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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/25/2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(c) because it lacks both (one of the two is required): a statement as specified in 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(e); and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Regarding Applicant’s comments (Reply at 6), MPEP § 609.04(a)(III) states, “An English-language equivalent application may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if it is, in fact, a translation of a foreign language application being listed” (emphasis added). Applicant previously made no statement that the English-language publication is actually a translation of the listed foreign patent reference.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“outside of anticipated boundaries indicates” (claim 24, lines 2-3) should be changed to --outside of anticipated boundaries[, which] indicates--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 5-6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one criterion includes a difference between the measurements and a reference spectrum representative of the type of anomaly.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. The specification describes the criterion as “a frequency spectrum representative of the spectrum that occurs for the respective anomaly” (Spec. ¶ 0054). The specification also describes that the controller determines the presence of an anomaly if there is a sufficient match of the acoustic signal with one of the stored reference frequency spectrums (Id.). Thus, it is unclear what claim 5 means when the criterion “includes a difference” to a reference spectrum, because the criterion is the reference spectrum itself, and not the comparison to the reference spectrum. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 6 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 5.
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 10 and 23 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. Claim 10 recites only the same limitation present in claim 1. And because claim 10 depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1, claim 10 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 7. Claim 23 recites substantively the same limitation present in claim 1. And because claim 23 depends from claim 21, which depends from claim 1, claim 23 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 21.
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 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Chew in view of Wang and Kramer
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160013085 A1 (“Chew”) in view of US 20190143474 A1 (“Wang”) and US 20050142987 A1 (“Kramer”).
Chew pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 2). Wang pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2A-C). Kramer pertains to a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Chew discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 2, apparatus 100), comprising:
a platen to support a polishing pad (Fig. 2, platen 120 supports polishing pad 110);
a carrier head to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad (Fig. 2, carrier head 140 is capable of holding a surface of substrate 10 against polishing pad 110);
a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (Fig. 2, motor 154 is capable of the recited function; ¶¶ 0019, 0029);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system including an acoustic sensor that receives acoustic energy from the substrate and the polishing pad (Fig. 2, in-situ acoustic monitoring system 160 includes acoustic sensor 162 that performs the recited function; ¶¶ 0033-0044);
and a controller configured to detect an abnormal acoustic event based on measurements from the in-situ acoustic monitoring system, ...and determine a type of anomaly based on signals measured by the in-situ acoustic monitoring system during the abnormal acoustic event (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0033-0044, controller analyzes acoustic signals from the acoustic monitoring system 160 and detects an abnormal acoustic event (e.g., signal power exceeds a threshold value), and determines the type of anomaly (e.g., breakage of stubs); ¶¶ 0041-0042, “The signal from the sensor 162, e.g., after amplification, preliminary filtering and digitization, can be subject to data processing, e.g., in the controller 190, for either endpoint detection or detection of stub breakage...For example, a root mean square (rms) of the signal intensity (across the frequency spectrum and/or over time) can be calculated. If the power of the signal exceeds a threshold value, this indicates breakage of the stubs.”).
Chew does not explicitly disclose:
a controller configured to...
store a catalog that includes a plurality of types of anomalies and at least one criterion for each type of anomaly, wherein the types of anomalies include a bubble between the substrate and the polishing pad. However, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious this claim.
Wang discloses:
a controller configured to...store a catalog that includes a plurality of types of anomalies and at least one criterion for each type of anomaly (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the detection criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns (“store a catalog”); ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
Kramer discloses:
wherein the types of anomalies include a bubble between the substrate and the polishing pad (Fig. 2b; ¶ 0042, “For instance, the pronounced magnitude of the frequency component at approximately 2 Hz in FIG. 2b may indicate the presence of a bubble in the polishing pad 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wang with Chew by modifying the controller of Chew to store prior measurements of acoustic signals (i.e., a catalog of reference measurements of the acoustic frequency spectrum that correspond to normal wafer processes and also anomalies) based on test substrates (or prior substrates polished with the CMP process), which include substrates polished normally (i.e., no issues) and ones polished with an abnormal event occurring (e.g., a defect), and to use these reference measurements for comparison with the obtained acoustic signals to detect an abnormal acoustic event. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would allow the Chew controller to make a more accurate determination of an abnormal condition, including determining the type of anomaly based on the analysis of the acoustic frequency spectrum, instead of only performing an analysis based on an exceeded threshold of part of the spectrum (Chew ¶¶ 0041-0042). Wang teaches that this improved determination may be done by acoustic frequency spectrum matching (Wang Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0039-0042; ¶ 0042, “once a pattern for the sound spectra (interchangeably referred to herein as the ‘sound pattern’) is recognized, the signal processor 310 generates a feedback signal including information relating to the CMP process based on the sound pattern, and transmits the feedback signal to the process controller 320...if the pattern of sound spectra indicates an abnormal process, the feedback signal indicates to the process controller 320 that an abnormal or anomalous event has occurred. In such cases, the feedback signal includes information about the anomalous event indicating, for example, the type of event and the source of anomaly.”). Examiner notes that the use of reference acoustic frequency spectrum data based on test substrates or prior polished substrates and comparison with a measured acoustic signal is known in the art (US 20160207163 A1 (“Matsui”) Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0037-0045; ¶ 0039, “The reference data shown in FIG. 4 are obtained as follows: Data regarding elastic waves in the case where polishing is finished without the occurrence of a scratch/crack is collected. Moreover, data regarding elastic waves is also collected for each type and degree of a scratch/crack when the scratch/crack actually occurs. The data are plotted in a multidimensional feature space having feature amounts as axes, and categorized into a normal polishing mode and various fault modes.”; ¶ 0045, “The AE sensor detects elastic waves that occur due to the deformation or breakage of a film to be processed during the polishing of the film to be processed. The elastic wave processing part performs the frequency analysis that uses Fourier transform or the pattern recognition that uses the previously obtained reference data for the elastic waves detected by the AE sensor, and thereby detects or predicts the occurrence of a scratch or a crack. Therefore, it is possible to detect or predict in real time the occurrence of a damage abnormality during polishing such as a scratch/crack.”; see also US 6424137 B1 (“Sampson”) Figs. 1-2; 3:17-47, 3:57-4:46).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kramer with the Chew/Wang combination by including detection (via using a reference spectrum) for the anomaly of a bubble between the substrate and the polishing pad. Wang teaches that the types of events that could be detected using sound spectra analysis is not limited and provides examples of different types of events (Wang ¶¶ 0039-0045, 0053-0055). In light of these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the additional detection capability for the anomaly of a bubble between the substrate and the polishing pad because it is a condition that may occur during CMP processing, and the ability to detect that condition would enhance the yield because it would ensure every substrate is being polished properly (e.g., without the presence of a bubble), thereby producing consistently polished substrates.
Regarding claim 2, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the controller detects the abnormal acoustic event based on comparison of the signals to prior measurements of acoustic signals generated by friction between test substrates and the polishing pad (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056, controller 310/320 detects an abnormal acoustic event based on comparison of acoustic signals from sensors 250 with stored sound spectra patterns previously obtained from substrates previously polished with the polishing pad of the CMP device in a polishing process where no abnormalities occurred (i.e., these are “test substrates” emitting sound caused by friction during the polishing process); ¶ 0053, “a model for sound spectrum for a normal CMP process (with a given set of parameters) is generated using regression analysis performed over several normal cycles of the CMP process. In such embodiments, a predetermined normal event is recognized based on the model, and an abnormal event is recognized by recognizing a deviation from the model sound spectra.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 2 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Chew further discloses wherein detecting the abnormal acoustic event is based on the controller determining a power spectrum of the measurements; determining a difference between the power spectrum and a reference power spectrum stored in a storage device of the apparatus; and detecting the abnormal acoustic event based on the difference (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0039-0044, controller 190 determines the frequency spectrum of the measured acoustic signals from sensor 162, determines whether the measured frequency spectrum is different from a reference spectrum (e.g., whether the intensity of a frequency band exceeds a stored threshold value), and indicates an abnormal acoustic event based on that difference (e.g., breakage of the stubs)).
Regarding claim 5, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the at least one criterion includes a difference between the measurements and a reference spectrum representative of the type of anomaly (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, which is used to compare against the measured acoustic signals, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns; ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 5 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the controller is configured to store a different reference spectrum for each different type of anomaly (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the detection criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns; ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
The obviousness rationale for claim 6 is the same as for claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the types of anomalies include at least one of a scratch in the surface of the substrate, an unexpected film type, or a bad pad rinse transition (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the detection criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns; ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
The obviousness rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the types of anomalies include an unexpected film type, and determining the type of anomaly is based on comparing the measurements to prior measurements of acoustic signals generated by test substrates comprising an expected film type and the polishing pad (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0040, 0044, 0055, 0059, disclosing detection of the event of a change in material (an “unexpected film type”) at the wafer surface based on a different measured sound spectrum received in comparison with the reference sound spectrum of an expected material; ¶ 0022, “For example, a change in material at the wafer surface because of removal of a film at the top surface of the wafer changes the sound spectrum depending on the material immediately underneath the film at the top surface of the wafer in some embodiments.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the types of anomalies include a bad pad rinse transition (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, “The amplitude and frequency of sound inside the chamber 100 may depend on factors such as...composition of the slurry 135, rate of flow of the slurry 135...For example, a scratch on the wafer surface may result in a temporary change in composition of the slurry by temporarily adding particles of the material of the wafer surface to the slurry. These particles may get washed away as more slurry is added to the process and the process continues to operate. However, the temporary change in composition of the slurry may be sufficient to temporarily change the sound spectrum associated with the CMP process.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 7 with the following addition:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination by including detection (via using a reference spectrum) for the anomaly of “bad pad rinse transition”, which is when cleaning fluid is not entirely removed from the pad surface and is mixed with incoming slurry, diluting or otherwise altering the slurry and its distribution (Spec. ¶ 0051). Wang teaches that an abnormal slurry condition or composition could be detected using sound spectra (Wang ¶¶ 0021-0022). Wang also teaches that the types of events that could be detected using sound spectra analysis is not limited and provides examples of different types of events (Wang ¶¶ 0039-0045, 0053-0055). Chew teaches that the apparatus is capable of performing a cleaning process, which includes the use of cleaning fluid (Chew Fig. 2; ¶ 0049, “the polishing pad 110 subjected to cleaning, e.g., a high pressure rinse with a cleaning fluid, to remove any debris”). In light of these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the additional detection capability for a “bad pad rinse transition” because it is a condition that may occur during CMP processing, and the ability to detect that condition would enhance the yield because it would ensure every substrate is being polished with the same slurry composition and distribution, thereby producing consistently polished substrates.
Regarding claim 11, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Chew further discloses wherein the acoustic sensor is arranged within a recess in a top surface of the platen (Figs. 2; ¶ 0034, sensor 162 is arranged within recess in top surface of platen 120).
Regarding claim 21, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the plurality of types of anomalies includes a scratch in the surface of the substrate, and an unexpected film type (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the detection criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns; ¶¶ 0021-0022, 0040, 0044, 0055, 0059, disclosing detection of the event of a change in material (an “unexpected film type”) at the wafer surface based on a different sound spectrum received in comparison with the reference sound spectrum of an expected material; ¶ 0022, “For example, a change in material at the wafer surface because of removal of a film at the top surface of the wafer changes the sound spectrum depending on the material immediately underneath the film at the top surface of the wafer in some embodiments.”; ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
The obviousness rationale for claim 21 is the same as for claim 1.
Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as claim 21.
Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as claim 9, except as depending from claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 9 as applied above. Chew further discloses wherein the controller is configured to detect a signal fragment in which a signal power spectrum fluctuates outside of anticipated boundaries[, which] indicates a bad pad rinse transition (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0033-0044, controller analyzes acoustic signals from the acoustic monitoring system 160 and detects an abnormal acoustic event (e.g., signal power exceeds a threshold value), and determines the type of anomaly (e.g., breakage of stubs); ¶¶ 0041-0042, “The signal from the sensor 162, e.g., after amplification, preliminary filtering and digitization, can be subject to data processing, e.g., in the controller 190, for either endpoint detection or detection of stub breakage...For example, a root mean square (rms) of the signal intensity (across the frequency spectrum and/or over time) can be calculated. If the power of the signal exceeds a threshold value, this indicates breakage of the stubs.”; ¶ 0043, “In some implementations, a frequency analysis of the signal is performed. For example, a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) can be performed on the signal to generate a frequency spectrum. A particular frequency band can be monitored, and if the intensity in the frequency band exceeds a threshold value, this can indicate breakage of the stubs. As another example, a wavelet packet transform (WPT) can be performed on the signal to decompose the signal into a low-frequency component and a high frequency component. The decomposition can be iterated if necessary to break the signal into smaller components. The intensity of one of the frequency components can be monitored, and if the intensity in the component exceeds a threshold value, this can indicate breakage of the stubs.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 24 is the same as for claim 9 with the following addition:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination, to also use the ability disclosed in Chew to analyze the intensity of a particular frequency band or a frequency component of the measured sound spectrum (in some situations) in order to detect an anomaly such as “bad pad rinse transition”. This would have been obvious because the processing needed to determine whether the intensity of a particular frequency band or a frequency component of the measured sound spectrum exceeds a threshold value is less than sound spectrum pattern matching because it is less complicated, which would lead to faster detection and faster action taken in the event of such an anomaly.
Regarding claim 25, the Chew/Wang/Kramer combination makes obvious the apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Chew further discloses wherein the controller is configured to remove the substrate from contact with a polishing surface of the polishing pad in response to determining an identified type of anomaly (Chew Fig. 2; ¶ 0049, “If breakage is detected, then the controller 190 can cause the polishing system to issue a visual or auditory alert, e.g., generated on the controller 90, or to automatically take corrective action (320). For example, polishing can be halted immediately, the substrate 10 removed from the polishing pad 110, and the polishing pad 110 subjected to cleaning, e.g., a high pressure rinse with a cleaning fluid, to remove any debris.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, Chew discloses a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 2, apparatus 100), comprising:
a platen to support a polishing pad (Fig. 2, platen 120 supports polishing pad 110);
a carrier head to hold a surface of a substrate against the polishing pad (Fig. 2, carrier head 140 is capable of holding a surface of substrate 10 against polishing pad 110);
a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head so as to polish an overlying layer on the substrate (Fig. 2, motor 154 is capable of the recited function; ¶¶ 0019, 0029);
a polishing liquid source to deliver a polishing liquid onto the polishing pad (Fig. 2, polishing liquid 132 from source 130 is provided onto polishing pad 110);
an in-situ acoustic monitoring system including an acoustic sensor that receives acoustic energy from the substrate and the polishing pad (Fig. 2, in-situ acoustic monitoring system 160 includes acoustic sensor 162 that performs the recited function; ¶¶ 0033-0044);
and a controller configured to detect... (Fig. 2; ¶¶ 0033-0044, controller analyzes acoustic signals from the acoustic monitoring system 160 and detects an abnormal acoustic event (e.g., signal power exceeds a threshold value), and determines the type of anomaly (e.g., breakage of stubs); ¶¶ 0041-0042, “The signal from the sensor 162, e.g., after amplification, preliminary filtering and digitization, can be subject to data processing, e.g., in the controller 190, for either endpoint detection or detection of stub breakage...For example, a root mean square (rms) of the signal intensity (across the frequency spectrum and/or over time) can be calculated. If the power of the signal exceeds a threshold value, this indicates breakage of the stubs.”).
Chew does not explicitly disclose:
a controller configured to detect a bubble in the polishing liquid between the substrate and the polishing pad.
Wang discloses:
a controller configured to detect... (Figs. 2A-C, 3-4; ¶¶ 0025, the detection criterion includes a specific sound spectrum pattern related to the anomaly, “The occurrence of a desired event or an anomalous event in a CMP process may be detected by continuously analyzing the sound spectrum to detect patterns in the sound spectrum during the CMP process and comparing the detected patterns with known or learned patterns of sound spectrum. Anomalous events include, without limitation, a micro-scratch on the wafer surface from slurry abrasive; abnormal positioning or thickness of the polishing pad; abnormal leveling of the polishing pad; the platen or the wafer; degradation of the polishing pad, etc.”; ¶¶ 0043-0044, controller 320 includes a non-transitory computer readable-memory for processing the sound data, including comparing the measured sound spectrum with stored sound spectrum patterns; ¶¶ 0035, 0039-0042, 0046, 0051-0056).
Kramer discloses:
a controller configured to detect a bubble...between the substrate and the polishing pad (Fig. 2b; ¶ 0032, controller 120/130; ¶ 0042, “For instance, the pronounced magnitude of the frequency component at approximately 2 Hz in FIG. 2b may indicate the presence of a bubble in the polishing pad 102”).
The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations of claim 13 in the recited combination as claimed, in particular the limitation, “a controller configured to detect a bubble in the polishing liquid between the substrate and the polishing pad”.
Although the presence of bubbles in the polishing liquid between the substrate and the polishing pad during a CMP process is known (US 20050054268 A1 (“Kistler”) ¶ 0010, “Slurry and residue from the wafer 102 and the pad 106, as well as air bubbles from turbulence, also contribute to the optical variations caused by the environment of the gap 118.”; US 20060166606 A1 (“Kobayashi”) ¶ 0015; see CN 114871569 A (“Liu”) claim 8, sound detection of cavitation bubbles in the polishing medium for a substrate), the prior art does not appear to disclose or render obvious the acoustic detection of the recited “bubble in the polishing liquid between the substrate and the polishing pad” in combination with the other limitations of claim 13.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
Specification – The objection to the abstract is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims – The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments (however, see new objection due to Applicant’s amendments). In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection of claims 5-6 is hereby withdrawn (however, see new § 112(b) rejection of claims 5-6 due to Applicant’s amendments).
Claims 4, 12, and 14-20 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 21-25 are rejected. Claim 13 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. With respect to the Kramer reference and its application in independent claim 1, to the extent Kramer discloses that the bubbles are only present within the polishing pad, the presence of these bubbles (and their detection as taught by Kramer) still satisfies the limitation “wherein the types of anomalies include a bubble between the substrate and the polishing pad” (e.g., the bubble is between the substrate and a portion of the polishing pad). In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.” (emphasis added)); MPEP 2111.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights