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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 depends on claim 17, but it appears that claim 20 is meant to depend on claim 19 as claim 20 recites "the plurality of substrate retaining members" which was previously recited in claim 19, but not in claim 17. As this appears to be a typographical error and for the sake of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting claim 20 to depend on claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai (CN109420968B), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses a carrier head (Fig. 1 elements 116, 120, 130, 132, and 134) for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 1 element 100), comprising:
a carrier body (Fig. 1 element 116);
a flexible membrane (Fig. 1 element 120) coupled with the carrier body (Fig. 1, 0107), the flexible membrane comprising a substrate-receiving surface (Figs. 2A-2E element 148) that faces away from the carrier body (Fig. 1), wherein:
the substrate-receiving surface comprises a plurality of gripping elements (Figs. 2A-2E elements 150) that protrude away from the substrate-receiving surface (Fig. 1); and
each of the plurality of gripping elements has a maximum lateral dimension that is no greater than 2 mm (0117).
Regarding claim 2, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of gripping elements comprises a wide base that tapers to a gripping surface (see annotated Fig. 2B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further discloses the gripping surface is convex (see annotated Fig. 2B above, 0124).
Regarding claim 9, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of gripping elements has a maximum lateral dimension that is no greater than 0.1 mm (0117).
Regarding claim 10, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of gripping elements is flexible in a lateral direction (Fig. 2B, where the plurality of gripping elements having a base which is wider than a portion of towards the gripping surface, where the width tapers away from the base means that the gripping elements is flexible in a lateral direction according to Applicant's specification (see page 12 line 29 - page 13 line 2 of Applicant's specification)).
Regarding claim 11, Bai discloses a flexible membrane (Fig. 1 element 120, 0108, where "the wafer attachment film 120 is flexible" corresponds to the membrane being flexible) for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Fig. 1 element 100), comprising:
a flexible membrane body (Fig. 1 element 120, where the flexible membrane body is a subset of the flexible membrane which encompasses the entirety of the flexible membrane) having a substrate-receiving surface (Figs. 2A-2E element 148), wherein:
the substrate-receiving surface comprises a plurality of gripping elements (Figs. 2A-2E elements 150) that protrude away from the substrate-receiving surface (Fig. 1); and
each of the plurality of gripping elements has a maximum lateral dimension that is no greater than 2 mm (0117).
Regarding claim 12, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of gripping elements comprises a wide base that tapers to a gripping surface (see annotated Fig. 2B above).
Regarding claim 13, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses the gripping surface is convex (see annotated Fig. 2B above, 0124).
Regarding claim 15, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses a height of each of the plurality of gripping elements is no greater than 1 mm (0117, where “roughness” corresponds to a height of each of the plurality of gripping elements).
Regarding claim 17, Bai discloses a method of polishing a substrate, comprising:
Engaging (0006 discusses the engagement) a substrate (Fig. 8A element 500) with a plurality of gripping elements (Figs. 2A-2E elements 150) of a substrate-receiving surface (Figs. 2A-2E element 148) of a flexible membrane (Fig. 1 element 120) of a carrier head (Fig. 1 elements 116, 120, 130, 132, and 134);
Flowing (0162 discusses the flowing) a polishing slurry (Fig. 8A element 806) from a slurry source (Fig. 8A element 136) to a polishing pad (Fig. 8A element 104); and
moving the carrier head to polish the substrate atop the polishing pad (0006, 0158, and 0160 discuss the movement).
Regarding claim 18, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses moving the carrier head comprises one or both of rotating the carrier head and laterally translating the carrier head relative to the polishing pad (0160-0161, where the carrier head is rotated relative to the polishing pad).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN109420968B), attached as a PDF, in view of Sitti et al. (US20230021391), hereinafter Sitti.
Regarding claim 4, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 2, as described above, but fails to disclose the gripping surface is concave.
Sitti is also concerned with providing gripping elements on a backing layer to selectively hold objects and teaches the gripping surface is concave (0067, where "a top part" corresponds to a gripping surface and where "concave" is being used). Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai with regards to a desired shape (in this case, a concave shape of the gripping surface) in adapting the carrier head for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification lacks criticality for the gripping surface being concave as at least paragraph 0045 of Applicant’s specification states that “Gripping surface 410 may take various forms that may provide different gripping characteristics”.
Regarding claim 5, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose each of the plurality of gripping elements is substantially mushroom-shaped.
Sitti is also concerned with providing gripping elements on a backing layer to selectively hold objects and teaches each of the plurality of gripping elements is substantially mushroom-shaped (0067, where “fibrils” corresponds to gripping elements). Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai with regards to a desired shape (in this case, the plurality of gripping elements having a substantially mushroom shape) in adapting the carrier head for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification lacks criticality for each of the plurality of gripping elements is substantially mushroom-shaped as at least paragraph 0044 of Applicant’s specification contemplates having bases which are wider than the gripping surfaces (i.e. mushroom-shaped) as well as gripping surfaces which are wider than the bases.
Regarding claim 14, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 12, as described above, but fails to disclose the gripping surface is concave.
Sitti is also concerned with providing gripping elements on a backing layer to selectively hold objects and teaches the gripping surface is concave (0067, where "a top part" corresponds to a gripping surface and where "concave" is being used). Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai with regards to a desired shape (in this case, a concave shape of the gripping surface) in adapting the carrier head for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification lacks criticality for the gripping surface being concave as at least paragraph 0045 of Applicant’s specification states that “Gripping surface 410 may take various forms that may provide different gripping characteristics”.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN109420968B), attached as a PDF, in view of Zuniga et al. (US6890249), hereinafter Zuniga.
Regarding claim 6, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose a plurality of substrate retaining members coupled with the carrier body, wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface.
Zuniga is also concerned with a carrier head and teaches a plurality of substrate retaining members (Fig. 3A elements 250) coupled with the carrier body (Figs. 1 elements 102 and 104 corresponds to a carrier body; Fig. 3 shows the retaining members coupled with the carrier body through elements 200a and 110a), wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface (Fig. 3A, where Fig. 1 element 192 corresponds to a substrate-receiving surface). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai to include a plurality of substrate retaining members coupled with the carrier body, wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface, as taught by Zuniga, because Zuniga teaches that the retaining members are used to allow the carrier head to directly contact the outer edge of the substrate, which “reduces the probability of the substrate edge being deformed by the frictional force that drives the substrate against the inner surface 203a, thereby improving polishing uniformity” (7:61-8:13).
Regarding claim 7, Bai, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 6, as described above, but fails to disclose the plurality of retaining members collectively extend about less than 20% of the periphery of the substrate-receiving surface. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical. Examiner first finds that the general conditions of the claim are disclosed by Bai, as modified, specifically in Zuniga, because Fig. 3A of Zuniga shows the plurality of retaining members collectively extending less than the entirety fo the periphery of the substrate-receiving surface. Examiner further finds that Applicant lacks criticality for the claimed range as at least paragraph 0050 of Applicant’s specification lists several ranges and does not disclose why each recited range is particularly critical to the operation of the carrier head. As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, the plurality of retaining members will extend a specific amount of the periphery of the substrate-receiving surface, and finding the correct amount of extension for the plurality of retaining members would address design needs and market demands. Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to adjust the exact extension of the plurality of retaining members to balance the stability of the substrate within the carrier head while also preventing the force exerted on the substrate from damaging the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, but fails to disclose a plurality of substrate retaining members coupled with the carrier body, wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface.
Zuniga is also concerned with a carrier head and teaches a plurality of substrate retaining members (Fig. 3A elements 250) coupled with the carrier body (Figs. 1 elements 102 and 104 corresponds to a carrier body; Fig. 3 shows the retaining members coupled with the carrier body through elements 200a and 110a), wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface (Fig. 3A, where Fig. 1 element 192 corresponds to a substrate-receiving surface). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai to include a plurality of substrate retaining members coupled with the carrier body, wherein each of the plurality of substate retaining members is disposed at a different angular position about a periphery of the substrate-receiving surface, as taught by Zuniga, because Zuniga teaches that the retaining members are used to allow the carrier head to directly contact the outer edge of the substrate, which “reduces the probability of the substrate edge being deformed by the frictional force that drives the substrate against the inner surface 203a, thereby improving polishing uniformity” (7:61-8:13).
Regarding claim 20, Bai, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses each of the plurality of substrate retaining members comprises an inner portion that contacts a periphery of the substrate and that terminates prior to reaching the polishing pad (Zuniga, see annotated Fig. 6 below and 7:61-8:3, where "edge of the substrate" corresponds to a periphery of the substrate and where the portion of the inner portion which corresponds to element 414 corresponds to the portion of the inner portion which contacts the periphery of the substrate and terminates prior to reaching the polishing pad) and an outer region that contacts the polishing pad (Zuniga, see annotated Fig. 6 below, where the bottom surface of the outer region being on the same plane as the bottom surface of the substrate means that the bottom surface of the outer region contacts the polishing pad).
PNG
media_image2.png
728
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (CN109420968B), attached as a PDF, in view of Song et al. (US20200061845), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 8, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a gripping surface (see annotated Fig. 2A below)
Bai fails to disclose an adhesive (0116, where "PDMS-ink" corresponds to an adhesive) applied to the gripping surface of at least some of the plurality of gripping elements.
Song is also concerned with a carrier head used for selectively holding a substrate and teaches an adhesive applied to the gripping surface of at least some of the plurality of gripping elements (0116, where "tips of the islands" corresponds to a gripping surface, "islands" corresponds to a plurality of gripping elements, and 0116 describes all of the gripping surfaces having the adhesive). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai to include an adhesive applied to the gripping surface of at least some of the plurality of gripping elements, as taught by Song, because Song teaches that applying the adhesive to the gripping surface of the gripping elements is used to "increase the contact surface between the membrane 7 and the object 12" (0116), which thereby increases the holding force.
PNG
media_image3.png
300
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bai discloses the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further discloses an open area of the substrate-receiving surface (Figs. 2A-2E, where the portion of element 148 which is not covered by elements 150 corresponds to an open area of the substrate-receiving surface).
Bai fails to disclose the open area of the substrate-receiving surface is less than 50%.
Song is also concerned with a carrier head used for selectively holding a substrate and teaches the open area of the substrate-receiving surface is less than 50% (0069, where it is taught that "the microfibers 8 (FIG. 2a-II) cover the entire area of the membrane 7" and 0065, where "microfibers 8 with 69 μm tip diameter, 31 μm spacing" means that the open area (i.e. spacing) of the substrate receiving surface (i.e. the surface of element 7 which the microfibers extend from) is 31%). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Bai to make the open area of the substrate-receiving surface be less than 50%, as taught by Song, because Song teaches that providing an open area in the claimed range allows for "air to travel substantially unhindered through the contact interface, preventing development of any suction that could contribute to the soft system adhesion. If, for example, the gripping apparatus is used to adhere to the skin of a person or animal then the skin can still breathe and perspire normally" (0069).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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 571-272-4475. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights