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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 5, 11-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/23/2026.
Applicant’s election of Species A, subspecies 1 in the reply filed on 03/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The applicant has indicated that claims 1-4, and 7-13 read upon the elected species. The examiner does not fully agree with the applicant’s identification of claims readable upon the elected species.
The examiner has withdrawn claims 11-20 because claim 11 (and its dependent claims 12-19), and claim 20 require the feature of wherein the temperature controller is configured to be adjustable to a predetermined distance from the substrate holder, which is found in Species B, as described in [0074-0075] of the instant disclosure, relating to a temperature controller which moves independently of the substrate holder 100, and can vary its distance from such, instead of following it at a fixed distance. Claim 5 will also be withdrawn, as indicated by the applicant, because the parallel grooves are described in subspecies 4, fig. 7. Claim 6 will be examined, as it relates to figs. 4 and 9 of subspecies 1. Therefore claims 1-4 and 6-10 will be examined in the current office action.
Claim Objections
In claim 6, consider -- wherein the plurality of grooves [[is]] are provided along the first and second end portions of the arc shape--
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“cleaning component” in claims 1 and 9, corresponding to cleaning component 300.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20170073292 A) in view of Toru (SG 10201809583V A) and Chang (US 6206760 B1).
With respect to claim 1, An discloses: A substrate polishing apparatus ([0001]), comprising:
a platen including a polishing surface (110, with a polishing pad/surface 111 on top, fig. 4; [0081]);
a slurry supply configured to supply slurry between a semiconductor substrate and the platen (slurry supply holes 330, fig. 8; [0114-0115], the slurry enters/ introduced to wafer on top of the platen and the wafer [0004-0005], which polishes the surface as shown in [0008]);
a substrate holder configured to hold a semiconductor substrate in contact with the platen such that the semiconductor substrate contacts the polishing surface of the platen, the substrate holder having a circular shape (circular substrate holder 120, figs. 4, 5 [0082,0084], holds wafer/semiconductor substrate against pad/platen for polishing);
a temperature controller configured to control a temperature of the platen by contacting the platen (temperature controller 200, fig. 5; [0091-0092], the temperature controller having a thermal conductive body including an arc shape (see multiple arc edges such as one along the end of leader line 710, fig. 5; [0131], with thermal conductive parts such as heat transfer part 400, fig. 6; [0100-0101], the transfer occurs in part by contact/conduction as in [0100]; for the purpose of the claim, only part of the body needs to be temperature conductive, however materials have thermal conductivity, in that if the material is heated it becomes hot and can transfer some heat to anything touching it ), wherein the thermal conductive body is spaced apart from the substrate holder in a horizontal direction parallel to the polishing surface of the platen and surrounds at least a portion of the substrate holder in a plan view (see figs. 4 and 5 for how the member is spaced apart and surrounds the substrate holder in a direction parallel to the platen); however does not explicitly disclose
a temperature controller configured to control a temperature of the platen by directly contacting the platen;
a cleaning component configured to supply a cleaning solution to the substrate holder and to the temperature controller.
As for the limitation that the temperature controller is configured to control a temperature of the platen by directly contacting the platen, An provides that the heat transfer occurs through contact with the slurry ([0091-0092]). An also provides that instead, it can be through direct contact with the platen ([0047-0048] with the surface instead of through another medium as in [0048]).
MPEP 2143 provides that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An through substitution of indirect contact with the fluid to direct contact, for the purpose of transferring heat, as a substitution, which would be predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Toru, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrading, teaches of a cleaning component configured to supply a cleaning solution to the temperature controller (through nozzle 60, which sprays a cleaning solution [pure water] on a temperature controller 11, figs. 9A-9C; page 12 lines 15-21; 112(f) equivalent by performing the claimed function). Toru teaches that this arrangement removes slurry from the outside (page 19 lines 21-25), and prevents dried on slurry from sticking to it’s surface (page 16 lines 4-8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An with the cleaning component of Toru, for the purpose of preventing slurry from drying and sticking to the outside of the temperature controller.
Chang, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrading, teaches of a cleaning component configured to clean various parts of a CMP system, including parts of a substrate carrier (nozzles 66, fig. 2B, cleaning a spindle 50, col 6 line 64-col 7 line 27; but also capable of other parts such as a conditioner head 90 fig. 2D, in col 7 lines 35-45, and when sprayed on the spindle, can drop down on the carrier 74 below or directly aimed as such, the arrangement 112(f) equivalent as it supplies cleaning fluid to different machine components; it is also noted as in fig. 2B, that the multiple nozzles are shown activated at the same time). Chang teaches that such nozzle arrangement prevents dried particles of slurry which cause contamination (col 3 lines 5-18), through use of deionized water (abstract).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An with the cleaning component of Chang, for the purpose of preventing dried slurry from causing contamination. The arrangement together with that of Toru would provide for a cleaning component that is configured to supply a cleaning solution to the substrate holder and to the temperature controller, through nozzles aimed at the substrate carrier and temperature controller.
With respect to claim 3, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the thermal conductive body has a plurality of grooves disposed on a lower surface of the thermal conductive body for distributing the slurry on the platen (An, the body includes grooves 330, fig. 8 that are disposed on and open to a lower surface to distribute slurry; [0111,0113]).
With respect to claim 4, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 3 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of grooves extends along a radial direction of the arc shape.
An, in another embodiment (fig. 13, described in [0177-0180]), provides for guide grooves (310’, [0177]) on a part of a temperature controller conductive body (a bottom surface 300’, fig. 13, [0177], [0175] provides background on this bottom surface 300’, and it is also described in [0047]). An provides that this arrangement includes radial curves ([0179]) An teaches that this arrangement allows used fluid and foreign substances to flow away outside the platen ([0180]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An (embodiment referenced in the rejection of claim 1), with the flow guide grooves (described in fig. 13), to allow used fluid and foreign substances to be flowed away. This arrangement would mean there are a plurality of grooves extends along a radial direction of the arc shape, through the combination of grooves 310’; fig. 13, in An, through the arc arrangement in fig. 5 at 710, to allow fluid to flow as in fig. 13 in An. This arrangement would also meet the limitations in claim 3, in that there would be a plurality of grooves disposed on a lower surface of the thermal conductive body for distributing the slurry on the platen (An, grooves 310’ on 300’ would distribute or allow slurry to flow).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 8 (An)
With respect to claim 6, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein the arc shape comprises a central portion, a first end portion disposed on one side of the central portion, and a second end portion disposed on an opposite side of the central portion, and wherein the plurality of grooves is provided along the first and second end portions of the arc shape (ann. fig. 8 above, the examiner notes that the presence of grooves in the center is not excluded by the claim, as the claim is open ended [however the claim could use language such as a completely solid central portion, in combination with some more definition of what the central portion is, and possibly overcome this rejection]).
PNG
media_image2.png
741
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (An)
With respect to claim 7, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein the temperature controller further includes:
a first thermal conductive structure provided on an inner surface of the thermal conductive body proximate to the substrate holder (there is a first thermal conductive structure on an inner [relative to the substrate holder] surface at C1, as in ann. fig. 4; [0098,0099], the inner surface is one of the walls 320 that divide the thermal conductive body, and is conductive as in [0100]); and
a second thermal conductive structure provided on an outer surface of the thermal conductive body distal to the substrate holder (there is a second thermal conductive structure on an outer [relative to the substrate holder] surface at C6, as in ann. fig. 4; [0098,0099], the outer surface is one of the walls 320 that divide the thermal conductive body, and is conductive as in [0100]);
With respect to claim 8, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 7 above, however dies not explicitly teach wherein each of the first and second thermal conductive structures has a plurality of second grooves disposed on a lower surface thereof for distributing the slurry on the platen. An, however in the cited embodiment in fig. 7 teaches that temperature control occurs through contact with fluid.
An, in another embodiment (fig. 13, described in [0177-0180]), provides for guide grooves (310’, [0177]) on a part of a temperature controller conductive body (a bottom surface 300’, fig. 13, [0177], [0175] provides background on this bottom surface 300’, and it is also described in [0047]). An provides that this arrangement includes radial curves ([0179]) An teaches that this arrangement allows used fluid and foreign substances to flow away ([0180]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An (embodiment referenced in the rejection of claim 7), with the flow guide grooves (described in fig. 13), to allow used fluid and foreign substances to be flowed away. This arrangement would mean that each of the first and second thermal conductive structures has a plurality of second grooves disposed on a lower surface thereof for distributing the slurry on the platen, by having grooves that allow slurry flow on the bottom of each of the first and second thermal conductive structures, while also contacting the slurry as it flows past.
With respect to claim 10, An, as modified, teaches the limitation of claim 1 above, however dies not explicitly teach wherein the temperature controller is held at a predetermined distance from the substrate holder, and wherein the predetermined distance is between 1mm to 5mm. As addressed in the rejection of claim 1, above, the temperature controller is spaced apart from the substrate holder.
MPEP 2144.04 provides that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An such that wherein the temperature controller is held at a predetermined distance from the substrate holder, and wherein the predetermined distance is between 1mm to 5mm, as a change in relative dimensions, with predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20170073292 A) in view of Toru (SG 10201809583V A) and Chang (US 6206760 B1), and further in view of Eto (US 20180236631 A1).
With respect to claim 2, An, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature controller includes:
a first fluid transfer line through which cooling fluid moves along a lower surface of the thermal conductive body; and
a second fluid transfer line through which heating fluid moves along the lower surface of the thermal conductive body.
An, however discloses that the temperature controller both heats and cools ([0101]), and can use fluid to cool [remove heat ([0106-0107]).
Eto, in the same field of endeavor, related to abrading, teaches of an arrangement in a temperature controller (11, figs. 1 and 2; [0036-0037]), with both a first fluid transfer line through which cooling fluid moves along a lower surface of the thermal conductive body (cooling fluid flows through supply pipe 51 and out 52, fig. 1, while it flows through the dashed line in fig. 2; [0039]; lowered channel surface in [0035], and lower surface 65 transfers heat/cooling as in [0035-0035]); and
a second fluid transfer line through which heating fluid moves along the lower surface of the thermal conductive body (heating fluid flows through supply pipe 32 and out 33, fig. 1, while it flows through the solid line in fig. 2; [0036]; and lower surface 65 transfers heat/cooling as in [0035-0035]).
Eto teaches that this arrangement gives more control of the polishing rate through controlling the temperature ([0003-0004]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An with the fluid lines of Eto, for more control of the polishing rate.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An (KR 20170073292 A) in view of Toru (SG 10201809583V A) and Chang (US 6206760 B1), and further in view of Fan (CN 104241095 A).
With respect to claim 9, An, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning component simultaneously sprays the cleaning solution to an inner wall of the substrate holder in which the semiconductor substrate is accommodated and to an outer wall of the temperature controller. However, as taught by Toru above, the cleaning component sprays the cleaning solution to an outer wall of the temperature controller (Toru, through nozzle 60, which sprays a cleaning solution [pure water] on a [outer surface] of temperature controller 11, figs. 9A-9C; page 12 lines 15-21; 112(f) equivalent by performing the claimed function). Chang also provides for nozzles activated at the same time (66, fig. 2B; col 6 line 64-col 7 line 27).
Fan, in the same field of endeavor, provides for a cleaning component that sprays the cleaning solution to an inner wall of the substrate holder in which the semiconductor substrate is accommodated (cleaning nozzle 30, fig. 3, [0034] sprays towards/to surface of wafer 5, which is on an inner surface/wall of substrate holder 2; [0004]). Fan teaches that this nozzle can be moved to clean different positions ([0030]), and that it is necessary to remove residual particles after CMP to reduce scratches ([0005]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified An such that the cleaning component simultaneously sprays the cleaning solution to an inner wall of the substrate holder in which the semiconductor substrate is accommodated and to an outer wall of the temperature controller, using the teachings of Fan with an upward facing nozzle to reduce scratches. The claim limitations would have been met because the nozzles of Chang simultaneously spray multiple locations (including an outer wall of the temperature controller using the teachings of Toru), and the teachings of Fan would have provided an upward facing nozzle that can spray the cleaning solution to an inner wall of the substrate holder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tung (US 20030139117 A1) is an arc shaped slurry supply around a CMP head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights