DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 21-26 are 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.
Regarding claims 21-26, each of these claims recites “The carrier head of claim [16, 17, or 13]” in their preambles. However, claims 16, 17, and 13 are each directed to a system, and the claimed carrier head is one part of that system. As claims are required to include all the subject matter of any claim from which they depend (see also 112d rejection below), it is unclear which elements of claims 16-17 and 13 are within the scope of claims 21-26. For the purposes of this examination, claims 21-26 will be interpreted as requiring all the subject matter of the claims from which they depend.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites “the controller is configured to receive a measured distance from the sensor and subtract the measured distance from a predetermined starting thickness to calculate a current thickness of the retaining ring.” It is unclear how the claimed subtraction would calculate a current thickness of the retaining ring. As an example, with reference to applicant’s figure 2, given a starting thickness (T) of the retaining ring, subtracting the measured distance between the sensor 950 and target 952 does not result in a calculation of the current thickness of the retaining ring. Before any wear of the retaining ring the starting thickness will be equal to the current thickness, but the claimed calculation would result in a calculation that yields a current thickness less than the starting thickness. This makes the intended calculation unclear. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 21-26 each recite “The carrier head of claim [16, 17, or 13]” in their preambles. However, claims 16, 17, and 13 are each directed to a system, and the claimed carrier head is one part of that system. Therefore, claims 21-26 as currently written do not include all the elements of claims 16-17 and 13 from which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 13-18 and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga (US 20210053178, previously cited) in view of Kobayashi (JP 11-000860 A, previously cited) and Chen (US 2013/0203321).
Regarding claim 13, Zuniga teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system, comprising: a platen (described [0006]); a drive shaft ([0016]); a carrier head (100) including a retaining ring (205), a housing (102) that includes an upper carrier body (104) attached to the drive shaft ([0016]) and a lower carrier body (106) that is vertically movable relative to the upper carrier body ([0016]) is secured to and suspends the retaining ring ([0015]), a first flexible seal (unlabeled seal connecting bodies 104 and 106 must be flexible in order to permit the described relative vertical movement) forming a loading chamber (110) between the upper carrier body and the lower carrier body (shown in fig 2), a membrane assembly (500) arranged beneath the lower carrier body, the membrane assembly comprising a membrane support (716; fig 1C) and a flexible membrane (600, 700) secured to the membrane support to form one or more lower pressurizable chambers (650; [0023]), a second flexible seal (734) forming an upper pressurizable chamber (726) between the lower carrier body and the membrane support (fig 2), and a sensor (950) secured to the housing and configured to measure a distance between the upper carrier body and the membrane support (as shown in fig 2 and described [0034]), wherein the sensor is positioned to measure a distance across the loading chamber (110) at a location laterally displaced from the retaining ring (as shown in fig 2); and a controller (910) configured to receive a measurement from the sensor ([0032]) indicative of a thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring ([0035]) and, based on the measurement, at least one of i) determine whether the retaining ring should be replaced based on the thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring or ii) determine an adjustment for a pressure in the loading chamber or the upper pressurizable chamber based on the thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring ([0035]).
Zuniga does not teach the sensor configured to measure a distance between the upper carrier body and lower carrier body (the sensor of Zuniga measures a distance between the upper carrier body and membrane support). Kobayashi teaches a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing comprising a sensor (32) secured to a housing and configured to measure a distance between an upper carrier body (18) and lower carrier body ([0032-0033]; senses distance to target 28A on lower carrier body 28). It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. (D)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensor of Zuniga to measure a distance between the upper carrier body and lower carrier body of Zuniga, as this measurement is indicative of a displacement of the retaining ring as taught by Kobayashi ([0033]), which is the desired measurement in Zuniga for determining wear of the retaining ring ([0035]).
Zuniga does not explicitly teach a motor having the drive shaft, the drive shaft being vertically fixed (although the drive shaft being fixed to a motor is implied by the disclosure of the shaft being rotatable [0016]). Chen teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system including a motor (drive mechanism 124; [0017]) having a vertically fixed drive shaft (unlabeled drive shaft between element 124 and carrier head 104 shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a motor with a vertically fixed drive shaft in the system of Zuniga, as motors with vertically fixed drive shafts are known for providing the rotation desired by Zuniga to a carrier head as taught by Chen ([0017]).
Zuniga does not explicitly teach the controller calculating a thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring from the measurement of the sensor (although Zuniga recognizes the described distance measurement directly relates to the thickness or wear of the retaining ring; [0035]). Chen further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system including a controller (160) configured to receive a measurement from a sensor and calculate a thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring from the measurement from the sensor ([0033]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an amount of thickness or wear of the retaining ring from the measurement from the sensor of Zuniga, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the current thickness and amount of wear of the retaining ring to be determined as taught by Chen ([0033]), allowing the maximum lifetime of the retaining ring to be achieved (Chen [0035]).
Regarding claim 14, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the controller (910) is configured to generate an alert if the retaining ring thickness is determined to fall below the threshold value ([0035-0036]; as broadly claimed, the described “report” of the measured distance due to retaining ring wear can be considered an alert to the machine to change the pressure).
Regarding claim 15, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the controller is configured to determine whether the measured distance passes a threshold value and to generate an alert if the measured distance is determined to pass the threshold value ([0035-0036]; as broadly claimed, the described “report” of the measured distance due to retaining ring wear can be considered an alert to the machine to change the pressure based on a determined threshold). While Zuniga teaches generating the alert based on the measured distance falling below a threshold value ([0035-0036]), the modification based on Kobayashi to have the measured distance be the distance between the upper carrier body and lower carrier body (modification described in the rejection of claim 13 above) would result in the measured distance increasing when the ring wears rather than decreasing (based on fig 2 of Zuniga, as the retaining ring 205 wears, the lower carrier body 106 which holds the ring would move downward, increasing its distance to top ring carrier 104). As Zuniga is concerned with determining the wear of the ring, this would necessitate generating the alert based on increasing distance measurements rather than decreasing. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate an alert if the measured distance exceeds a threshold value, as this is indicative of ring wear, which is the desired measurement of Zuniga.
Regarding claim 16, Zuniga, as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor (950) is secured to the upper carrier body and is configured to sense a distance between the sensor and a target (954) on the lower carrier body (when modified by Kobayashi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the target would be on the lower carrier body in order to sense the distance to the lower carrier body).
Regarding claim 17, Zuniga, as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor (950) is secured to the upper carrier body and is configured to sense a distance between the sensor and a target (954) on the lower carrier body (when modified by Kobayashi as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the target would be on the lower carrier body in order to sense the distance to the lower carrier body). Zuniga and Kobayashi do not teach the sensor secured to the lower carrier body and the target on the upper carrier body. However, it has been held that reversal of parts is obvious for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 VI. A.). As there is no difference in function in having the sensor and sensor target in opposite positions, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the sensor and target of Zuniga on the upper and lower carrier bodies respectively, achieving the predictable result of measuring the distance between the upper and lower bodies.
Regarding claim 18, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor is an inductively coupled sensor, capacitively coupled sensor or a laser displacement sensor ([0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the controller is configured to determine an adjustment for a pressure in the loading chamber (110) or the upper pressurizable chamber (726) to compensating for changes in load on the membrane assembly based on wear of the retaining ring ([0035]).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 17 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor is an optical sensor ([0032]) and the target is reflective (in order to employ an optical sensor as described by Zuniga, the target must be at least partially reflective).
Regarding claim 22, Zuniga as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Kobayashi further teaches the target is a top surface (28A; fig 1) of the lower carrier body (when target 954 of Zuniga is used on the lower body as taught by Kobayashi, the target would be on a top surface of the lower body).
Regarding claim 24, Zuniga as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Zuniga, as modified further teaches the target is a bottom surface of the upper carrier body (when target 954 of Zuniga is used on the upper body as described in the rejection of claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 25, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the controller is configured to receive a measured distance from the sensor ([0035]). Zuniga does not teach subtracting the measured distance from a predetermined starting thickness to calculate a current thickness of the retaining ring. Chen further teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system including a controller configured to receive a measured distance from a sensor and subtract a measured distance from a predetermined starting thickness to calculate an amount of wear of the retaining ring ([0033]; this is examiner’s best understanding of the intended claim limitation; see 112b rejection above). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate an amount of wear of the retaining ring by subtracting a measured distance from a predetermined starting thickness, as this allows calculating an amount of wear of the retaining ring, allowing the lifetime of the retaining ring to be maximized as taught by Chen ([0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 26, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the controller is configured to cause the loading chamber (110) to be pressurized sufficiently to push the lower carrier body and retaining ring downward ([0016]) until a bottom surface of the retaining ring contacts the polishing pad (as shown in fig 2), and measuring the distance between the upper carrier body and the lower carrier body (distance measured based on modification from teachings of Kobayashi as detailed in the rejection of claim 13 above). Zuniga does not explicitly teach measuring the distance while the bottom surface of the retaining ring contacts the polishing pad. Kobayashi further teaches measuring the distance between the upper carrier body and the lower carrier body while the bottom surface of the retaining ring contacts the polishing pad ([0033-0034] describes measurement taking place during polishing, which includes a time when the bottom surface of the retaining ring contacts the polishing pad). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Zuniga to measure the distance between the upper carrier body and lower carrier body while the bottom surface of the retaining ring contacts the polishing pad as taught by Kobayashi, achieving the predictable result of allowing real time measurement of the retaining ring.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga, Kobayashi, and Chen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Nagengast (US 2022/0111484, previously cited).
Regarding claims 19 Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Zuniga does not teach the sensor is an LVDT sensor. Nagengast teaches a carrier head including a sensor (532) for sensing a position of a retaining ring, wherein the sensor is an LVDT sensor ([0043]; last sentence). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the LVDT sensor of Nagengast in place of the sensor of Zuniga, as Nagengast describes ([0043]) that an LVDT contact sensor is a known alternative to the optical sensor disclosed by Zuniga for measuring distance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zuniga does not teach calculating a thickness or amount of wear of the retaining ring. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the newly cited Chen teaches this new limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other systems for measuring retaining ring wear are cited.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
