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 .
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.
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 1-5 and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura (JP 2016165792) in view of Maloney et al. (US 6368189, "Maloney").
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Komura teaches a chemical mechanical polishing system (Komura fig. 2), comprising:
a platen (11) with a polishing surface (12);
a carrier head (13) including a housing (131);
a support assembly (combination of 133, 135, and bladders P1 and P2, see Komura fig. 2) connected to the housing so as to be vertically movable relative to the housing (connected to 131 via elastic member 143 and drive pins DP, Komura fig. 2), the support assembly including a support plate (135) and at least one upper barrier (vertical portions 133a of 133, Komura figs. 2 and 6b) that divides a volume between the support plate and the housing into a plurality of individually pressurizable upper chambers (occupied by bladders P1 and P2, Komura figs. 2 and 6b) to apply pressure on a top surface of the support plate in a plurality of first zones (P1 and P2 apply pressure to 135, Komura Translation [0028]), and wherein the support plate is sufficiently flexible to bend under a pressure differential between the upper chambers (135 deforms under pressure from bladders P1 and P2, Komura translation [0038]);
one or more pressure sources connected to the upper chambers (fluid supply mechanism connected to the various pressure chambers, Komura translation [0024]);
an in-situ monitoring system (sensor 150) configured to measure a shape of the substrate (Komura Translation [0023]), and
a controller (20) connected to the in-situ monitoring system and the one or more pressure sources, wherein the controller is configured to control pressure based on the shape of the substrate (control unit 20 monitors substrate thickness distribution using sensor 150 and controls the pressure in different regions based on the measurements, Komura Translation [0035]-[0036]).
Komura further teaches that the element in contact with the wafer should be more flexible than the support plate (support plate 135 is made from stainless steel while elastic body 137 is made from a rubber, Komura Translation [0029] and [0038]).
Komura does not teach the presence of a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces that having a lower flexural stiffness than the support plate and that are secured to and extend below the support plate to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate, or that the pressure source is connected to the lower chambers.
However, Maloney teaches a carrier head (100) including a plurality of upper pressure chambers (131 and 132, Maloney fig. 2) separated by a deformable support (support including 145, 146, and 162 deforms under pressure differential, see Maloney fig. 3), and further teaches that a carrier head may include a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces (annular seals defining fluid chambers independently pressurizable to pressures Pf-Pi, see Maloney fig. 13 and 26:32-46) that are secured to and extend below the support (annular seals are located at bottom of carrier head, which is below the support, and are secured to the support by the intervening components of the carrier head, see Maloney figs. 2 and 13) to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support to apply pressure to a substrate (Maloney 26:32-46 and 27:6-23).
It has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Although Maloney does not explicitly teach that the plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces have a lower flexural stiffness than the support plate, it does teach that the flexible portions should be comparatively resilient so as to form a proper seal while a backing plate should be comparatively stiff to prevent the wafer from flexing excessively (Maloney 26:47-27:15). One of ordinary skill would infer from this teaching that the plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces should have a lower flexural stiffness than a support plate positioned above them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to integrate the teachings of Maloney regarding the presence of individually pressurizable lower chambers formed by fluid impermeable flexible pieces into the carrier head of Komura such that it included a plurality of fluid-impermeable flexible pieces having a lower flexural stiffness than a support plate and that are secured to and extend below the support plate to provide a plurality of individually pressurizable lower chambers below the support plate to apply pressure to a substrate, wherein the pressure source is connected to the lower chambers, as doing so would allow for more localized control over polishing pressures (Maloney 25:42-53 and 26:13-19).
2. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, but does not disclose that the support plate has a flexural stiffness of 0.4 to 10 Pa·m3. However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Komura such that the support plate had a flexural stiffness of 0.4 to 10 Pa·m3, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Komura as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating that the specific flexural stiffness is, in isolation, critical to the invention.
3. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the support plate is metal (stainless steel, Komura Translation [0038]) or plastic and the plurality of flexible pieces are an elastomer (flexible pieces may be a rubber or a resilient polymer, Maloney 27:6-23, membrane in direct contact with a wafer may be a silicone rubber, Komura Translation [0030]).
4. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, wherein the support plate is stainless steel (Komura translation [0038]), but is silent as to the specific thickness. However, it would nonetheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Komura such that the support plate has a thickness between 0.6mm and 1.8mm, as the sole difference between the claimed invention and Komura as modified is a recitation of the relative dimensions of the claimed device, and it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating that the specific thickness of the support plate is, in isolation, critical to the invention.
5. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, wherein the elastomer comprises a rubber or silicone (flexible pieces may be a rubber, Maloney 27:6-23, membrane in direct contact with a wafer may be a silicone rubber, Komura Translation [0030]).
7. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flexible pieces are provided by a single molded part (seals may be formed integral with a plate, Maloney 27:6-15 and fig. 13).
8. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the lower chambers are narrower than the upper chambers (two broad upper chambers taught by Komura combined with a plurality of narrower lower chambers taught by Maloney, see Komura fig. 2 and Maloney fig. 13).
9. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein there is a greater number of lower chambers zones than upper chambers (two broad upper chambers taught by Komura combined with a larger plurality of narrower lower chambers taught by Maloney, see Komura fig. 2 and Maloney fig. 13).
10. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 9, wherein the volume between the support plate and the housing is divided into 2 to 10 upper chambers (2 upper chambers, Komura fig. 2).
11. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 9, wherein one or more flexible pieces provide 4 to 100 individually pressurizable lower chambers (four chambers corresponding to pressures PF-PI, see Maloney fig. 13).
12. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein a region below each upper chamber is divided into a plurality of lower chambers (two upper chambers taught by Komura are positioned over four lower chambers taught by Maloney, in combination, each upper chamber would be over at least two portions of the lower chambers, see Komura fig. 2 and Maloney fig. 13).
13. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the support plate has a flexural stiffness 1 to 25 times the flexural stiffness of a planar substrate formed of silicon and shaped to fit on the carrier head (as disclosed by applicant, flexural stiffness is a property of plate thickness and as the planar substrate is not positively claimed, the carrier head is inherently capable of use with a substrate of a thickness giving it a flexural stiffness within the claimed range).
14. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 1, wherein the plurality of flexible pieces project from a bottom of the support plate (flexible pieces extend in a direction jutting out relative to a bottom of the support plate, see Komura fig. 2 and Maloney fig. 13), and wherein the flexible pieces are positioned and configured such that when substrate is loaded into the carrier head the flexible pieces contact the substrate and divide a volume between the support plate and the substrate into the lower chambers (flexible pieces occupy a space between the support plate and the substrate, so the chambers defined between flexible pieces and substrate are located in a volume between the support plate and the substrate, see Maloney fig. 13).
16. Komura as modified teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to control pressure to the lower chambers to deform the substrate (Komura teaches that the controller adjusts pressures in chambers, resulting in deformation Komura Translation [0036]-[0038], Maloney teaches local pressure control, Maloney 26:31-46, the combination would result in the controller being controlled to adjust pressures in all chambers to deform the substrate by a controlled amount).
17. Komura as modified teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the in-situ monitoring system comprises an optical monitoring system (sensor 150 is optical, Komura translation [0033]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komura and Maloney as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of in view of Kajiwara et al. (US 6623343, "Kajiwara").
6. Komura as modified teaches the carrier head of claim 3, but does not specify that the plurality of flexible pieces have a hardness of 30-60 Shore A.
However, Kajiwara teaches that a suitable hardness for a contact element (250) in a carrier head molded from a rubber or rubber-like material should be within the range of 30-50 durometer (Kajiwara 24:31-45), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to refer to the Shore A scale.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material having a hardness in the range of 30-60 Shore A as taught by Kajiwara for the plurality of flexible pieces for the carrier head of Komura as modified, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements (specifically materials having properties suitable for use in that part of a polishing head) according to known methods, and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the rejection relies on teachings from separate embodiments of Maloney without providing for an independent motivation to combine those embodiments and that Maloney does not teach seals secured to and extending below a support plate, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” MPEP 2123, citing Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component). Maloney teaches that the annular seals are secured below a support plate (Maloney fig. 13 and 26:32-46), and that such a plate includes at least two independently pressure-controlled zones above it (one for the central area and one for the retaining ring the plate is attached to, see, e.g., Maloney fig. 10). One of ordinary skill would have been informed by all the teachings of Maloney when modifying Komura, not just the teachings from specific embodiments. Because the teachings of Maloney broadly are being used to modify the inventions of Komura, an independent motivation to separately combine those teachings is not necessary.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding the relative flexural rigidity of the plurality of resilient members and the support plate, as was noted above, Maloney specifically contains teaches that would lead one of ordinary skill to infer that the resilient members should have a lower flexural stiffness than the support plate.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights