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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (1-14, 21) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 (now cancelled) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In-situ monitoring system (controller, sensor, para. [0045], [0047]) in at least claims 1-14, 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20150118765 to Xu.
Claim 1: Xu discloses a computer program product for controlling a polishing system, the computer program product (90 [programmable digital computer], Fig. 1) residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium (para. [0021]) and comprising instructions for causing one or more computers to (para. [0021]):
prior to polishing, receive a starting thickness profile for a conductive outer layer (“outer conductive layer]) on a substate (10 [substrate], para. [0090]), the starting thickness profile representing a thickness of the outer layer at a plurality of zones on the substrate prior to polishing (para. [0090]);
prior to polishing, receive an initial target thickness profile for the conductive outer layer on the substate, the initial target thickness profile representing a desired thickness for the outer layer at the plurality of zones after polishing (para. [0098]);
receive from an in-situ monitoring system during polishing of the substrate a sequence of signal values that depend on a thickness of the conductive outer layer being polished and on thickness and/or conductivity of one or more underlying layers below the outer layer (para. [0054, 0062, 0073]);
for each respective zone of the plurality of zones, convert the sequence of signal values from the respective zone into a sequence of effective thickness values for the respective zone with each effective thickness value including contributions of the conductive outer layer and the one or more underlying layers (para. [0062]), thereby providing a plurality of sequences of effective thickness values with each respective sequence of the plurality of sequences corresponding to a respective zone (para. [0066]);
for each respective zone of the plurality of zones, fit a function to the sequence of
effective thickness values, thereby providing a plurality of fit functions with each respective fit function of the plurality of fit functions corresponding to a respective zone (para. [0080]);
determine an effective starting thickness profile for the layer at a start of polishing using the plurality of fit functions (para. [0035]);
calculate an adjusted target thickness profile based on the initial target thickness profile, the effective starting thickness profile, and the starting thickness profile (para. [0079], [0087-0088]); and
modify a polishing parameter based on the plurality of sequences of effective thickness values and the adjusted target thickness profile (para. [0078], [0107]).
Claim 2: Xu discloses wherein the starting thickness profile is represented as a starting thickness for a first zone and a respective starting thickness offset for each second zone of one or more second zones (para. [0090], Xu), wherein the initial target thickness profile is represented as an initial target thickness for the first zone and a respective target thickness offset for each second zone of the one or more second zones (para. [0098], [0066]), and the effective starting thickness profile is represented as an effective starting thickness for the first zone and a respective effective starting thickness offset for each second zone of the one or more second zones (para. [0066]).
Claim 7: Xu discloses wherein the sequence of thickness values define a sequence of traces with each respective trace of the sequence of traces corresponding to a respective sweep of a plurality of sweeps of a sensor of the in-situ monitoring system across the substrate (para. [0066], [0076-0077]).
Claim 8: Xu discloses instructions to, for each respective trace perform edge reconstruction on the respective trace to generate a modified trace having modified thickness values, thereby generating a sequence of modified traces (para. [0079]).
Claim 9: Xu discloses comprising instructions to, for each respective trace calculate an effective thickness value for the zone from the modified thickness values from the zone for the respective trace, thereby generating the plurality of sequences of effective thickness values (para. [0080]).
Claim 10: Xu discloses wherein the instructions to calculate the effective thickness value for the zone from the modified thickness values comprises instructions to average modified thickness values from the zone (para. [0107]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu as applied to claims 1-2, 7-10 above, and further in view of US 20220371153 to Sasaki.
Claims 11-12: Xu does not disclose (claim 11) wherein the instructions to calculate the adjusted target thickness profile comprise instructions to calculate a plurality of adjustments including an adjustment for each zone of the plurality of zones based on a difference between the starting thickness profile and the initial target profile; (claim 12) wherein the instructions to calculate the adjusted target thickness profile comprise instructions to, for each respective zone of the plurality of zones, subtract the adjustment for the respective zone from the effective starting thickness value for the respective zone.
However Sasaki discloses wherein the instructions to calculate the adjusted target thickness profile comprise instructions to calculate a plurality of adjustments including an adjustment for each zone of the plurality of zones (“monitored areas,” para. [0088-0089]) based on a difference between the starting thickness profile and the initial target profile (abstract, para. [0088-0093], [0126-0127]), (claim 12) wherein the instructions to calculate the adjusted target thickness profile comprise instructions to, for each respective zone of the plurality of zones, subtract the adjustment for the respective zone from the effective starting thickness value for the respective zone (para. [0116-0120]); for the purpose of creating an optimized polishing recipe based on the thickness profile of the wafer before polishing (para. [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the limitations above as taught by Sasaki with motivation to create an optimized polishing recipe based on the thickness profile of the wafer before polishing.
Claims 15-20: (Cancelled).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 13-14, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten into the independent claim including all of the limitations of the independent claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140015107 discloses a sensor for measuring, in-situ, a starting wafer thickness profile (310, Fig. 5B) as feedforward control information to allow the controller (250) to compensate for measured deviations in unfinished wafers prior to undergoing polishing by making adjustments (para. [0076]). US 20210379723 discloses a reference trace (420, Fig. 8) from a sensor (120), converted to thickness values using a correlation curve (Fig. 9, para. [0082-0085]). US 20210358819 discloses a controller (190, Fig. 1A) using a neural network (500) to determine modified thickness value for each one or more locations in an edge region of a wafer, or use initial thickness values from other regions, as signal value to be converted to thickness values (para. [0062]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is (571)270-7972. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/Charlee J. C. Bennett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights