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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that having read the prior art of Ono, a person of ordinary skill would simply set the polishing optimal values without storing a recipe in the control system with initial values to get to the optimal values. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The MPEP states: "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397; and "broadly providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art" MPEP 2144.04 III. The argument is a narrow view of the teachings of Ono when considering a different slurry composition other than Ono's ceria's composition [¶22-23]. Ono does not only teach optimal values to the CMP process with a polishing slurry containing ceria as abrasive gain [¶22-23], but a blueprint on how to obtain these values. Ono discloses: "A polishing method for reducing an amount of polishing liquid used without lowering a polishing rate is provided. The polishing method comprises determining, in advance the relationship between a supply flow rate of a polishing liquid and a polishing rate at the time the substrate is polished while controlling a surface temperature of the polishing pad at a predetermined level" [abstract]. It is the Office's position that the claim uses a known process of determining, in advance, the relationship between a supply flow rate of a polishing liquid and a polishing rate at the time the substrate is polished while controlling a surface temperature of the pad, as evidenced by Ono, creates an algorithm (or recipe) with the process, and stores it on the system for use during polishing. The motivation is clear as it resulting higher removal rate and lower polishing flow rate for any slurry composition [see Final Office action mailed on 5/4/2026].
Applicant further argues that adding baseline parameters add unnecessary complexity without any benefit. It is first noted that Applicant did not disclose in the original disclosure how the “unnecessary complexity” and lack of “benefit” is necessary in their own invention. Secondly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, and in an effort to further clarify the rejection, the Examiner has added the prior art of Brunelli US 5,957,750. Brunelly explicitly teaches that there are polishing changes during CMP which may make it more difficult quickly planarize a wafer [“[o]ne manufacturing concern with CMP processing is that the through-put may drop because the act of planarizing wafers alters the condition of the polishing pads. More specifically, slurry and particles from the wafer and pad build up on the planarizing surface of the polishing pad and form waste matter accumulations that may cover portions of the planarizing surface. The accumulations may take the form of a hard glaze coating on the planarizing surface which reduces contact between the wafer and the planarizing surface. The polishing rate accordingly changes during CMP processing, which may make it more difficult to quickly planarize a wafer or endpoint the CMP process. Thus, the waste matter accumulations may reduce the through-put of CMP processing.”]. Therefore, it is normal for a CMP process to have a baseline recipe with baseline polishing flow rates and temperatures, and make changes to the flow rates, and temperatures, during operation in order to account for changes due to reduce contact on the planarizing surface.
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) 1-10, 13-15, 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono US 2012/0276816 A1 in view of Brunelli US 5,957,750.
Re claims 1, 15, 23, 26-27, Ono discloses a chemical mechanical polishing system [fig. 1], comprising:
a platen 12 to support a polishing pad 14;
a carrier head 16 to hold a substrate [W] in contact with the polishing pad;
a motor 54 to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head;
a polishing liquid delivery system including a port 18 to dispense polishing liquid onto the polishing pad and a liquid flow controller 26 in a flow line between the port and a polishing liquid supply 22 to control a flow rate of the polishing liquid to the port;
a temperature control system [40, 42] to control a temperature of the polishing pad including an arm 30 extending over the platen having at least one opening 30a to deliver heating or cooling fluid from a fluid source 32, other than the polishing liquid, onto the polishing pad and a valve 36 in a fluid line between the at least one opening 30a and the fluid source 32 to controllably connect and disconnect the at least one opening and the fluid source; and
a control system 42 coupled to the liquid flow controller,
a computer program product, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium 42 having instructions to cause one or more processors [inherent] to:
receive and store in non-transitory computer readable medium a polishing recipe that includes a baseline removal rate value, a baseline temperature value and a baseline polishing liquid flow rate value [¶39, "the controller 42 stores a plurality of PID parameters. Depending on a difference between the target surface temperature of the polishing pad", ¶43, "[t]he controller 42 stores therein data that have been experimentally determined. The stored data include the relationship between the flow rate at which the polishing liquid is supplied and the polishing rate at the time the substrate W is polished while controlling the surface temperature" ], the baseline removal rate value and baseline temperature value being values selected for the control system to set machine control parameters so that the polishing system operates at the baseline temperature and baseline flow rate [¶39, "the controller 42 selects at least one of the stored PID parameters and controls the opening of the pressure control valve 36 through an electropneumatic regulator, not shown, according to the selected PID parameter to achieve the target surface temperature of the polishing pad 14 based on temperature of the polishing pad 14 detected by the thermometer 40. The controller 42 controls the opening of the pressure control valve 36 such that the cooling gas (compressed air) is ejected from the gas ejecting ports 30a toward the polishing pad 14 at a flow rate in the range from 50 to 1000 ml/min, for example. The flow rate meter 38 and the flow rate control valve 26 are also electrically connected to the controller 42. The opening of the flow rate control valve 26 is controlled by a control signal from the controller 42"];
store in non-transitory computer readable medium a function relating removal rate to polishing liquid flow rate and temperature [figs. 2-3],
determine, using the function, a reduced polishing liquid flow rate value and an adjusted temperature value [A.sub.4 in fig. 3, ¶56 “it can be seen from the point A.sub.4 shown in FIG. 3 and the point B.sub.4 shown in FIG. 4 that when the copper film is polished while controlling the surface temperature of the polishing pad 14 at about 50.degree. C., a polishing rate of about 645 nm/min is achieved if the flow rate of the polishing liquid is 175 ml/min. It can thus be understood that when the copper film is polished while controlling the surface temperature of the polishing pad 14 at about 50.degree. C., it is possible to achieve substantially the same polishing rate even if the flow rate of the polishing liquid is reduced from 200 ml/min or higher to 175 ml/min”].
Ono does not specifically teach the baseline parameter first chose over the entirety of the polishing operation, using the function such that a resulting removal rate value is equal to or greater than the baseline removal rate value for at least a portion of the polishing operation; and wherein the portion begins at a set point after the start of polishing or ends at a set point before an expected polishing endpoint.
However, Brunelli teaches that there are polishing changes during CMP which may make it more difficult quickly planarize a wafer [“[o]ne manufacturing concern with CMP processing is that the through-put may drop because the act of planarizing wafers alters the condition of the polishing pads. More specifically, slurry and particles from the wafer and pad build up on the planarizing surface of the polishing pad and form waste matter accumulations that may cover portions of the planarizing surface. The accumulations may take the form of a hard glaze coating on the planarizing surface which reduces contact between the wafer and the planarizing surface. The polishing rate accordingly changes during CMP processing, which may make it more difficult to quickly planarize a wafer or endpoint the CMP process. Thus, the waste matter accumulations may reduce the through-put of CMP processing.”]. Therefore, it is normal for a CMP process to have a baseline recipe with baseline polishing flow rates and temperatures, and make changes to the flow rates, and temperature, during operation, in order to account for changes due to reduce contact on the planarizing surface.
The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is that the prior art does not incorporate the step of changing the parameters during the polishing operation in a single combined system. Brunelly teaches changes are customary during operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate these steps in Ono before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. No inventive effort would have been required, and the modification would yield predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust a baseline temperature and reduce the baseline polishing liquid flow rate value at any point during operation, after the start of polishing and/or before an expected polishing endpoint in the polishing operation, in order to yield the predictable result of equal or higher polishing rate, while reducing the polishing liquid flow rate.
Re claims 3-6, 21-22, Ono further discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine a reduced polishing flow rate [fig. 2], calculate a reduction in removal rate resulting from the reduced polishing flow rate based on the function [fig. 2]; Ono further discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine a modified temperature [¶47], calculate an increase in removal rate resulting from the modified temperature based on the function [¶47], and calculate the reduction in removal rate in percentage [removal rate percentage is a mathematical conversion equivalent to the actual reduction rate].
Ono does not specifically teach calculate a minimum temperature change based on the function to compensate for the reduction in removal rate; or calculate a maximum flow rate reduction based on the function such that a resulting reduction in removal rate is no more than the increase in removal rate resulting from the modified temperature.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a minimum temperature change and maximum flow rate reduction since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.". In this case, the general conditions of calculating a temperature and flow rate are disclosed, it would be obvious to discover the minimum [optimum] temperature change and maximum [optimum] flow rate.
Re claim 7, Ono further discloses wherein the function includes a temperature range over which removal rate increases monotonically with increasing temperature [A3, fig. 3].
Re claim 8, Ono further discloses wherein the function includes a temperature range over which removal rate decreases monotonically with increasing temperature [B2, fig. 2].
Re claim 9, Ono further discloses wherein the function is includes values stored in a lookup table [graphs are equivalent to look-up tables].
Re claim 10, Ono further discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate a change to a removal rate by linear interpolation between the values in the lookup table [this is what the lines between the points in figs. 2-3 represent].
Re claim 13, Ono further discloses wherein the temperature control system comprises a cooling system 32 configured to dispense the cooling fluid onto the polishing pad.
Re claim 14, Ono further discloses wherein the opening comprises a nozzle configured to lower temperature of the cooling fluid as the cooling fluid passes through the nozzle [inherently a nozzle is configured to cool the fluid that passes through the nozzle because the pressure instantaneously lowers at the nozzle exit].
Re claim 18, Ono further discloses wherein the temperature control system comprises a cooling system [cooling nozzle 32].
Re claim 19, Ono further discloses wherein the cooling system comprises one or more of coolant channels extending through the platen, a thermoelectric cooler on the platen, or a dispenser 30a to deliver a coolant fluid [cooling gas] other than the polishing liquid onto the polishing pad.
Re claims 2, 20, Ono further discloses a temperature sensor 40 positioned to measure a temperature of the polishing pad [by way of the cooling fluid], and wherein the controller 42 is configured to receive a temperature measurement and control the temperature control system to achieve the adjusted temperature value.
Re claim 24. Ono further discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the liquid flow controller to dispense the polishing liquid at the baseline flow rate [target flow rate] for a portion of the polishing operation.
Re claim 25, Ono further discloses wherein the controller is configured to adjust a pressure applied by the carrier head in order to achieve the baseline polishing rate and/or the baseline polishing time [¶6, “[t]o meet the requirements, CMP apparatus achieve a desired polishing rate by adjusting the pressure under which the substrate is pressed against the polishing surface of the polishing pad during polishing”].
Claim(s) 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono US 2012/0276816 A1 in view of Soundarajan US 2020/0001427A1 and in further view of Brunelli US 5,957,750.
Re claims 11, 16-17, Ono, and Brunelli teach all the elements as discussed above for claim 15 but fails to teach the at least one opening; wherein the temperature control system comprises a heating system configured to dispense the heating fluid onto the polishing pad; and wherein the heating system comprises one or more of a resistive heater in the platen, a heat lamp positioned to direct heat onto the polishing pad, or a dispenser to deliver a heated fluid other than the polishing liquid onto the polishing pad.
However, Soundarajan teaches a polishing system with a temperature control system [fig. 3] comprising a heating system configured to dispense the heating fluid onto the polishing pad [¶41, “[e]ach temperature control module 120 contains a thermal transfer element, which can be include cooling element or a heating element or both. Each temperature control module 120 can independently provide a selective amount of cooling or heating into the corresponding radial zone on the polishing pad as the polishing pad rotates below the module”]; and wherein the heating system comprises one or more of a resistive heater in the platen, a heat lamp positioned to direct heat onto the polishing pad, or a dispenser to deliver a heated fluid other than the polishing liquid onto the polishing pad [“[e]ach temperature control module 120 contains a thermal transfer element, which can be include a cooling element or a heating element or both. Each temperature control module 120 can independently provide a selective amount of cooling or heating into the corresponding radial zone on the polishing pad as the polishing pad rotates below the module”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the heating of Soundarajan with Ono in order to yield the predictable result of a system that can adjust lower platen temperatures.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono US 2012/0276816 A1 in view of JP 20022540611 A (JP611) and further view of Brunelli US 5,957,750.
Re claim 12, Ono and Brunelli teach all the elements as discussed above for claim 15 but fails to teach wherein the heating fluid comprises steam.
However, JP611 teaches a polishing system with a heating system 28 comprising steam from a boiler 30.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the steam system of JP611 with the polishing system of Ono in order to yield the predictable result of heating the platen.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights