustic energy from friction between the substrate and the polishing pad (Par. [0031], “noise generated by friction of the substrate against the polishing pad (which is also sometimes referred to as an acoustic signal)”; Par. [0042] “acoustic emission sensor 162 is positioned in a recess 164 in the platen 120 and is positioned to receive acoustic emissions from a side of the substrate closer to the polishing pad 110”), and from friction between the retaining ring and the polishing pad (Fig. 1, Par. [0036] “The carrier head 140 can include a retaining ring 142 to retain the substrate 10 below a flexible membrane 144”; Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125, and each carrier head is rotated about its central axis 155” – the retaining ring is part of the rotating carrier head at the polishing pad interface. Therefore, relative motion between the retaining ring and polishing pad generates frictional acoustic energy at the polishing interface.); and
a controller (Par. [0015] “controller”).
Tang does not explicitly teach identify a first segment from a sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep,
identify a second segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep, and
determine a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep.
However, the combination of Tang and Weins teaches identify a first segment from a sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 15-25, “The acoustic emissions generated at each of the sensors can be fed to the system shown in FIG. 2 where the generated signals are summed for each segment of the structure. The output signal 42 of the recorder 40, which is the recorded signal from the first transducer 24, is added to the output signal 44 of the recorder 40 which is the recorded signal from the second transducer 26, to produce a time dependent summed output signal for segment 12. This summed output signal for segment 12 is schematically represented by the signal 46” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for each segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 46 as corresponding to a first segment 12.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating the selected signal portion with the position of the sensor beneath a particular portion of the carrier head during the sweep.),
identify a second segment from the sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 25-32, “In a similar manner, the output signals 48 and 50, which are respectively the recorded signals from transducers 30 and 32 located on the second segment 14 of the complex multiple segment structure are summed. Summing signals 48 and 50 provides a summed output signal for segment 14 which is schematically represented by the signal 52” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for the second segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 52 as corresponding to second segment 14.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating different selected signal portions with different positions beneath the carrier head during the sweep.); and
determine a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep (Weins, Col. 3, lines 39-50, “The summed output signals 46, 52 and 58 can be visually compared and differences in the patterns noted … The comparison of the output signals can be done automatically by processing pairs of the summed output signals in such a manner that the output signals are subtracted and their difference recorded. For example, signal 46 and 52 can be fed into an analyzer 60 which would then subtract signal 46 from signal 52 to produce a difference output signal 64” – signal 46 represents the acoustic signal associated with first segment 12, signal 52 represents the acoustic signal associated with second segment 14, and Weins determines a difference between the respective segment signals.).
Tang and Weins are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to using acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions associated with monitored portions of a mechanical structure.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, and incorporate separately processing acoustic signals associated with different monitored portions and determining a difference between the respective acoustic signals, as taught by Weins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring of the condition of different portions of the structure by identifying differences in the acoustic emissions associated with the different portions, as suggested by Weins (Col. 1).
Tang and Weins do not explicitly teach generate a value for a carrier head status parameter based on the difference, and
change a polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter.
However, the combination of Weins and Yavelberg teaches generate a value for a carrier head status parameter (Yavelberg, Par. [0010] “transmitting information associated with the captured acoustic and/or vibration emissions, and determining a chemical mechanical polishing condition based on an analysis of the transmitted information”; Par. [0052] “conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head” – mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head correspond to a carrier head status parameter.) based on the difference (Weins, Col. 3, lines 40-43, “These differences over time will be a result of changes in the structural integrity of the individual segments of the complex multiple segment structure”; Col. 3, lines 55-57, “The difference signals can be compared over time to determine deterioration in the structural integrity of the complex multiple segment structure” – Weins determines a condition of the monitored mechanical structure based on the difference between the acoustic signals associated with different portions of the structure.), and
change a polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter (Yavelberg, Fig. 5, Par. [0053] “At 514, the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus may be controlled by controller/computer 340 based on the determined chemical mechanical polishing conditions.”; Par. [0020] “Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) systems and methods are able to continuously monitors equipment parameters against preconfigured limits using statistical analysis techniques to provide proactive and rapid feedback on equipment health”).
Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to using acoustic sensor and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions of monitored mechanical systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang and Weins, and incorporate generating a carrier head status parameter from acoustic monitoring information and controlling the polishing apparatus based on the carrier head status parameter, as taught by Yavelberg, such that the difference determined according to Weins is used in generating the carrier head status parameter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve detection of polishing conditions and equipment performance, as suggested by Yavelberg (Par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the polishing parameter comprises one or more of an amount of gimbaling of the carrier head, whether a chamber in the carrier head is properly pressurized, the presence of a gas bubble between the substrate and the carrier head, or whether the substrate is chucked to the carrier head (Par. [0052] “conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head and other associated mechanical assemblies that are an integral part of CMP polishing, and the like” - These conditions correspond to operational states of the carrier head, including improper gimbaling, improper pressurization, presence of bubbles, and improper chucking. Improper chucking results in unstable contact and force transmission, leading to variations in the acoustic signal, which can be detected to determine whether the substrate is properly chucked.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to generate an alert based on the difference exceeding a threshold (Par. [0041] “captured acoustic/vibration information may be analyzed to reveal mechanical malfunctions such as, for example, substrate scratch detection caused by the polishing process, slurry arm and head collisions, head wearout (e.g., seals, gimbal, etc.), faulty bearings, conditioner head actuations, excessive vibrations, and the like.”; Par. [0020] “Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) systems and methods are able to continuously monitors equipment parameters against preconfigured limits using statistical analysis techniques to provide proactive and rapid feedback on equipment health”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second difference (Weins, Col. 3, lines 44-52, “The comparison of the output signals can be done automatically by processing pairs of the summed output signals in such a manner that the output signals are subtracted and their difference recorded. For example, signal 46 and 52 can be fed into an analyzer 60 which would then subtract signal 46 from signal 52 to produce a difference output signal 64. In a similar manner summed output signals 52 and 58 can be processed by analyzer 66 to produce a difference signal 68” – Weins determines multiple differences between acoustic signals including an additional difference signal 68.) between the sequence of segments and a historical acoustic signal (Yavelberg, Par. [0020], “The recorded acoustic/vibration information may be resolved into an acoustic/vibration signature that is monitored for changes and compared against a library of acoustic/vibration signatures” – Yavelberg compares current recorded acoustic information with a historical acoustic signature contained in a library of acoustic/vibration signatures.) from a previous substrate (Tang, Par. [0069], “A device substrate is polished at the polishing station (302) and an acoustic signal is collected from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (304)”; Par. [0071], “the data collected and/or the endpoint detection time can be … fed back to control processing of a subsequent substrate at the same polishing station” – the collected acoustic data used during processing of the subsequent substrate is acoustic information from the previously processed substrate.), wherein the historical acoustic signal is stored on the controller (Yavelberg, Par. [0044], “The controller/computer 340 generally comprises a central processing unit (CPU) 342, a memory 344, and support circuits 346 for the CPU 342 and facilitates the determination of CMP processing conditions (i.e., process end points, abnormal conditions, etc.)”; Par. [0045], “The memory 344, or computer-readable medium, of the CPU 342 may be one or more of readily available memory such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), floppy disk, hard disk, or any other form of digital storage, local or remote”).
Regarding claim 9, Tang teaches a method of polishing (Par. [0077] “polishing apparatus and methods”), comprising:
holding a substrate against a polishing surface of a polishing pad with a carrier head (Par. [0003] “carrier head provides a controllable load on the substrate to push it against the polishing pad”);
generating relative motion between the substrate and polishing pad such that a sensor of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system sweeps beneath the carrier head (Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125, and each carrier head is rotated about its central axis 155 and translated laterally across the top surface of the polishing pad”; Par. [0041], “This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – because the acoustic sensor is carried by the rotating platen, the sensor sweeps beneath the carrier head during relative motion.);
monitoring the carrier head with the in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate a signal comprising a sequence of segments from a sweep of the sensor beneath the carrier head (Par. [0041], “A position sensor … can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection.” – Tang measures position-correlated portions of the acoustic signal as the platen-mounted sensor sweeps beneath the carrier head, thereby providing a sequence of signal segments from the sweep.).
Tang does not explicitly teach identifying a first segment from a sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep,
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep, and
determining a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep.
However, the combination of Tang and Weins teaches identifying a first segment from a sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 15-25, “The acoustic emissions generated at each of the sensors can be fed to the system shown in FIG. 2 where the generated signals are summed for each segment of the structure. The output signal 42 of the recorder 40, which is the recorded signal from the first transducer 24, is added to the output signal 44 of the recorder 40 which is the recorded signal from the second transducer 26, to produce a time dependent summed output signal for segment 12. This summed output signal for segment 12 is schematically represented by the signal 46” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for each segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 46 as corresponding to a first segment 12.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating the selected signal portion with the position of the sensor beneath a particular portion of the carrier head during the sweep.),
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 25-32, “In a similar manner, the output signals 48 and 50, which are respectively the recorded signals from transducers 30 and 32 located on the second segment 14 of the complex multiple segment structure are summed. Summing signals 48 and 50 provides a summed output signal for segment 14 which is schematically represented by the signal 52” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for the second segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 52 as corresponding to second segment 14.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating different selected signal portions with different positions beneath the carrier head during the sweep.); and
determining a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep (Weins, Col. 3, lines 39-50, “The summed output signals 46, 52 and 58 can be visually compared and differences in the patterns noted … The comparison of the output signals can be done automatically by processing pairs of the summed output signals in such a manner that the output signals are subtracted and their difference recorded. For example, signal 46 and 52 can be fed into an analyzer 60 which would then subtract signal 46 from signal 52 to produce a difference output signal 64” – signal 46 represents the acoustic signal associated with first segment 12, signal 52 represents the acoustic signal associated with second segment 14, and Weins determines a difference between the respective segment signals).
Tang and Weins are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to using acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions associated with monitored portions of a mechanical structure.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, and incorporate separately processing acoustic signals associated with different monitored portions and determining a difference between the respective acoustic signals, as taught by Weins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring of the condition of different portions of the structure by identifying differences in the acoustic emissions associated with the different portions, as suggested by Weins (Col. 1).
Tang and Weins do not explicitly teach changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference.
However, the combination of Weins and Yavelberg teaches changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert (Yavelberg, Fig. 5, Par. [0053] “At 514, the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus may be controlled by controller/computer 340 based on the determined chemical mechanical polishing conditions.”; Par. [0020] “Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) systems and methods are able to continuously monitors equipment parameters against preconfigured limits using statistical analysis techniques to provide proactive and rapid feedback on equipment health”) based on the determined difference (Weins, Col. 3, lines 55-57, “The difference signals can be compared over time to determine deterioration in the structural integrity of the complex multiple segment structure”).
Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to using acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions of monitored mechanical systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Tang and Weins, and incorporate controlling the polishing apparatus based on the monitored condition, as taught by Yavelberg, such that the monitored condition is determined from the difference between the acoustic signal segments according to Weins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve detection of polishing conditions and equipment performance, as suggested by Yavelberg (Par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the first and second portions of the carrier head are a first and second portion of a ring assembly of the carrier head (Par. [0050] “acoustic/vibration sensor 302 embedded in the retaining ring 110 captures acoustic/vibration emissions from the chemical mechanical polishing process performed” – because acoustic signal is captured at the retaining ring, the signal reflects interactions occurring at the ring during polishing. As relative motion occurs between the carrier head and the polishing pad, different portions of the ring assembly interact with the polishing pad at different times, thereby generating corresponding portions of the acoustic signal.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang further teaches wherein the polishing parameter is a pressure of the carrier head (Par. [0035] “Each carrier head 140 can have independent control of the polishing parameters, for example pressure, associated with each respective substrate.”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches detecting the substrate leaving the polishing surface of the polishing pad based on the signal (Par. [0052] “the conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head and other associated mechanical assemblies that are an integral part of CMP polishing, and the like” – substrate slip, substrate loading, and substrate unloading issues involve disruption or loss of proper contact between the substrate and the polishing system. When the substrate leaves the polishing surface, interaction between the substrate and polishing pad is reduced or disrupted, resulting in a corresponding change in the acoustic emission signal. Detecting such changes in the acoustic signal corresponds to detecting the substrate leaving the polishing surface.).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches detecting a presence of a bubble based on the signal (Par. [0052], “the conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head and other associated mechanical assemblies that are an integral part of CMP polishing, and the like” – these conditions involve disruption or reduction of contact between the substrate and the polishing surface. A bubble present between the substrate and the polishing pad introduces a local discontinuity (e.g., an air gap) at the interface, thereby disrupting or reducing contact and altering the acoustic emission signal.).
Regarding claim 14, Tang teaches a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions to cause one or more computers to (Par. [0017], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium has stored thereon instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform operations of the above apparatus.”):
holding a substrate against a polishing surface of a polishing pad with a carrier head (Par. [0003] “carrier head provides a controllable load on the substrate to push it against the polishing pad”);
generating relative motion between the substrate and polishing pad such that a sensor of an in-situ acoustic monitoring system sweeps beneath the carrier head (Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125, and each carrier head is rotated about its central axis 155 and translated laterally across the top surface of the polishing pad”; Par. [0041], “This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – because the acoustic sensor is carried by the rotating platen, the sensor sweeps beneath the carrier head during relative motion.);
monitoring the carrier head with the in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate a signal comprising a sequence of segments from a sweep of the sensor beneath the carrier head (Par. [0041], “A position sensor ... can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” - Tang measures position-correlated portions of the acoustic signal as the platen-mounted sensor sweeps beneath the carrier head, thereby providing a sequence of signal segments from the sweep).
Tang does not explicitly teach identifying a first segment from a sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep,
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep, and
determining a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep.
However, the combination of Tang and Weins teaches identifying a first segment from a sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 15-25, “The acoustic emissions generated at each of the sensors can be fed to the system shown in FIG. 2 where the generated signals are summed for each segment of the structure. The output signal 42 of the recorder 40, which is the recorded signal from the first transducer 24, is added to the output signal 44 of the recorder 40 which is the recorded signal from the second transducer 26, to produce a time dependent summed output signal for segment 12. This summed output signal for segment 12 is schematically represented by the signal 46” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for each segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 46 as corresponding to a first segment 12.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head during a sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating the selected signal portion with the position of the sensor beneath a particular portion of the carrier head during the sweep.),
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments (Weins, Col. 3, lines 25-32, “In a similar manner, the output signals 48 and 50, which are respectively the recorded signals from transducers 30 and 32 located on the second segment 14 of the complex multiple segment structure are summed. Summing signals 48 and 50 provides a summed output signal for segment 14 which is schematically represented by the signal 52” – Weins separately processes the acoustic information for the second segment and identifies a time-dependent acoustic output signal 52 as corresponding to second segment 14.) corresponding to the acoustic sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head during the sweep (Tang, Par. [0037], “the platen is rotated about its central axis 125”; Par. [0041], “A position sensor, e.g., an optical interrupter connected to the rim of the platen or a rotary encoder, can be used to sense the angular position of the platen 120. This permits only portions of the signal measured when the sensor 162 is in proximity to the substrate, e.g., when the sensor 162 is below the carrier head or substrate, to be used in endpoint detection” – As the platen rotates, Tang uses the sensed angular position of the platen-mounted acoustic sensor to select a signal portion measured when the sensor is beneath the carrier head, thereby correlating different selected signal portions with different positions beneath the carrier head during the sweep.); and
determining a difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep (Weins, Col. 3, lines 39-50, “The summed output signals 46, 52 and 58 can be visually compared and differences in the patterns noted … The comparison of the output signals can be done automatically by processing pairs of the summed output signals in such a manner that the output signals are subtracted and their difference recorded. For example, signal 46 and 52 can be fed into an analyzer 60 which would then subtract signal 46 from signal 52 to produce a difference output signal 64” - signal 46 represents the acoustic signal associated with first segment 12, signal 52 represents the acoustic signal associated with second segment 14, and Weins determines a difference between the respective segment signals).
Tang and Weins are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They both relate to using acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions associated with monitored portions of a mechanical structure.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, and incorporate separately processing acoustic signals associated with different monitored portions and determining a difference between the respective acoustic signals, as taught by Weins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve monitoring of the condition of different portions of the structure by identifying differences in the acoustic emissions associated with the different portions, as suggested by Weins (Col. 1).
Tang and Weins do not explicitly teach changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference.
However, the combination of Weins and Yavelberg teaches changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert (Yavelberg, Fig. 5, Par. [0053] “At 514, the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus may be controlled by controller/computer 340 based on the determined chemical mechanical polishing conditions.”; Par. [0020] “Fault Detection and Classification (FDC) systems and methods are able to continuously monitors equipment parameters against preconfigured limits using statistical analysis techniques to provide proactive and rapid feedback on equipment health”) based on the determined difference (Weins, Col. 3, lines 55-57, “The difference signals can be compared over time to determine deterioration in the structural integrity of the complex multiple segment structure”).
Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to using acoustic sensors and acoustic signal processing to determine conditions of monitored mechanical systems.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above computer-implemented operations, as taught by Tang and Weins, and incorporate controlling the polishing apparatus based on the determined condition, as taught by Yavelberg, such that the determined condition is based on the difference between the acoustic signal segments according to Weins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve detection of polishing conditions and equipment performance, as suggested by Yavelberg (Par. [0020]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
wherein the first and second portions of the carrier head are a first and second portion of a retaining ring of the carrier head (Par. [0050] “acoustic/vibration sensor 302 embedded in the retaining ring 110 captures acoustic/vibration emissions from the chemical mechanical polishing process performed” – because acoustic signal is captured at the retaining ring, the signal reflects interactions occurring at the ring during polishing. As relative motion occurs between the carrier head and the polishing pad, different portions of the ring assembly interact with the polishing pad at different times, thereby generating corresponding portions of the acoustic signal.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang further teaches wherein the polishing parameter is a pressure of the carrier head (Par. [0035] “Each carrier head 140 can have independent control of the polishing parameters, for example pressure, associated with each respective substrate.”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches detecting the substrate leaving the polishing surface of the polishing pad based on the signal (Par. [0052] “the conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head and other associated mechanical assemblies that are an integral part of CMP polishing, and the like” – substrate slip, substrate loading, and substrate unloading issues involve disruption or loss of proper contact between the substrate and the polishing system. When the substrate leaves the polishing surface, interaction between the substrate and polishing pad is reduced or disrupted, resulting in a corresponding change in the acoustic emission signal. Detecting such changes in the acoustic signal corresponds to detecting the substrate leaving the polishing surface.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches detecting a presence of a bubble based on the signal (Par. [0052], “the conditions determined may include CMP process endpoint detection, detection of abnormal conditions such as substrate slip, substrate loading and unloading issues, mechanical performance conditions of the CMP head and other associated mechanical assemblies that are an integral part of CMP polishing, and the like” – these conditions involve disruption or reduction of contact between the substrate and the polishing surface. A bubble present between the substrate and the polishing pad introduces a local discontinuity (e.g., an air gap) at the interface, thereby disrupting or reducing contact and altering the acoustic emission signal.).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Weins further teaches wherein determining the difference between the first segment of the sweep and the second segment of the sweep comprises subtracting the first segment from the second segment (Col. 3, lines 39-50, “The summed output signals 46, 52 and 58 can be visually compared and differences in the patterns noted … The comparison of the output signals can be done automatically by processing pairs of the summed output signals in such a manner that the output signals are subtracted and their difference recorded. For example, signal 46 and 52 can be fed into an analyzer 60 which would then subtract signal 46 from signal 52 to produce a difference output signal 64” – signal 46 represents the acoustic signal associated with first segment 12, signal 52 represents the acoustic signal associated with second segment 14, and Weins subtracts the first segment associated signal from the second segment associated signal).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. USPGPUB 2016/0256978 A1 (hereinafter Tang) in view of Weins et al. US 4,549,437 A (hereinafter Weins) and Yavelberg USPGPUB 2015/0360343 A1 (hereinafter Yavelberg), and further in view of Swedek et al. USPGPUB 2019/0283204 A1 (hereinafter Swedek).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg do not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic sensor is attached to a bottom surface of the polishing pad.
However, Swedek teaches wherein the acoustic sensor is attached to a bottom surface of the polishing pad (Par. [0008], “The in-situ acoustic monitoring system includes a vibration sensor supported by the flexible membrane and positioned to couple to an underside of the polishing pad.”; Par. [0032] “vibration sensor 162 is in direct contact with the underside of the polishing layer 112.” – Acoustic emission signals in a solid medium propagate as elastic mechanical waves that induce corresponding vibrations in the structure through which they travel. Accordingly, a vibration sensor that detects such structural vibrations is capable of detecting acoustic emission signals, and thus corresponds to an acoustic sensor. Further, positioning the sensor in direct contact with and coupled to the underside of the polishing pad provides mechanical coupling necessary for signal transmission and constitutes attachment to the bottom surface of the polishing pad.).
Tang, Weins, Yavelberg, and Swedek are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to chemical mechanical polishing systems with integrated sensors.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg, and incorporate attaching a sensor to the bottom of the polishing pad, as taught by Swedek.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve signal strength and detection reliability as suggested by Swedek (Par. [0013]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. USPGPUB 2016/0256978 A1 (hereinafter Tang) in view of Weins et al. US 4,549,437 A (hereinafter Weins) and Yavelberg USPGPUB 2015/0360343 A1 (hereinafter Yavelberg), and further in view of Barnes et al. USPGPUB 2004/0236223 A1 (hereinafter Barnes).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang teaches a window (Par. [0055], “a transparent window through which the optical monitoring system directs a light beam.”), but Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg do not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic sensor contacts a bottom surface of an acoustic window.
However, Barnes teaches wherein the acoustic sensor contacts a bottom surface of an acoustic window (Par. [0028], “The sensor 16 is a temperature sensor, pressure sensor, microphone, chemical sensor, viscosity sensor, gas sensor or other sensor now known or later developed for sensing non-ultrasound information”; Par. [0029] “sensor 16 is positioned on or near the transducer elements 14 and/or the acoustic window 20”; Par. [0021], “The transducer elements 14 are positioned adjacent to or against the acoustic window 20 for transmitting acoustic energy to and receiving acoustic energy from the patient or other subject of interest” – Barnes teaches an acoustic sensing component positioned against the acoustic window, thereby establishing physical contact with a surface of the acoustic window).
Tang, Weins, Yavelberg, and Barnes are analogous art because they contain functional similarities. They all relate to using integrated sensors.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg, and incorporate an acoustic window contacting a sensor, as taught by Barnes.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve “transmitting acoustic energy to and receiving acoustic energy from the patient or other subject of interest” as suggested by Barnes (Par. [0021]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. USPGPUB 2016/0256978 A1 (hereinafter Tang) in view of Weins et al. US 4,549,437 A (hereinafter Weins) and Yavelberg USPGPUB 2015/0360343 A1 (hereinafter Yavelberg), and further in view of Fukushima et al. USPGPUB 2015/0183082 A1 (hereinafter Fukushima).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg do not explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the carrier head is a first portion of the retaining ring, and wherein the second portion of the carrier head is a second portion of the retaining ring.
However, Fukushima teaches wherein the first portion of the carrier head is a first portion of the retaining ring, and wherein the second portion of the carrier head is a second portion of the retaining ring (Par. [0039], “Polish head 4 includes polish head body 7 and retainer ring 9 … Retainer ring 9 is attached to the under surface of polish head body 7”; Par. [0070], “Groove 29b serves as a slurry passageway and divides retainer ring 29 into circumferential portions” – Fukushima teaches that the retaining ring forms a portion of the polish head and is divided into circumferential portions. Therefore, respective circumferential portions of the retaining ring constitute first and second portions of the polish head.).
Tang, Weins, Yavelberg, and Fukushima are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They all relate to chemical mechanical polishing apparatuses having a polish/carrier head and a retaining ring.
Therefore, at the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above chemical mechanical polishing system, as taught by Tang, Weins, and Yavelberg, and incorporate circumferentially divided portions, as taught by Fukushima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the balance of wear of the retaining ring and stabilize the polish profile, as suggested by Fukushima (Par. [0074]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gitis et al. [US 6,494,765 B2] teaches an apparatus for controlling a polishing process, in particular for detecting an end point of the polishing process, comprising a rotating or orbiting platen with a pad, a rotating head that supports an object to be treated.
Hwang et al. [USPGPUB 2013/0044004 A1] teaches methods and apparatus for detecting errors in real time in CMP processing including comparing the received signals from the CMP tool to expected received signals for normal processing by the CMP tool.
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 PETER XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/PETER XU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights