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 § 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga (US 20210053178, cited by applicant) in view of Kobayashi (JP 11-000860 A, cited by applicant with translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zuniga teaches a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising: a housing (102; fig 2) for attachment to a drive shaft ([0016]), wherein the housing includes an upper carrier body (104) to be attached to a vertically stationary drive shaft ([0016]; note that the drive shaft is not positively recited as a part of the claimed carrier head) and a lower carrier body (106) that is vertically movable relative to the upper carrier body ([0016]) is configured to be secured to and suspend a retaining ring (205; [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 (106) 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]).
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, 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Zuniga, as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 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 3, Zuniga as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 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 4, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 3 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 5, Zuniga, as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 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 6, Zuniga as modified by Kobayashi, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 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 5 above).
Regarding claim 7, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 6 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 8, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor is a non-contact sensor (as shown in fig 1A, the sensor 950 does not contact target 954).
Regarding claim 9, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Zuniga does not teach the sensor is an inductively or capacitively coupled sensor. Kobayashi further teaches a carrier head with a capacitively coupled sensor ([0033]). It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. B.). 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 a capacitively coupled sensor in place of the sensor of Zuniga, as capacitively coupled sensors are known in the art for measuring distance as taught by Kobayashi ([0033]) and Zuniga describes that any sensor capable of measuring distance can be used in the carrier head ([0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Zuniga further teaches the sensor is a laser displacement sensor ([0032]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga and Kobayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagengast (US 2022/0111484).
Regarding claims 11-12 Zuniga, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Zuniga does not teach the sensor is a contact senor or 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 contact 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 contact 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.
Claim(s) 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga (US 20210053178, cited by applicant) in view of Kobayashi (JP 11-000860 A, cited by applicant with translation) and Chen (US 2014/0020829, cited by applicant).
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]); and a controller (910) configured to receive a measurement from the sensor ([0032]) and, based on the measurement, at least one of i) determine whether the retaining ring should be replaced or ii) determine an adjustment for a pressure in the loading chamber or the upper pressurizable chamber ([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, 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 (54) having a vertically fixed drive shaft (50; shaft is vertically fixed to motor and carrier head 100 as shown in 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 ([0026]).
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 determine a retaining ring thickness from the measurement from the sensor ([0035]), and to determine whether the retaining ring thickness falls below a threshold value, and 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]).
Claim(s) 20 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).
Regarding claims 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Similar carrier heads and polishing systems are cited.
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