FINAL 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) 1-27 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s amended independent claims recite that the controller is configured to set a baseline liquid polishing rate value for the “entire polishing operation” (disclosed in ¶48 of the instant application), “determine…a reduced polishing liquid flow rate value”, and “for at least a portion of the polishing operation control the liquid flow controller to dispense the polishing liquid at the reduced polishing liquid flow rate value” (¶49). In order for these limitations to be true, the determination of the reduced polishing liquid flow rate has to happen during the polishing operation. There is no evidence that the controller determines the reduced polishing liquid flow rate value during the polishing operation. Applicant discloses the following: 1) setting the parameters for the entire operation (¶48), 2) setting the parameters for portions of the operation (¶49), 3) controlling the temperature during the operation (¶5), and 4) two different functions of removal rate at different slurry flow rates (fig. 2) tested at two different temperatures. None of these teachings, explicitly or implicitly, determines the parameters during the operation.
Since there is no evidence of how the controller is configured to set a starting polishing liquid flow rate value for the entire operation, determine a reduced polishing liquid flow rate value, and then reduce the polishing liquid flow rate value for at least a portion of the polishing operation, the claims have been rejected as new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 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.
Applicant’s amended independent claims recite that the controller is configured to set a baseline liquid polishing rate value for the “entire polishing operation” (disclosed in ¶48 of the instant application), “determine…a reduced polishing liquid flow rate value”, and “for at least a portion of the polishing operation control the liquid flow controller to dispense the polishing liquid at the reduced polishing liquid flow rate value” (¶49). In order for these limitations to be true, the determination of the reduced polishing liquid flow rate has to happen during the polishing operation. There is no evidence that the controller determines the reduced polishing liquid flow rate value during the polishing operation. Applicant discloses the following: 1) setting the parameters for the entire operation (¶48), 2) setting the parameters for portions of the operation (¶49), 3) controlling the temperature during the operation (¶5), and 4) two different functions of removal rate at different slurry flow rates (fig. 2) tested at two different temperatures. None of these teachings, explicitly or implicitly, determines the parameters during the operation.
Since it is unclear how the controller is configured to set a starting polishing liquid flow rate value for the entire operation, determine a reduced polishing liquid flow rate value, and then reduce the polishing liquid flow rate value for at least a portion of the polishing operation, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Claims 26-27 recite the limitation "the selected portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 storing 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 such that a resulting removal rate value is equal to or greater than the baseline removal rate 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”], and
Ono does not specifically teach using baseline parameters first chosen over the entire polishing operation, and then for at least a portion of the polishing operation, control the liquid flow controller to dispense the polishing liquid at the reduced polishing liquid flow rate value and control the temperature control system so that a polishing process temperature reaches the adjusted temperature value; and wherein the selected portion begins at a set point after the start of polishing or ends at a set point before an expected polishing endpoint.
However, Ono teaches a method for reducing an amount of polishing liquid used without lowering a polishing rate (¶12) by “continuously supplying the polishing liquid to the surface of the polishing pad to achieve a higher polishing rate when the substrate is polished while controlling the surface temperature of the polishing pad at the predetermined level” (¶13), and achieving a higher polishing rate when the substrate is polished while controlling the surface temperature [Abstract].
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. 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 since the question would have only been of when the parameters are set not if the parameters are set. This difference of when the parameters are set does not seem inventive, since even Applicant acknowledges that the adjustment is not necessary [¶48,“the polishing system operates at the baseline temperature and baseline flow rate over the entire polishing operation”], or could be at any portion of the operation [¶49,“the selected portion begins at a set point (either a set time or a set percentage of the total expected polishing time) after the start of polishing. Alternatively, the selected portion can begin when the polishing operation begins. In some implementations, the selected portion ends at a set point (either a set time or a set percentage of the total expected polishing time) before the expected polishing endpoint… Alternatively, the selected portion can extend to the end of the operation”]. Finally, the resulting combined apparatus would yield predictable results of higher efficiency (higher removal rate and lower polishing flow rate) as taught by Ono.
It follows that 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, after the start of polishing or before an expected polishing endpoint in the polishing operation, in order to yield the predictable result of a 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.
Re claims 11, 16-17, Ono discloses 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).
Re claim 12, Ono discloses 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.
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.
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