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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 02/13/2026, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8 have been amended, and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending and under examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2020/0171621, herein after Yamazaki), in view of Watanabe (US 2017/0229323), Chen et al. (CN 107009274A, hereinafter Chen), and Wang et al. (CN 102124545A, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses a polishing apparatus (fig. 1 polishing apparatus) comprising:
a polishing machine for polishing a substrate (fig. 1 and ¶ 0038, the polishing apparatus includes a polishing table 2 for supporting a polishing pad 1, and a top ring 3 for pressing a substrate);
a flow channel for supplying a polishing solution or a cleaning solution to the polishing machine (fig. 1 and ¶ 0038, a liquid supply mechanism 4 [corresponds to the recited flow channel] for supplying a polishing liquid or pure water to the polishing pad);
a switching device disposed in the flow channel (fig. 4 and ¶ 0056, a coupling member 48 [equivalent to the recited switching device] provides a junction between a flushing line 47 and a slurry line 46);
a sensor for detecting a pressure or a flow rate of the solution flowing in the flow channel (¶ 0086, a flow sensor 74 detects a flow rate of the solution), but does not disclose the switching device is configured to switch between the polishing solution and the cleaning solution and to cause the polishing solution or the cleaning solution to flow in the flow channel. Yamazaki discloses the coupling member 48 is disposed at the junction of the slurry line 46 [corresponds to flow channel of the polishing solution] and the flushing line 47 [corresponds to the flow channel of the cleaning solution], but does not disclose whether the coupling member 48 switches the solutions.
Watanabe teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) apparatus field of endeavor, the switching device is configured to switch between the polishing solution and the cleaning solution and to cause the polishing solution or the cleaning solution to flow in the flow channel (fig. 9 and ¶ 0113, a valve 21 [corresponds to the recited switching device] switches between water discharge lines 24 and 70. Watanabe teaches the CMP system can include a switching valve for switching two different solutions to flow alternatively. The valve of Watanabe can replace the coupling member of Yamazaki at the junction of the cleaning solution line 47 and the polishing solution line 46 in order to switch between the polishing solution and the cleaning solution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki to provide the switching device as taught by Watanabe so that one pipe can be used to carry different solutions used in CMP processes.
Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe teaches the sensor detects the pressure or the flow rate of the cleaning solution.
Figures 11 and 12 of Yamazaki show the flow sensor 74 is disposed on the polishing solution line 46 at an upstream of the junction with the cleaning solution line 47, thus the sensor 74 detects the flow rate of the polishing solution. However, a pure water line 90 is connected to the polishing solution line 46, and Yamazaki discloses slurry or pure water flows through the line 46 (¶ 0091), thus it may indicate either the polishing solution or the cleaning solution flows through the line 46. Nevertheless, and the switching valve 21 of Watanabe can be disposed at the junction of the polishing solution line 46 and the pure water line 90 of Yamazaki so that the pure water line 90 works as the cleaning solution line (see annotated Yamazaki fig. 11 below). Thus, the flow sensor 74 can be used for detecting the flow rate of the cleaning solution when the switching valve selects the pure water from the line 90 flows through the flow channel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe to provide the switching device at the junction of the slurry line and the pure water line in order to utilize the water from the pure water line as the cleaning solution for cleaning the polishing pad. It has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe further teaches a flow rate adjusting device disposed at a position downstream from the switching device in the flow channel and configured to adjust a flow rate of the cleaning solution flowing in the flow channel to a predetermined range (Yamazaki fig. 12 and annotated Yamazaki fig. 11 below, a flow-rate adjustment valve 73 [corresponds to the recited flow rate adjusting device] is disposed at downstream from the junction of the solution lines where the switching valve 21 of Watanabe can be disposed; Yamazaki ¶ 0087, a controller 75 controls degree of opening of the flow-rate adjustment valve 73 so that the flow rate of the solution through the line 46 becomes a preset flow rate [corresponds to the recited predetermined range]), wherein the sensor is disposed at a position downstream from the flow rate adjusting device in the flow channel (Yamazaki, fig. 12, a flow sensor 74 is disposed at a position downstream from the flow-rate adjusting valve 73), and
a control device, wherein the control device performs: a cleaning process of controlling the switching device such that the cleaning solution flows in the flow channel and then controlling the switching device such that the polishing solution flows in the flow channel (Yamazaki ¶ 0081 and 0092, pure water flowing through the pure water line 90 is used for cleaning the apparatus, and a flow controller 75 adjusts the flow rate of the solution flowing through the flow channel; Watanabe, fig. 9 and ¶ 0087, 0089, 0113-14, a valve 21 [corresponds to the recited switching device], which is controlled by a control mechanism 6, switches between water discharge lines 24 and 70. Watanabe teaches the CMP system can include the switching valve for switching two different solutions to flow alternatively); and
a clogging detecting process of detecting whether clogging has occurred in the flow channel based on the pressure or the flow rate of the cleaning solution detected by the sensor when the cleaning solution flows in the flow channel (Yamazaki ¶ 0086 and 0091 and figs. 11 and 12, a determiner 72 detects an abnormality of a liquid ejection nozzle 33. When the flow rate of the pure water flowing through the line 46 becomes small and a pressure of the liquid is abnormally increased, the slurry is clogged. The sensors 74 detects the flow rate),
wherein the sensor is disposed at a position downstream from the flow rate adjusting device in the flow channel (Yamazaki, fig. 12, a flow sensor 74 is disposed at a position downstream from the flow-rate adjusting valve 73), but does not disclose the sensor is a pressure sensor.
Chen teaches, in an analogous polishing apparatus field of endeavor, the sensor is a pressure sensor (fig. 1 and Chen English translation, p. 5:22-26, a polishing apparatus comprises a polishing liquid transmission system, and pressure sensor 7 is disposed on a liquid flow channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe to provide the pressure sensor as taught by Chen in order to detect pressure of the liquid in the polishing apparatus. It helps supplying appropriate pressure of liquid to the polishing apparatus.
Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe and Chen does not disclose the cleaning process control occurs when the number of substrates polished by the polishing machine reaches a predetermined number.
Wang teaches, in an analogous CMP apparatus field of endeavor, the cleaning process control occurs when a number of substrates polished by the polishing machine reaches a predetermined number (Wang English translation ¶ 0033, cleaning step of a polishing apparatus is performed after a predetermined number of polishing operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe and Chen to provide the cleaning process when the predetermined number of substrates is polished as taught by Wang so that the CMP apparatus is cleaned proactively before a problem occurs.
PNG
media_image1.png
788
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yamazaki Figure 11
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device detects whether clogging has occurred in the flow channel based on a maximum value, an average value, or a minimum value of a value of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor when the flow rate of the cleaning solution is in the predetermined range (Yamazaki ¶ 0091, the determiner 72 detects the clogging as the flow rate of the pure water becomes small and a pressure of the liquid is abnormally increased. Thus, Yamazaki teaches a pressure value reaching the maximum value may indicate the clogging situation. Regarding the flow rate, Yamazaki teaches it could be small. Unlike the pressure, which becomes abnormally increased, the small flow rate could be in a predetermined value. Specification of the instant application explains the predetermined range is between a lower limit and an upper limit. The limit values are not defined so they can be arbitrary numbers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang to provide the flow rate of the cleaning solution in the predetermined range during clogging. Yamazaki teaches the minor failure and the major failure while flow rate is small (¶ 0091-93). Because there may be a little bit of slurry remaining in the flow channel even during a normal solution flow condition, pressure difference may be a dominant indicator of the clogging, and it would be possible to observe the clogging by the abnormally increased pressure while there is a little change of the flow rate.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device determines that clogging has occurred in the flow channel when the value of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor is equal to or greater than a preset first threshold value, and wherein the control device determines that a degree of clogging in the flow channel is low when the value of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor is equal to or greater than the first threshold value and is less than a second threshold value wherein the second threshold value is greater than the first threshold value and determines that a degree of clogging in the flow channel is high when the value of the pressure detected by the pressure sensor is equal to or greater than the second threshold value (Yamazaki fig. 14 and ¶ 0091-93, when the clogging occurs the pressure of the liquid is abnormally increased. A minor failure occurs when the value is larger than a lower-limit-side threshold [corresponds to the recited first threshold value] and a major failure occurs when the value is larger than an upper-limit-side threshold [corresponds the recited second threshold value]. Thus, it can be interpreted as a low degree of clogging and a high degree of clogging respectively).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising a notification device, wherein the control device causes the notification device to notify that clogging has occurred in the flow channel when detecting in the clogging detecting process that clogging has occurred in the flow channel (Yamazaki, ¶ 0097-102, the determiner 72 issues a minor failure alarm or a major failure alarm when the clogging is abnormal).
Regarding claim 6, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 4, wherein the control device prohibits the polishing machine from polishing a substrate when determining that a degree of clogging in the flow channel is high (Yamazaki ¶ 0102, when the major failure occurs, the determiner 72 stops the substrate processing operation of the polishing apparatus).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the flow channel includes a single pipe, and wherein a downstream end of the flow channel is constituted by an end of the single pipe (Yamazaki fig. 4 and annotated Yamazaki fig. 5 below, a downstream end of the flow channel comprises a single pipe).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yamazaki Fig. 5
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the flow channel includes a single pipe and a discharge nozzle connected to a downstream end of the single pipe and including at least one discharge hole (annotated Yamazaki fig. 5 above, the end of the single pipe is a discharge nozzle comprising one discharge hole).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Watanabe, Chen, and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Okada (US 2014/0065732).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang teaches the polishing apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control device stores the number of substrates polished by the polishing machine whenever the polishing machine polishes the substrate (Wang English translation ¶ 0033, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the cleaning step of a polishing apparatus is performed after a predetermined number of polishing operation; ¶ 0035, a controller 188 controls a CMP device. Therefore, the controller stores the number of processed substrates), but does not disclose the control device resets the stored number of substrates to zero when the cleaning solution flows in the flow channel.
Okada teaches, in an analogous CMP apparatus field of endeavor, the control device resets the stored number of substrates to zero when the cleaning solution flows in the flow channel (¶ 0052-53, a processed number counting unit 324 of a CMP device 30 counts a number of wafers that undergo polishing process. After counting a predetermined number of processed wafers, the process number counting unit resets the counted number of the processed wafers. Therefore, the counting unit of Okada can be combined with the CMP device of Wang to reset the counting number after the cleaning step of the polishing apparatus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing apparatus of Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe, Chen, and Wang to provide the control device to reset the stored number of substrates as taught by Okada so that the CMP system resumes the operation until the next reset counts (Okada ¶ 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yamazaki fails to discloses (1) the switching device that switches between the polishing solution and the cleaning solution, (2) the control device that performs a cleaning process and a clogging detecting process, (3) the flow rate adjusting device that is disposed at a position downstream from the switching device, and (4) the sensor that includes a pressure sensor. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yamazaki discloses the coupling member 48 at the junction of the cleaning solution line 47 and the polishing solution line 46 (figs. 4 and 11), and Watanabe teaches the valve 21 for switching between water discharge lines 24 and 70 (fig. 9). By combining Yamazaki and Watanabe, the coupling member of Yamazaki at the junction can be replaced by the switching valve of Watanabe to teach the claim limitations.
Regarding the control device, Yamazaki teaches the flow controller 75 for adjusting the flow rate in the flow channel and Watanabe teaches the control mechanism 6 controls the switching valve 21. Additionally, Yamazaki teaches the determiner 72 detects abnormality of liquid ejection nozzle with support of the flow rate detection by the sensor 74. Thus, the Yamazaki’s system detects the clogging. Therefore, once again, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe teaches the recited claim limitations.
Regarding the Yamazaki’s flow rate adjusting device, Applicant argues the device is disposed at the upstream of the switching device. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, there can be an alternative junction between the polishing solution and the cleaning solution where the pure water line 90 meets the polishing solution line 46 (see Yamazaki fig. 11), and the switching valve of Watanabe can be disposed at the junction. Then, the flow rate adjustment valve 73 would be positioned at the downstream of the switching device.
Regarding the sensor, Applicant argues Yamazaki does not teach the flow sensor 74 can be changed to a pressure sensor. However, Yamazaki teaches there can be a sensor in the flow channel of CMP apparatus, and Chen teaches the pressure sensor in a flow channel of an CMP apparatus. Therefore, Yamazaki as modified by Chen teaches the pressure sensor can be disposed in the flow channel of Yamazaki.
Applicant further argues Wang and Watanabe do not teach (3) the flow rate adjusting device and (4) the pressure sensor. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained above, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe teaches the flow rate adjusting device at the downstream from the switching device and Yamazaki as modified by Chen teaches the pressure sensor.
Applicant continues arguing that Chen and Okada do not teach (3) the flow rate adjusting device. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained above, Yamazaki as modified by Watanabe teaches the flow rate adjusting device at the downstream from the switching device.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights