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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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(s) 25 is/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 claim(s) 25, the claim feature or are dependent upon claims which feature the limitation “the predefined threshold value comprises a calculated numerical difference between the initial surface roughness and the measured surface roughness measured by the first endpoint detector during the rotating of the platen and the pad holder”. It is unclear how the “predefined threshold value” can be predefined if its value is calculated based on an in-situ measurement. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the claim as reciting “the comparing the measured surface roughness to the predefined threshold value comprises a calculated numerical difference between the initial surface roughness and the measured surface roughness measured by the first endpoint detector during the rotating of the platen and the pad holder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobata et al. (US 20170047237 A1, hereinafter K1).
Regarding independent claim 21, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text A method comprising: securing a semiconductor wafer to a platen (wafer W is secured to substrate holding unit 220), the semiconductor wafer comprising a target layer (the surface of W facing away from 220 is interpreted as the target layer); dispensing a polishing slurry onto the semiconductor wafer (processing liquid PL is dispensed onto W by processing liquid supply unit 40 and is interpreted as a polishing slurry); pressing a polishing pad held by a pad holder against the target layer (catalyst 31, which is interpreted as a polishing pad in that it is pad-shaped and used in polishing a surface of W, is held against W by catalyst holding unit 30, as shown); rotating the platen and the pad holder to physically remove a portion of the target layer (220 and 30 rotate, as shown by arrows in K1 FIG. 12, and a surface of W is removed by action of W against 31 (K1 [0250])); measuring a surface roughness of the target layer utilizing a first endpoint detector concurrently with rotating the platen and the pad holder (monitoring unit 480 determines a surface roughness of W using, e.g., a monitoring unit configured to monitor a torque current of the driving unit (K1 [0303]), which is considered a first CMP endpoint detector because it is a detector used in 480, which measures an endpoint of CMP processing (K1 [0306])); comparing the measured surface roughness to a predefined threshold value (480 is used to determine a processing endpoint corresponding to a predetermined target value (K1 [0037]), which would mean comparing roughness to a predetermined value when 480 measures roughness); and ceasing the rotating of the platen and the pad holder in response to the measured surface roughness satisfying the predefined threshold value (as interpreted above, surface roughness measured by 480 satisfying the predetermined value is used to determine a processing endpoint (K1 [0037]), which includes ceasing rotation of 220 and 30 in response to satisfying that condition, since the rotation is considered a part of the process).
Regarding dependent claim 26, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 21, wherein the target layer is made of a carbide material (the method of K1 can be applied to substrate materials including SiC (K1 [0003])).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini et al. (US 20200235061 A1, hereinafter E1), and further in view of K1.
Regarding independent claim 1, E1 discloses in E1 FIG. 11C-11D and associated text A method comprising: providing a wafer including a layer (assembly 1202 is a wafer comprising thermal layer 1020). E1 does not explicitly disclose performing a surface treatment to the layer; polishing the layer using a polishing pad; determining whether a surface roughness or a thickness of the layer reaches a pre-determined condition; or stopping polishing the layer when the surface roughness or the thickness of the layer reaches the pre-determined condition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text performing a surface treatment to the layer (applying a processing liquid PL to a surface of wafer W with processing liquid supply unit 40); polishing the layer using a polishing pad (catalyst 31 is interpreted as a polishing pad in that it is pad-shaped and used in polishing a surface of W); determining whether a surface roughness or a thickness of the layer reaches a pre-determined condition (monitoring unit 480 measures a property of W, e.g. roughness (K1 [0303]), and can be used to determine whether the processing target region of W reaches a predetermined value (K1 [0037])); and stopping polishing the layer when the surface roughness or the thickness of the layer reaches the pre-determined condition (the status of the processing of W determined by 480 is used to determine and end point of the processing (K1 [0037]), i.e. stopping the polishing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the polishing method of K1 with the wafer of E1 to provide a suitable method of removing a portion of 1020 (E1 [0072] states that removal of a portion of 1020 is performed by any suitable technique) and the method of K1 provides the advantage of selective etching of protrusions for successful planarization of even high chemical stability substrate materials (K1 [0003]).
An additional rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 2, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the surface roughness or the thickness of the layer reaches the pre-determined condition is performed after performing the surface treatment (The substrate and catalyst are brought into contact in the presence of a processing liquid (K1 [0011]), therefore deposition of PL occurs at least at the beginning of processing. 480 measures the processing status of W during processing including in determining an end point, as interpreted above, therefore determining whether the predetermined condition is met occurs at least at the end of processing. Therefore, said determination occurs after treatment, as claimed).
Regarding dependent claim 3, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein the surface roughness of the layer is determined based on dark field inspection, torque signal measurement, or surface probing (480 determines roughness of the polishing target based on torque current (K1 [0303])).
Regarding dependent claim 4, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the layer is determined based on spectroscopic ellipsometry, spectroscopic reflectometry, or white light interferometry (480 determines a thickness of the polishing target by intensity of light reflected off the surface of W (K1 [0301]), i.e. spectroscopic reflectometry).
Regarding dependent claim 5, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the surface roughness or the thickness of the layer reaches the pre-determined condition is performed using a CMP endpoint detector, and the CMP endpoint detector is separated from the polishing pad (480, which is considered a CMP endpoint detector because it is a detector used in measuring an endpoint of CMP processing, as interpreted above, and is separated from 31, as shown).
Regarding dependent claim 6, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the surface roughness or the thickness of the layer reaches the pre-determined condition is performed using a CMP endpoint detector, and the CMP endpoint detector is integrated with the polishing pad (480, which is considered a CMP endpoint detector because it is a detector used in measuring an endpoint of CMP processing, as interpreted above, and is considered integrated with 31 in that the two are used together in the apparatus 410).
Regarding dependent claim 7, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 1, wherein the pre-determined condition comprises the surface roughness of the layer is less than a first threshold value or the thickness of the layer is less than a second threshold value (failing to satisfy a predetermined target value may mean the difference between the distribution of the thickness of the processing target layer acquired by 480 and the predetermined target distribution of the thickness is larger than a reference value (K1 [0307]), therefore the inverse (satisfying a predetermined target value) must be that the measured thickness is less than a threshold value).
Regarding independent claim 8, E1 discloses in E1 FIG. 11C-11D and associated text A method comprising providing a wafer comprising: a device layer (assembly 1202 is a wafer comprising die 1010, which has a device layer (E1 [0070])); a front-side interconnect structure over the device layer (conductive contacts 1008, interpreted as a front-side interconnect structure, are on side 1004 of 1010, which is interpreted as over the device layer of 1010); a backside interconnect structure under the device layer (conductive contacts 1006, interpreted as a front-side interconnect structure, are on side 1002 of 1010, which is interpreted as under the device layer of 1010); and a heat dissipation layer over the front-side interconnect structure (thermal layer 1020, considered a heat dissipation layer, is over 1008), wherein the heat dissipation layer is made of diamond (1020 may be diamond (E1 [0063], [0045])). E1 does not explicitly disclose polishing the heat dissipation layer using a polishing pad; determining whether a surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than a first threshold value or a thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than a second threshold value; and stopping polishing the heat dissipation layer when the surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the first threshold value or the thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the second threshold value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, K1 discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text polishing the heat dissipation layer using a polishing pad (catalyst 31 is interpreted as a polishing pad in that it is pad-shaped and used in polishing a surface of wafer W); determining whether a surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than a first threshold value or a thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than a second threshold value (Monitoring unit 480 measures a property of W, e.g. roughness (K1 [0303]), and can be used to determine whether the processing target region of W reaches a predetermined value (K1 [0037]); failing to satisfy a predetermined target value may mean the difference between the distribution of the thickness of the processing target layer acquired by 480 and the predetermined target distribution of the thickness is larger than a reference value (K1 [0307]), therefore the inverse (satisfying a predetermined target value) must be that the measured thickness is less than a threshold value. Since 480 may determine a roughness in some embodiments (K1 [0303]), it is interpreted that satisfying a predetermined target value in such embodiments would similarly mean that the measured roughness is less than a threshold value); and stopping polishing the heat dissipation layer when the surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the first threshold value or the thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the second threshold value (the status of the processing of W determined by 480 is used to determine and end point of the processing (K1 [0037]), i.e. stopping the polishing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the polishing method of K1 with the wafer of E1 to provide a suitable method of removing a portion of 1020 (E1 [0072] states that removal of a portion of 1020 is performed by any suitable technique) and the method of K1 provides the advantage of selective etching of protrusions for successful planarization of even high chemical stability substrate materials (K1 [0003]).
An additional rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 9, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 8, further comprising performing a surface treatment to the heat dissipation layer prior to determining whether the surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the first threshold value or the thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the second threshold value (The substrate and catalyst are brought into contact in the presence of a processing liquid (K1 [0011]), therefore deposition of PL occurs at least at the beginning of processing. 480 measures the processing status of W during processing including in determining an end point, as interpreted above, therefore determining whether the predetermined condition is met occurs at least at the end of processing. Therefore, said determination occurs after treatment, as claimed).
Regarding dependent claim 10, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 8, wherein the surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is determined based on a light scattering on a polished surface of the heat dissipation layer or a torque of the polishing pad (480 determines roughness of the polishing target based on torque current (K1 [0303])).
Regarding dependent claim 11, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 8, wherein the thickness of the heat dissipation layer is determined based on change of light polarization, change of light intensity, or phase difference of interferograms (480 determines a thickness of the polishing target by change in intensity of light reflected off the surface of W (K1 [0301])).
Regarding dependent claim 12, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the surface roughness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the first threshold value is performed using a first CMP endpoint detector (480 determines whether the roughness is less than a threshold, as interpreted above, using, e.g., a monitoring unit configured to monitor a torque current of the driving unit (K1 [0303]), which is considered a first CMP endpoint detector because it is a detector used in 480, which measures an endpoint of CMP processing (K1 [0306])).
Regarding dependent claim 13, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 12, wherein determining whether the thickness of the heat dissipation layer is less than the second threshold value is performed using a second CMP endpoint detector, separated from the first CMP endpoint detector (480 may comprise a plurality of monitoring units (each of which are similarly interpreted as CMP endpoint detectors) when the processing target region contains a plurality of materials (K1 [0300]), which is the case for thermal layer 1020 of E1, which comprised the diamond of 1020 and copper vias 1026 within 1020 (E1 [0064]). When the processing target region comprises a metal, 480 may include an eddy current monitoring unit (K1 [0300]), which is interpreted as a second CMP endpoint detector and is a different kind of monitoring unit than the first CMP endpoint detector, as interpreted above, therefore considered separated from the first CMP endpoint detector).
Regarding dependent claim 14, E1, as modified by K1, further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 13, wherein the first CMP endpoint detector is integrated with the polishing pad (the first CMP endpoint detector is considered integrated with 31 in that the two are used together in the apparatus 410), and the second CMP endpoint detector is separated from the polishing pad (the second CMP endpoint detector is separated from the polishing pad in that 480 is separated from 31, as shown).
Claims 22 and 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K1, and further in view of Nemoto et al. (US 20110276299 A1, hereinafter N1).
Regarding dependent claim 22, K1 discloses the method of claim 21. K1 does not explicitly disclose measuring the surface roughness comprises utilizing a dark field inspection apparatus to determine the surface roughness, and wherein utilizing the dark field inspection apparatus includes: emitting an electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source onto a top surface of the target layer; detecting a scattered radiation reflected from the top surface of the target layer utilizing an optical sensor; and calculating the surface roughness of the target layer based on a measured intensity of the scattered radiation.
However, in the same field of endeavor, N1 discloses in N1 FIG. 1 and associated text measuring the surface roughness comprises utilizing a dark field inspection apparatus to determine the surface roughness (roughness of a wafer can be determined by a dark-field inspection apparatus (N1 [0097]), which is shown in N1 FIG. 1), and wherein utilizing the dark field inspection apparatus includes: emitting an electromagnetic radiation from a radiation source onto a top surface of the target layer (light source 3 irradiates the top surface of wafer 11 with light 12); detecting a scattered radiation reflected from the top surface of the target layer utilizing an optical sensor (scattered light 17 is detected by detectors 16A-16D of scattered-light detecting part 4); and calculating the surface roughness of the target layer based on a measured intensity of the scattered radiation (intensity of scattered light is used to calculate roughness (N1 [0097], [0012])).
K1 teaches a base method of measuring roughness by current supplied to a driving unit which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that dark-field inspection is not subject to signal noise in the form of current fluctuations due to, e.g. power supply fluctuation or deterioration of mechanical components in the driving unit. N1 teaches a known technique of measuring roughness by dark-field inspection that is comparable to the base process/product.
N1’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base method of measuring roughness and the results would have been predictable and resulted in reduced noise in roughness measurement data which results in an improved method of measuring roughness.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 24, K1 discloses the method of claim 21. K1 does not explicitly disclose measuring the surface roughness comprises utilizing a surface probing apparatus to determine the surface roughness, and wherein utilizing the surface probing apparatus includes: physically translating a mechanical probe along a top surface of the target layer; and generating a surface profile map of the target layer based on measured vertical displacements of the mechanical probe.
However, in the same field of endeavor, N1 discloses measuring the surface roughness comprises utilizing a surface probing apparatus to determine the surface roughness (an atomic force microscope (AFM), which is considered a surface probing apparatus, can be used to measure roughness of a wafer (N1 abstract)), and wherein utilizing the surface probing apparatus includes: physically translating a mechanical probe along a top surface of the target layer (AFM is performed by scanning a physical probe along the surface of a sample (N1 [0063])); and generating a surface profile map of the target layer based on measured vertical displacements of the mechanical probe (using AFM results in a measurement profile (N1 [0094]), which is considered a surface profile map, which is inherently based on measured vertical displacements of the probe, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that vertical displacement of the probe is the property directly measured by AFM).
K1 teaches a base method of measuring roughness by current supplied to a driving unit which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement in that AFM produces a high-resolution map of the asperities that contribute to roughness. N1 teaches a known technique of measuring roughness by AFM that is comparable to the base process/product.
N1’s known technique, as cited above, would have been recognized by one skilled in the art as applicable to the base method of measuring roughness and the results would have been predictable and resulted in the capability to target areas of high roughness identified by the AFM’s generated displacement map, which could be used to process a wafer to a greater degree of planarity.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding dependent claim 25, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 21, further comprising: measuring an initial surface roughness of the target layer, wherein the comparing the measured surface roughness to the predefined threshold value comprises a calculated numerical difference between the initial surface roughness and the measured surface roughness measured by the first endpoint detector during the rotating of the platen and the pad holder (determining the processing endpoint, which involves comparing the measured surface roughness to the predefined threshold value, as interpreted above, is performed by monitoring a variation (a difference, by definition) in the torque current (K1 [0038]), which is considered a measured surface roughness since said current provides data corresponding to the surface roughness, where the reference value for the variation is interpreted as an initial surface roughness). K1 does not explicitly disclose prior to rotating the platen and the pad holder, measuring an initial surface roughness of the target layer utilizing a second endpoint detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, N1 discloses measuring an initial surface roughness of the target layer utilizing a second endpoint detector (roughness of a wafer is measured using an AFM, which is interpreted as an endpoint detector, to calibrate another roughness detector (N1 [0097])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the initial surface measurement of a wafer using a second endpoint detector, such as the AFM of N1 with the method of K1 to provide accurate calibration of the first endpoint detector such that its initial measurement corresponds to the same roughness value as that measured by the second endpoint detector, where calibration would be performed prior to processing to provide the most accurate measurements, i.e. the initial measurement by second endpoint detector would be performed prior to rotating the platen and the pad holder, and the reference value for the variation in torque, as interpreted above, would then match the initial measurement of roughness by second endpoint detector (N1 [0097]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K1.
Regarding dependent claim 23, K1 further discloses in K1 FIG. 12 and associated text The method of claim 21, wherein measuring the surface roughness comprises calculating a physical torque applied to the pad holder during the rotating of the pad holder, and correlating the calculated physical torque to the surface roughness of the target layer (480 monitors current of the driving unit, which is recognized as correlating to physical torque and roughness of the target layer (K1 [0303]), and therefore interpreted as calculating physical torque and correlating torque to roughness).
However, if does not consider monitoring the value of a current correlated to torque and surface roughness as explicitly disclosing calculating a physical torque applied to the pad holder during the rotating of the pad holder, and correlating the calculated physical torque to the surface roughness of the target layer, which the examiner does not concede, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention, if not inherent, to use the monitored current to perform the claimed calculation of torque and correlation to roughness in order to provide values which can be compared to reference values obtained by other means of measuring torque and surface roughness in order to enable calibration of the parameters of the control unit and monitoring unit, which would improve the accuracy of measurements and consistency between roughnesses of wafers processed in subsequent iterations of the disclosed method.
Conclusion
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
US 6652763 B1, pertaining to a diamond polishing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT TRAJAN RIRIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-9559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/EVERETT T RIRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights