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 8/4/2023
Claims 1-18 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, the phrase “change or polishing parameter” renders the scope of the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the claim intends to recite “change a polishing parameter” or another relationship between “change and “polishing parameter”. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are not reasonably certain.
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 5-18 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 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. [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. [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 (Par. [0009] “The in-situ acoustic monitoring system includes an acoustic emission sensor supported by the platen and a waveguide positioned to couple the acoustic emission sensor to slurry in a groove in the polishing pad.” – acoustic emissions from the polishing interface would include contributions from both the substrate and retaining ring, as both contact the polishing pad during chemical mechanical polishing.); and
a controller (Par. [0015] “controller”)
Tang does not explicitly teach a controller configured to
generate a value for a carrier head status parameter based on received acoustic signals from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system, and
change or polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter
However, Yavelberg teaches generate a value for a carrier head status parameter based on received acoustic signals from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system (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” – performance conditions represent an operational condition of the carrier head, and thus is interpreted as a status parameter), and
change or (“or” is being interpreted as “a”) polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter (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 and Yavelberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both 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, and incorporate generating a carrier head status parameter using acoustic sensor data and change a polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter, as taught by Yavelberg.
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 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. 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. 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 5, the combination of Tang and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a difference between at least two different portions of the acoustic signal (Par. [0041] “the captured 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”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tang 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 and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a difference between the acoustic signal and a historical acoustic signal from a previous substrate, wherein the historical acoustic signal is stored on the controller (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”; Par. [0043], “The transmitter 310 may send the acoustic/vibration signals received to a controller/computer 340 for analysis and to control the CMP apparatus 20”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tang and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Yavelberg further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a difference in the acoustic signal (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”; Par. [0043] “The transmitter 310 may send the acoustic/vibration signals received to a controller/computer 340 for analysis and to control the CMP apparatus 20”; Par. [0050] “acoustic/vibration sensor 302 embedded in the retaining ring 110 captures acoustic/vibration emissions from the chemical mechanical polishing process performed”).
Yavelberg does not explicitly teach the difference being from a first portion and a second portion of a surface of the retaining ring.
However, Tang teaches the difference being from a first portion and a second portion of a surface of the retaining ring (Fig. 8 illustrates acoustic emission intensity varying over time. The signal includes peaks and changes across different time intervals corresponding to different portions having different values.).
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 pad (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 passes beneath the carrier head (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 relative motion is generated between the substrate and polishing pad, and the sensor is positioned with respect to the polishing pad, such motion causes the sensor to move relative to the carrier head, thereby passing beneath the carrier head.);
monitoring the carrier head with the in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate a signal comprising a sequence of segments (Par. [0065] “FIG. 8 is a graph 250 of signal intensity as a function of time from a sensor 162.” – Figure 8 illustrates acoustic emission signal varies over time, thereby forming a sequence of signal portions (segments));
identifying a first segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head (Par. [0065] “Each deviation could have a different shape, but for particular deviation the signals received by the different sensors 162 should have substantially the same shape, albeit time shifted (shown in phantom) due to the difference in time needed for the signal to propagate from the location of the even to the sensor”; Par. [0066] “time difference T can be used to triangulate the approximate location of the acoustic event in the two dimensional space between the sensors 162” – acoustic event locations can be determined using intensity patterns and triangulation);
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head (Par. [0065] “Each deviation could have a different shape, but for particular deviation the signals received by the different sensors 162 should have substantially the same shape, albeit time shifted (shown in phantom) due to the difference in time needed for the signal to propagate from the location of the even to the sensor”; Par. [0066] “time difference T can be used to triangulate the approximate location of the acoustic event in the two dimensional space between the sensors 162” – acoustic event locations can be determined using intensity patterns and triangulation);
Tang does not explicitly teach determining a difference between the first segment and the second segment; and
changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference.
However, Yavelberg teaches determining a difference between the first segment and the second segment (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); and
changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference (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 and Yavelberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both 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, and incorporate generating a carrier head status parameter using acoustic sensor data and change a polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter, as taught by Yavelberg.
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 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 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 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 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 passes beneath the carrier head (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 relative motion is generated between the substrate and polishing pad, and the sensor is positioned with respect to the polishing pad, such motion causes the sensor to move relative to the carrier head, thereby passing beneath the carrier head.);
monitoring the carrier head with the in-situ acoustic monitoring system to generate a signal comprising a sequence of segments (Par. [0065] “FIG. 8 is a graph 250 of signal intensity as a function of time from a sensor 162.” – Figure 8 illustrates acoustic emission signal varies over time, thereby forming a sequence of signal portions (segments));
identifying a first segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the sensor being beneath a first portion of the carrier head (Par. [0065] “Each deviation could have a different shape, but for particular deviation the signals received by the different sensors 162 should have substantially the same shape, albeit time shifted (shown in phantom) due to the difference in time needed for the signal to propagate from the location of the even to the sensor”; Par. [0066] “time difference T can be used to triangulate the approximate location of the acoustic event in the two dimensional space between the sensors 162” – acoustic event locations can be determined using intensity patterns and triangulation);
identifying a second segment from the sequence of segments corresponding to the sensor being beneath a second portion of the carrier head (Par. [0065] “Each deviation could have a different shape, but for particular deviation the signals received by the different sensors 162 should have substantially the same shape, albeit time shifted (shown in phantom) due to the difference in time needed for the signal to propagate from the location of the even to the sensor”; Par. [0066] “time difference T can be used to triangulate the approximate location of the acoustic event in the two dimensional space between the sensors 162” – acoustic event locations can be determined using intensity patterns and triangulation);
determining a difference between the first segment and the second segment; and
changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference.
Tang does not explicitly teach determining a difference between the first segment and the second segment; and
changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference.
However, Yavelberg teaches determining a difference between the first segment and the second segment (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); and
changing a polishing parameter or generating an alert based on the determined difference (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 and Yavelberg are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain functional similarities. They both 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, and incorporate generating a carrier head status parameter using acoustic sensor data and change a polishing parameter or generate an alert based on the carrier head status parameter, as taught by Yavelberg.
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 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 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 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 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.).
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 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 and Yavelberg teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Tang 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, 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 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 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 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 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” – contacting a bottom surface of an acoustic window would correspond to the sensor being positioned on or near the acoustic window).
Tang, 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 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]).
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
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