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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed 04/01/2026 have been entered.
The objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection(s) is/are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, since the main reference in the new ground of rejection is similar to the previous main reference, then the arguments are addressed herein.
The Remarks argue, with respect to claim 1, that the prior art fails to anticipate or disclose “wherein the recess comprises a first width at a first location along the recess and a second width at a second location along the recess, wherein the first width is different than a second width.”
In response, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious a groove with a single width (wherein the cross-section is rectangular) that changes width along its length. However, in the case of V-shaped or tapered groove, such as shown by Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943), this would have multiple widths along its length, varying in an up-and-down direction along the depth of the groove. As such, a groove such as Takeuchi would read on the claim as is and, as shown in the rejection below, it would’ve been obvious to incorporate such a groove into slurry grooves of a polishing pad. Therefore, the prior art in view of Takeuchi are considered to render obvious this claim language of claim 1.
The Remarks argue that, with respect to claim 7, the claim has been amended to include a “width of the recess is about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of the substrate.”
The prior art CMP machines are known to polishing substrates that are typically about 300mm in diameter, as shown by Gurusamy (US-2020/0206866) [Gurusamy; paragraph 0041]. This means that using a polishing pad with a recess about 2% to about 10% of 300mm would be about 6mm to about 30mm. If the prior art recess is about 6 mm to about 30 mm, then it would anticipate the claimed ratio in view of Gurusamy teaching the size of a typical semiconductor wafer.
Zhang discloses “the groove 102 is sufficiently wide that an annular band at the edge of the substrate, e.g., a band at least 3 mm wide, e.g., a band 3-15 mm wide, e.g., a band 3-10 mm wide, will have a reduced polishing rate. The polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters.” [Zhang; paragraph 0038]. A width of about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of 300mm is 6mm to 30mm, which is disclosed by Zhang. Therefore, polishing a 300mm diameter wafer with the polishing pad of Zhang would meet the claimed ratio of wherein the recess is about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of the substrate.
The Remarks argue that claim 14, which now recites “a width of the recess is at least 5 times larger than a width of the plurality of grooves” makes the claimed invention unobvious over the prior art. Applicant argues that relative size “[prevents] damage to the edge of the substrate while also reducing damage from over-etching.”
In response, claim 14 states “a width of the recess is at least 5 times larger than a width of the plurality of grooves.” The grooves appear to be the grooves shown in Figure 5 which are concentric to the larger recess. The prior art of Zhang teaches a recess 102 and a plurality of concentric grooves 112 (Fig. 2).
Zhang teaches wherein a width of the recess (control groove 102) is at least 5 times larger than a width of the plurality of grooves (slurry-supply grooves 112) (“slurry supply grooves can have a width between about 0.015 and 0.04 inches (between 0.381 and 1.016 mm), such as 0.20 inches”) [Zhang; paragraph 0040] (“polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0038] (5 times larger than 0.381 to 1.016 mm, which is the width of the grooves 112, is 1.905 mm to 5.08 mm, wherein the control groove 102 is 5 mm to 50 mm and/or 10 mm to 20 millimeters, which is greater than 5 times the grooves 112).
Zhang also more explicitly states “[t]he slurry-supply grooves 112 are narrower than the polishing control groove 102. For example, the slurry-supply grooves 112 can be narrower by a factor of at least 3, e.g., at least 6, such as 6 to 100” [emphasis added] [Zhang; paragraph 0041].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 and 11, and those claims depending therefrom, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed “off of the polishing pad through the one or more channels” [emphasis added] lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this “off of the polishing pad through
Regarding claim 11, the claimed “wherein the cross-sectional area of each channel multiplied by a number of channels provides an exit cross-section area” is indefinite.
The first issue is that “a number of channels” makes ambiguous about whether this is the number of channels as there are already “one or more channels” claimed, or whether this would be a different number. For example, the number of “one or more channels” could be 8, but “a number of channels” could be 7 or less. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this “the number of the one or more channels.”
The second issue is that “an exit cross-section area” implies the cross section of one area. By multiplying by the number of channels radially placed around the pad, this would not be considered a cross-section except maybe a horizontal cross-section, but that would not be something that would produce an area of the channels (while viewing the cross section of a channel, a horizontal plane would essentially be a line through each channel). For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider “an exit cross-section area” as just “an exit area.”
Assuming, then, that this is “wherein the cross-sectional area of each channel multiplied by the number of the one or more channels provides an exit areas” or “each cross-sectional area,” and this is ambiguous as to which this is. This could be simple as multiplying one cross-section area by the number of channels, or all of the cross-sectional areas multiplied by the channels in some equation and/or order that is unknown. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “wherein the [sum of the] cross-sectional area[s] of each channel multiplied by the number of the one or more channels provides an exit
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-2020/0282509) in view of Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) and Peng (US-2014/0053980).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Zhang (US-2020/0282509) discloses a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) for polishing semiconductor substrates, the chamber comprising:
a rotatable platen (platen 24) disposed;
a polishing pad (polishing pad 30) mounted on the rotatable platen (platen 24) (“The polishing system 20 includes a rotatable disk-shaped platen 24 on which a polishing pad 30 is situated. The platen 24 is operable to rotate about an axis 25.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0027],
wherein the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) comprises a recess (control groove 102) around a periphery of the polishing pad (pad 30) (Figs. 2 and 3A),
wherein the recess (control groove 102) comprises an inner radius and an outer radius (Figs. 2 and 3A), and
wherein the outer radius is offset from an exterior edge of the polishing pad (Figs. 2 and 3A); and
a carrier head (carrier head 70) configured to hold a substrate (substrate 10) and rotate the substrate against the polishing pad during a CMP process (“A carrier head 70 is operable to hold a substrate 10 against the polishing pad 30. The carrier head 70 is suspended from a support structure 50, e.g., a carousel or a track, and is connected by a drive shaft 58 to a carrier head rotation motor 56 so that the carrier head can rotate about an axis 55.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0029]; and
but fails to disclose wherein the recess (control groove 102) comprises a first width at a first location along the recess (control groove 102) and a second width at a second location along the recess, wherein the first width is different than the second width.
However, Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) teaches a recess (concentric groove 14) (“The configuration of the groove viewed from the surface of the polishing layer includes grid-like, concentric circle-like, spiral, and radial grooves, but the configuration is not limited to these.”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0027], comprises a first width at a first location along the recess and a second width at a second location along the recess (the groove 14, shaped in a V-shape, possess a first width and a second with, each respectively along the groove 14), wherein the first width is different than the second width (see Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
243
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) teaches “However, a corner portion in a cross-sectional shape of the groove, or burrs formed at the corner portion resulting from dressing performed before or after polishing or during polishing may cause scratches on the surface of the wafer. It is described to dispose an inclined surface at a boundary part between the polishing surface and the groove in order to solve this problem (for example, Patent Documents 2, 3)” [Takeuchi; paragraph 0006] and proposes solving this by shaping the plurality of grooves into comprising a base having a V-shape (Figs. 3-6) (“Here, the present inventors found that by providing an inclined surface at a boundary portion between the polishing surface and the groove, not only the scratches are decreased”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010]. Since Takeuchi teaches that this improvement is pertinent to concentric grooves on polishing pads (“The configuration of the groove viewed from the surface of the polishing layer includes grid-like, concentric circle-like, spiral, and radial grooves, but the configuration is not limited to these.”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0027], it therefore would’ve been obvious to make the plurality of grooves of Zhang comprise a base having a V-shape to prevent edges where the groove meets the planar surface and, thereby, decreasing scratches and such on the wafer, particularly after dressing [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010].
Zhang fails to disclose a “chamber chamber for polishing semiconductor substrates” wherein the “rotatable platen (platen 24) disposed within the CMP chamber.” However, Peng (US-2014/0053980) teaches using a chamber around the CMP apparatus to prevent safety issues (“Following the highly growth of the semiconductor industry, the industrial safety issue draws more attention. In the semiconductor manufacturing process, it is needed to use a large amount of combustible, corrosive or toxic chemical materials. The remaining material that is not completely reacted in the process or the hazardous vapor evaporated in the reacting region is mostly transported to the facility exhaust system. The operator may be exposed to an environment contaminated by the toxic gases if the facility exhaust system is not adequately designed.”) [Peng; paragraph 0002] (“In accordance with a further aspect of the disclosure, a CMP chamber is provided, which includes a chamber body, a door mounted on the chamber body, and a chamber substructure being one selected from a group consisting of a moisture separator separating a moisture generated in the CMP chamber, a supplementary exhaust port, a transparent window mounted on the door, a sampling port mounted on the door, a sealing material including a metal frame, an o-ring for sealing the door and a combination thereof.”) [Peng; paragraph 0012] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to use the CMP device of Zhang in the cabinet taught by Peng in order to prevent safety issues [Peng; paragraphs 0002, 0012].
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the chamber of claim 1, wherein the recess (control groove 102) a continuous circular recess (Figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the chamber of claim 1, wherein a width of the recess (control groove 102) is between 0.1 inches and 1.5 inches (2.54mm and 38.1mm) (“The polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0038].
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-2020/0282509) in view of Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) and Peng (US-2014/0053980), and further in view of Cook (US-2017/0274496).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the chamber of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) further comprises one or more channels extending radially from the outer radius of the recess.
However, radial grooves are well-known in polishing pads, as taught by Cook (US-2017/0274496) for moving slurry both between circumferential grooves (202B, 204B, 206B, 210B) (Fig. 2A) (“From drainage groove 216 the polishing slurry or solution flows through perimeter grooves 210A and 210B.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] and for moving slurry off of the polishing pad through a drainage groove 216 that moves the slurry from the circumferential groove(s) to the outer perimeter wall 334) (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040]. Without radial grooves, the slurry builds up and flows up and out of the grooves, such is the case in Figure 2A (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039]. Zhang discloses both using slurry and a control groove 102 meant such that “the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10” [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, the build-up of slurry in the case where there is no radial groove that extends through a perimeter of land area and pas the perimeter wall would experience a build up such that polishing slurry would flow up and over the control groove, thus causing abrasion of the substrate at the control groove, opposite to the intention of Zhang (“the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10”) [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide radial channels (i.e. one or more channels), as taught by Cook, for the control groove of Zhang in order to prevent the slurry in the control groove from overfilling up and over the land area and past the perimeter wall (Figs. 2A and 3 of Cook) (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040].
PNG
media_image2.png
552
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Zhang discloses the chamber of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more channels comprises at least eight channels evenly spaced around the periphery of the polishing pad.
However, Cook teaches wherein the one or more radial channels (16) comprises at least eight channels evenly spaced around the periphery of the polishing pad (Fig. 1). Cook teaches that the number of drainage grooves increases the drainage efficiency (“a single drainage groove was insufficient to effectively drain the set of feeder grooves. However, by addition of multiple feeder grooves, drainage efficiency can readily be increased to acceptable levels. FIG. 10 graphically illustrates the improved drainage capacity increases with the number of grooves”) [Cook; paragraph 0058], but that “too low a drainage ratio will not remove sufficient polishing byproducts and not reduce defects. Too high a drainage ratio affects hydrodynamics (manifested by increased wafer non-uniformity) and increased defects over even the case where no drainage grooves are employed.” [Cook; paragraph 0059]. Therefore, it would be an obvious optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the number of radial channels to achieve the claimed number of channels, which is at least eight, in order to provide a desired drainage efficiency that is neither too low or too high to cause polishing defects, particularly as Cook shows more than eight is acceptable for providing the desired drainage (Fig. 1) [Cook; paragraph 0058-0059].
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the chamber of claim 2, wherein the first location of the first width is adjacent to the one or more channels and the first width is greater than the second width (the variable width from top to low occurs throughout the groove, as modified, and would occur both at a location near the channels and at locations away from the channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
243
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-2020/0282509) in view of Cook (US-2017/0274496), Peng (US-2014/0053980), and further in view of Gurusamy (US-2020/0206866).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Zhang (US-2022/0234163) discloses a method of polishing semiconductor substrates, the method comprising:
rotating a platen (platen 24) (“The polishing system 20 includes a rotatable disk-shaped platen 24 on which a polishing pad 30 is situated. The platen 24 is operable to rotate about an axis 25.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0027],
wherein a polishing pad (polishing pad 30) is mounted on the platen and rotated with the platen (platen 24) (“The polishing system 20 includes a rotatable disk-shaped platen 24 on which a polishing pad 30 is situated. The platen 24 is operable to rotate about an axis 25.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0027];
rotating a carrier head (carrier head 70) holding a substrate (substrate 10) against the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) during a CMP process (“A carrier head 70 is operable to hold a substrate 10 against the polishing pad 30.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0029]; and
providing a polishing slurry to the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) (“The polishing system 20 can include a supply port or a combined supply-rinse arm 92 to dispense a polishing liquid 94, such as an abrasive slurry, onto the polishing pad 30.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0028];
wherein the polishing pad comprises a recess (control groove 102) around a periphery of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30), wherein the recess (control groove 102) comprises an inner radius and an outer radius (Fig. 2), and
wherein the outer radius is offset from an exterior edge of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) (Figs. 2 and 3A).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the polishing slurry is directed off of the polishing pad through one or more channels during the CMP process, wherein one or more channels extend radially from the outer radius of the recess.
However, radial grooves are well-known in polishing pads, as taught by Cook (US-2017/0274496) for moving slurry both between circumferential grooves (202B, 204B, 206B, 210B) (Fig. 2A) (“From drainage groove 216 the polishing slurry or solution flows through perimeter grooves 210A and 210B.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] and for moving slurry off of the polishing pad through a drainage groove 216 that moves the slurry from the circumferential groove(s) to the outer perimeter wall 334) (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040]. Without radial grooves, the slurry builds up and flows up and out of the grooves, such is the case in Figure 2A (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039]. Zhang discloses both using slurry and a control groove 102 meant such that “the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10” [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, the build-up of slurry in the case where there is no radial groove that extends through a perimeter of land area and pas the perimeter wall would experience a build up such that polishing slurry would flow up and over the control groove, thus causing abrasion of the substrate at the control groove, opposite to the intention of Zhang (“the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10”) [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide radial channels (i.e. one or more channels), as taught by Cook, for the control groove of Zhang in order to prevent the slurry in the control groove from overfilling up and over the land area and past the perimeter wall (Figs. 2A and 3 of Cook) (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040].
PNG
media_image2.png
552
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhang fails to disclose the diameter of the wafer being polished, specifically a width of the recess is about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of the substrate. However, the diameter of a substrate is typically about 300mm, as taught by Gurusamy (US-2020/0206866) [Gurusamy; paragraph 0041], and it therefore would’ve been obvious to use the method of Zhang to polish a wafer of 300 mm, as taught by Gurusamy (“(e.g., on a 300 mm diameter circular substrate)”) [Gurusamy; paragraph 0041]. Zhang discloses “the groove 102 is sufficiently wide that an annular band at the edge of the substrate, e.g., a band at least 3 mm wide, e.g., a band 3-15 mm wide, e.g., a band 3-10 mm wide, will have a reduced polishing rate. The polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters.” [Zhang; paragraph 0038]. A width of about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of 300mm is 6mm to 30mm, which is disclosed by Zhang. Therefore, polishing a 300mm diameter wafer with the polishing pad of Zhang would meet the claimed ratio of wherein the recess is about 2% to about 10% of a diameter of the substrate.
Zhang fails to disclose rotation the platen “within a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) chamber” as claimed. However, Peng (US-2014/0053980) teaches using a chamber around the CMP apparatus to prevent safety issues (“Following the highly growth of the semiconductor industry, the industrial safety issue draws more attention. In the semiconductor manufacturing process, it is needed to use a large amount of combustible, corrosive or toxic chemical materials. The remaining material that is not completely reacted in the process or the hazardous vapor evaporated in the reacting region is mostly transported to the facility exhaust system. The operator may be exposed to an environment contaminated by the toxic gases if the facility exhaust system is not adequately designed.”) [Peng; paragraph 0002] (“In accordance with a further aspect of the disclosure, a CMP chamber is provided, which includes a chamber body, a door mounted on the chamber body, and a chamber substructure being one selected from a group consisting of a moisture separator separating a moisture generated in the CMP chamber, a supplementary exhaust port, a transparent window mounted on the door, a sampling port mounted on the door, a sealing material including a metal frame, an o-ring for sealing the door and a combination thereof.”) [Peng; paragraph 0012] and, therefore, it would’ve been obvious to use the CMP device of Zhang in the cabinet taught by Peng in order to prevent safety issues [Peng; paragraphs 0002, 0012].
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Zhang, as modified by Cook, discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
collecting the polishing slurry in the recess (control groove 102) (“the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10”) [Zhang; paragraph 0039],
wherein the recess (control grooves 102) directs the polishing slurry into the one or more channels (radial drainage grooves 216 of Cook) to be directed off of the polishing pad during the CMP process (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more channels (radial drainage grooves 216 of Cook) have a length that is directed outward perpendicular to an edge of the polishing pad and perpendicular to the recess (see Fig. 3 of Cook, where the circumferential grooves, which are also concentric with the edge of the polishing pad, are perpendicular to the radial drainage grooves 216).
PNG
media_image2.png
552
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more channels have a length that is between about 0.5 inches and about 3.0 inches (“the pad 30 includes a polishing control groove 102a located near the outer edge of the polishing pad 30, e.g., within 15%, e.g., with 10% (by radius) of the outer edge. For example, the groove 102a can be located at a radial distance of fourteen inches from the center of a platen having a thirty inch diameter”) [Zhang; paragraph 0035] (“width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters”) [Zhang; paragraph 0038].
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Zhang, as modified by Cook, discloses the method of claim 7,
wherein the one or more channels each have across-sectional area defined as a width and multiplied by a depth,
but fails to disclose wherein the cross-sectional area of each channel multiplied by a number of channels provides an exit cross-section area such that a flow rate from a fluid delivery arm is less than or equal to a flow rate at which the polishing slurry exits the polishing pad through the one or more channels.
However, the prior art of Cook (US-2017/0274496) states that “the delivery of excess fresh slurry over the upper surface of the pad the number of radial grooves depends upon a number of variables, including the slurry delivery rate. If the drainage capacity is too high, then this results in insufficient slurry in the grooves available for use, and may result in pad drying. This is a detrimental source of defects, such as scratching defects. The drainage grooves of the invention reduce defects. Similarly, too low a drainage ratio will not remove sufficient polishing byproducts and not reduce defects. Too high a drainage ratio affects hydrodynamics (manifested by increased wafer non-uniformity) and increased defects over even the case where no drainage grooves are employed.”) [Cook; paragraph 0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the cross-section area of each channel multiplied by the number of channels (i.e. total drainage area of the channels) such to provide a flow-rate of slurry exiting the polishing pad through the one or more channels substantially equal to the slurry flow rate from the fluid delivery arm in order to prevent defects in polishing due to the slurry level being too low (where the flow rate exiting the pad is greater than the flow rate of slurry entering the pad) or too high (wherein the drainage flow rate is less than the slurry supply flow rate) wherein hydrodynamics would be seen [Cook; paragraph 0059].
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more channels have a width between about 0.25 inches and about 1.0 inches.
However, Cook teaches modifying the cross-sectional area (“The doubling of the number of drainage grooves (drainage to feeder area ratio increased from 0.225 to 0.45) significantly increased defectivity overall, even relative to the control. This is taken as an indication that there is a critical range for the drainage efficiency ratio. This critical range can vary with the size and number of feeder groove and the size of the radial drainage groove”) [Cook; paragraph 0072] wherein “the delivery of excess fresh slurry over the upper surface of the pad the number of radial grooves depends upon a number of variables, including the slurry delivery rate. If the drainage capacity is too high, then this results in insufficient slurry in the grooves available for use, and may result in pad drying. This is a detrimental source of defects, such as scratching defects. The drainage grooves of the invention reduce defects. Similarly, too low a drainage ratio will not remove sufficient polishing byproducts and not reduce defects. Too high a drainage ratio affects hydrodynamics (manifested by increased wafer non-uniformity) and increased defects over even the case where no drainage grooves are employed.”) [Cook; paragraph 0059]. It therefore would’ve been an obvious optimization to change the size, both depth and/or width, of the one or more channels to modify the slurry delivery rate such to prevent pad drying when the slurry flow rate is insufficient, or to prevent hydrodynamics and non-uniformity when the slurry flow rate is too high, as taught by Cook [Cook; paragraph 0059]. As such, the modification of the one or more channels to be a width between about 0.25 inches and about 1.0 inches is considered obvious optimization in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Zhang discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more channels comprise at least three channels that are evenly distributed around an edge of the polishing pad.
However, Cook teaches wherein one or more channels comprise at least three channels [Cook; paragraph 0060, Table 2] that are evenly distributed around an edge of the polishing pad (Fig. 1). Cook teaches modifying the number of grooves in order to modify flow [Cook; paragraph 0049] and that “the delivery of excess fresh slurry over the upper surface of the pad the number of radial grooves depends upon a number of variables, including the slurry delivery rate. If the drainage capacity is too high, then this results in insufficient slurry in the grooves available for use, and may result in pad drying. This is a detrimental source of defects, such as scratching defects. The drainage grooves of the invention reduce defects. Similarly, too low a drainage ratio will not remove sufficient polishing byproducts and not reduce defects. Too high a drainage ratio affects hydrodynamics (manifested by increased wafer non-uniformity) and increased defects over even the case where no drainage grooves are employed.”) [Cook; paragraph 0059]. Therefore, it would’ve been an obvious design choice to use at least three channels for the pad of Zhang, as taught by Cook, in order to achieve a desired drainage of the fluid such that detrimental effects do not occur [Cook; paragraph 0059].
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-2020/0282509) in view of Cook (US-2017/0274496).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses a polishing pad for chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) chambers, the polishing pad comprising:
a sub pad (softer backing layer 34) comprising a bottom side of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30); and
a top pad (outer polishing layer 32) comprising a top side of the polishing pad (Fig. 1), the top pad comprising a top surface (“The outer polishing layer 32 has a polishing surface 36.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0027], and comprising:
a plurality of grooves (slurry-supply grooves 112) on the top surface of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) (Figs. 2 and 3A),
a recess (control groove 102) around a periphery of the top surface, wherein the recess (control groove 102) comprises an inner radius and an outer radius (Fig. 1), and
wherein the outer radius (of control groove 102) is offset from an exterior edge of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) (Figs. 2 and 3A), and
wherein a width of the recess (control groove 102) is at least 5 times larger than a width of the plurality of grooves (slurry-supply grooves 112) (“slurry supply grooves can have a width between about 0.015 and 0.04 inches (between 0.381 and 1.016 mm), such as 0.20 inches”) [Zhang; paragraph 0040] (“polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0038] (5 times larger than 0.381 to 1.016 mm, which is the width of the grooves 112, is 1.905 mm to 5.08 mm, wherein the control groove 102 is five to fifty and/or ten to twenty, which is greater than 5 times the grooves 112),
but fails to disclose one or more channels extend radially from the outer radius of the recess.
However, radial grooves are well-known in polishing pads, as taught by Cook (US-2017/0274496) for moving slurry both between circumferential grooves (202B, 204B, 206B, 210B) (Fig. 2A) (“From drainage groove 216 the polishing slurry or solution flows through perimeter grooves 210A and 210B.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] and for moving slurry off of the polishing pad through a drainage groove 216 that moves the slurry from the circumferential groove(s) to the outer perimeter wall 334) (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040]. Without radial grooves, the slurry builds up and flows up and out of the grooves, such is the case in Figure 2A (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039]. Zhang discloses both using slurry and a control groove 102 meant such that “the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10” [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, the build-up of slurry in the case where there is no radial groove that extends through a perimeter of land area and pas the perimeter wall would experience a build up such that polishing slurry would flow up and over the control groove, thus causing abrasion of the substrate at the control groove, opposite to the intention of Zhang (“the groove 102 can provide a conduit for polishing slurry to pass through without abrading the substrate 10”) [Zhang; paragraph 0039]. Therefore, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide radial channels (i.e. one or more channels), as taught by Cook, for the control groove of Zhang in order to prevent the slurry in the control groove from overfilling up and over the land area and past the perimeter wall (Figs. 2A and 3 of Cook) (“The polishing slurry or solution then exits perimeter grooves 210A and 210B over perimeter land area 220 and past perimeter wall 222.”) [Cook; paragraph 0039] (“The arrows indicate the flow of the polishing slurry or solution to and past the polishing pad 300's perimeter wall 334.”) [Cook; paragraph 0040].
PNG
media_image2.png
552
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, wherein the one or more recess (control groove 102) comprises a circular recess forming a continuous recess within the periphery of the polishing pad (polishing pad 30) (Figs. 2 and 3A).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, wherein the one or more recess (control groove 102) comprises have a width of between about 0.2 inches and about 1.0 inches (“polishing control groove 102 can have a width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters”) (about 0.2 inches to about 0.8 inches) [Zhang; paragraph 0038].
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, wherein the recess is offset from the exterior edge of the polishing pad by between about 0.5 inches and about 3.0 inches (“the pad 30 includes a polishing control groove 102a located near the outer edge of the polishing pad 30, e.g., within 15%, e.g., with 10% (by radius) of the outer edge. For example, the groove 102a can be located at a radial distance of fourteen inches from the center of a platen having a thirty inch diameter”) [Zhang; paragraph 0035] (“width of three to fifty, e.g., five to fifty, e.g., three to ten, e.g., ten to twenty, millimeters”) [Zhang; paragraph 0038].
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, wherein the recess (control groove 102) comprises a depth from a top of one or more ridges to a base of the plurality of grooves (Fig. 2) (“The polishing control groove 102 can have a smaller, similar, or greater depth than the slurry-supply grooves 112.”) [Zhang; paragraph 0041].
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-2020/0282509) in view of Cook (US-2017/0274496), and further in view of Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of grooves comprise a base having a V-shape.
However, Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) teaches “However, a corner portion in a cross-sectional shape of the groove, or burrs formed at the corner portion resulting from dressing performed before or after polishing or during polishing may cause scratches on the surface of the wafer. It is described to dispose an inclined surface at a boundary part between the polishing surface and the groove in order to solve this problem (for example, Patent Documents 2, 3)” [Takeuchi; paragraph 0006] and proposes solving this by shaping the plurality of grooves into comprising a base having a V-shape (Figs. 3-6) (“Here, the present inventors found that by providing an inclined surface at a boundary portion between the polishing surface and the groove, not only the scratches are decreased”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010]. Since Takeuchi teaches that this improvement is pertinent to concentric grooves on polishing pads (“The configuration of the groove viewed from the surface of the polishing layer includes grid-like, concentric circle-like, spiral, and radial grooves, but the configuration is not limited to these.”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0027], it therefore would’ve been obvious to make the plurality of grooves of Zhang comprise a base having a V-shape to prevent edges where the groove meets the planar surface and, thereby, decreasing scratches and such on the wafer, particularly after dressing [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010].
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Zhang discloses the polishing pad of claim 14, wherein the recess comprises a first width at a first location along the recess and a second width at a second location along the recess, wherein the first width is different than the second width.
However, Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) teaches a recess (concentric groove 14) (“The configuration of the groove viewed from the surface of the polishing layer includes grid-like, concentric circle-like, spiral, and radial grooves, but the configuration is not limited to these.”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0027], comprises a first width at a first location along the recess and a second width at a second location along the recess (the groove 14, shaped in a V-shape, possess a first width and a second with, each respectively along the groove 14), wherein the first width is different than the second width (see Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
243
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Takeuchi (US-2014/0170943) teaches “However, a corner portion in a cross-sectional shape of the groove, or burrs formed at the corner portion resulting from dressing performed before or after polishing or during polishing may cause scratches on the surface of the wafer. It is described to dispose an inclined surface at a boundary part between the polishing surface and the groove in order to solve this problem (for example, Patent Documents 2, 3)” [Takeuchi; paragraph 0006] and proposes solving this by shaping the plurality of grooves into comprising a base having a V-shape (Figs. 3-6) (“Here, the present inventors found that by providing an inclined surface at a boundary portion between the polishing surface and the groove, not only the scratches are decreased”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010]. Since Takeuchi teaches that this improvement is pertinent to concentric grooves on polishing pads (“The configuration of the groove viewed from the surface of the polishing layer includes grid-like, concentric circle-like, spiral, and radial grooves, but the configuration is not limited to these.”) [Takeuchi; paragraph 0027], it therefore would’ve been obvious to make the plurality of grooves of Zhang comprise a base having a V-shape to prevent edges where the groove meets the planar surface and, thereby, decreasing scratches and such on the wafer, particularly after dressing [Takeuchi; paragraph 0010].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-5882251, US-20030114084, US-9114501, and US-20090075568 are pertinent to claim 1. US-2017/0036319, and US-2013/0017766 are pertinent to claim 1.
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 JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights