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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 21-26, as to the point that the applied prior art, Zheng fails to disclose that the wafer is plasma etched during the wafer is polished, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (Plasma-Etching Enhanced Mechanical polishing for CVD Diamond Films; Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.3, Jun. 2008) as supported by Halley (US 6,692,339) and further in view of Liu et al (Damage-free highly efficient plasma-assisted polishing of a 20-mm square large mosaic single crystal diamond substrate; Scientific Reports; volume 10, Article number: 19432 (2020).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng et al disclose a process of reactive ion etching a diamond film using an oxygen plasma, then the etched diamond film is polished by a using diamond powder abrasive (see the experimental details at page 336-337; Table 3).
Zheng et al also disclose that surface morphology (Figure 3B) of sample B and sample C, which is etched by the plasma, which leads to a better polished surface (see, “Results and discussion” at page 337-338); and aforesaid teaching easily reads on the claimed limitation of projecting beam to form a surface modified portion on the layer.
Zheng et al may not explicitly disclose the polishing is performed by using a polishing pad.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform polishing using a pad and such is typically known in the art as supported by Halley. Halley discloses a typical planarizing apparatus 100 also includes a polishing head, or polishing pad assembly 116, for polishing wafer 115. Pad assembly 116 includes polishing pad 117, a polishing pad chuck 250 for securing and supporting polishing pad 117, and a polishing pad spindle 260 coupled to chuck 250 for rotation of pad 117 about its axis 270. According to a specific embodiment, the pad diameter is substantially less than the wafer diameter, typically 20% of the wafer diameter (Figure 1; col.6, lines 63-col.7, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Halley's teaching of introducing typical polishing apparatus into the teaching of Zheng et al for achieving desired polishing of a substrate as suggested by Halley.
Modified Zheng et al fail to disclose that the wafer is plasma etched during the wafer polishing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu et al disclose a Plasma-assisted polishing (PAP) as a damage-free and highly efficient polishing technique has been widely applied to difficult-to-machine wide-gap semiconductor materials such as 4H-SiC (0001) and GaN (0001); Argon-based plasma containing oxygen was used in PAP to modify the surface of quartz glass polishing plate, and a high material removal rate (MRR) of 13.3 μm/h was obtained (abstract). Plasma-assisted polishing (PAP) was proposed by our research group as a novel technique for efficiently polishing diamond without introducing any damage (see the disclosure under the heading “introduction”). And the surface of quartz glass polishing plate was always irradiated by plasma during PAP (see the Discussion section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Liu et al's teaching of polishing during plasma etching with plasma projecting into the teaching of modified Zheng et al for efficiently polishing diamond without introducing any damage as suggested by Liu et al.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng et al disclose pressing the polishing pad after plasma etching (corresponds to the claimed projecting beam).
Regarding claim 3, Halley discloses that a polishing slurry containing chemically-reactive solution, in which are suspended abrasive particles, is deposited through a supply tube onto the surface of the polishing pad (col.2, lines 26-29).
Regarding clam 4, Halley discloses a typical polishing apparatus above and polishing pad is rotating (see Figure 1) and it would have been obvious that moving a position of the pad according to a position of the beam (plasma).
Regarding claim 5, Halley discloses the pad diameter is substantially less than the wafer diameter, typically 20% of the wafer diameter (Figure 1; col.6, lines 63-col.7, line 4). Therefore, the wafer diameter is greater than a diameter of the polishing pad.
Regarding claim 6, Zheng et al disclose that surface is modified by oxygen plasma (corresponds to plasma beam).
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (Plasma-Etching Enhanced Mechanical polishing for CVD Diamond Films; Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.3, Jun. 2008) as supported by Halley (US 6,692,339) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishizawa et al (Study of innovative plasma fusion CMP and its application to processing of diamond substrate”; 2015; provided with IDS) and further in view of Liu et al (Damage-free highly efficient plasma-assisted polishing of a 20-mm square large mosaic single crystal diamond substrate; Scientific Reports; volume 10, Article number: 19432 (2020).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng et al disclose above for the claim 1 as supported with Halley but fail to disclose the surface treatment using oxygen plasma breaks at least one of the C-C bonds.
However, Nishizawa et al teach in the similar field that diamond substrate is polished by combining plasma-chemical vaporization machining and CMP (see introduction at page 1). Nishizawa et al also disclose that oxygen plasma has higher reactivity against C-C bond on the diamond substrate (see the effect of reaction gas during P-CVM; under the heading IV. Results and discussion at page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Nishizawa et al's teaching of oxygen plasma would react with the C-C bond on the diamond substrate into the teaching of modified Zheng et al for effective polishing the diamond substrate as suggested by Nishizawa et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Zheng et al disclose a process of reactive ion etching a diamond film using an oxygen plasma, then the etched diamond film is polished by a using diamond powder abrasive (see the experimental details at page 336-337; Table 3).
Zheng et al also disclose that surface morphology (Figure 3B) of sample B and sample C, which is etched by the plasma, which leads to a better polished surface (see, “Results and discussion” at page 337-338); and aforesaid teaching easily reads on the claimed limitation of projecting beam to form a surface modified portion on the layer.
Zheng et al may not explicitly disclose the polishing is performed by using a polishing pad.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform polishing using a pad and such is typically known in the art as supported by Halley. Halley discloses a typical planarizing apparatus 100 also includes a polishing head, or polishing pad assembly 116, for polishing wafer 115. Pad assembly 116 includes polishing pad 117, a polishing pad chuck 250 for securing and supporting polishing pad 117, and a polishing pad spindle 260 coupled to chuck 250 for rotation of pad 117 about its axis 270. According to a specific embodiment, the pad diameter is substantially less than the wafer diameter, typically 20% of the wafer diameter (Figure 1; col.6, lines 63-col.7, line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Halley's teaching of introducing typical polishing apparatus into the teaching of Zheng et for achieving desired polishing of a substrate as suggested by Halley.
Zheng et al fail to disclose that the diamond layer to be polished is attached over a front side interconnect structure and the diamond substrate is a heat dissipation layer.
However, Halley discloses a process of fabrication of integrated circuit devices often begins by producing semiconductor wafers and polishing a surface areas of the wafer (col.1, lines 23-36) and Zheng et al disclose above polishing a diamond substrate and such diamond substrate obviously have the characteristic of being a heat dissipation and the arrangement of the integrated circuit devices having a device layer and front and back interconnect structure would have been an obvious design choice.
Modified teaching above may not explicitly disclose moving a beam of the beam device relative to the wafer during polishing.
However, Liu et al also disclose that during plasma assisted polishing (PAP), during PAP, the polishing plate irradiated by plasma and the SCD substrate were respectively driven by a speed-controlled motor to rotate in opposite directions with respect to each other (see, the disclosure under the heading “PAP experimental setup”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Liu et al's teaching of moving or rotating the beam relative to the wafer into the teaching of modified Zheng et al et al for achieving a damage-free surface as suggested by Liu et al (see abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng et al disclose that the substrate or wafer is secured on a platen or substrate holder for plasma etching (resemble as the claimed surface treatment); and Halley discloses the polishing pad is disposed over the wafer (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 12 and 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (Plasma-Etching Enhanced Mechanical polishing for CVD Diamond Films; Plasma Science and Technology, Vol.10, No.3, Jun. 2008) as supported by Halley (US 6,692,339) in view of Liu et al as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nishizawa et al (Study of innovative plasma fusion CMP and its application to processing of diamond substrate”; 2015; provided with IDS as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sercel et al (US 2019/0314934).
Regarding claim 12, modified Zheng et al disclose above for the claim 8 but fail to disclose the beam is a laser beam having the claimed wavelength during performing the surface treatment.
However, Sercel et al disclose a process of treating a substrate comprises diamond by focusing a laser beam for successful treatment [0034]; and allowing the workpiece 102 to move relative to the focused laser beam [0038]. Therefore, the laser beam is moving relative to the wafer (substrate) during the modification or treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Sercel et al's teaching of applying a laser beam into the teaching of modified Zheng et al for successfully treating the diamond substrate as suggested by Sercel et al.
Sercel et al teach that the laser beam is a shorter wavelength (e.g., 193 nm excimer laser) and/or a shorter pulse width (e.g., picosecond laser) [0030].
Regarding claim 21 and 26, modified Zheng et al disclose above that diamond layer is placed on a substrate holder to plasma etch using oxygen plasma, wherein the diamond layer, which reads on the claimed “a heat dissipation layer” but fail to disclose the beam is a light beam and with light beam is a laser beam or plasma beam (as to claim 26) during performing the surface treatment.
However, Sercel et al disclose a process of treating a substrate comprises diamond by focusing a laser beam for successful treatment [0034]; and allowing the workpiece 102 to move relative to the focused laser beam [0038].
Therefore, the laser beam is moving relative to the wafer (substrate) during the modification or treatment.
Examiner also pointed out that the portion of the workpiece (102) is projected with laser beam will obviously become softer than the other portion of the workpiece because the laser beam will generate heat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Sercel et al's teaching of applying a laser beam into the teaching of modified Zheng et al for successfully treating the diamond substrate as suggested by Sercel et al.
Regarding claims 22-24, since Sercel et al disclose that the laser processing system 100 further includes a translation stage 170 configured to impart a translational motion to the workpiece 102 in one or more axes or dimensions, thereby allowing the workpiece 102 to move relative to the focused laser beam [0038]; and therefore, the projection area can be optimized for predictable result.
Regarding claim 25, Sercel et al disclose that the workpiece 102 is moving relative to the focused laser beam [0038].
Regarding claims 27-28, Sercel et al disclose above that the workpiece 102 is moving relative to the focused laser beam [0038]; but fail to disclose such movement is occurred during polishing.
However, Liu et al disclose that during plasma assisted polishing (PAP), wherein PAP apparatus is composed of plasma generation and mechanical removal parts. Both parts are installed in a vacuum chamber where the gas pressure can be controlled. The plasma generation part (resemble as the claimed light beam) is composed of an upper electrode during PAP, the polishing plate irradiated by plasma and the SCD substrate were respectively driven by a speed-controlled motor to rotate in opposite directions with respect to each other (see, the disclosure under the heading “PAP experimental setup”), wherein the light beam is above the platen during polishing in the PAP experimental setup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Liu et al's teaching of the rotating the substrate (wafer) relative to the light beam into the teaching of Zheng et al modified et al for efficiently polishing diamond without introducing any damage (see, the disclosure under the heading “introduction”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights