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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8, drawn to method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
The Applicant has withdrawn claims 9-16 as being drawn to non-elected group.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-8 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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, the claimed verbiage “creating a hybrid polishing-rate responsiveness profile by combining the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile and the actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile” as claimed in Claim 1; and “creating a third polishing-rate profile by combining the first polishing-rate profile and the second polishing-rate profile” as claimed in Claim 6 is indefinite. It is unclear how the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile and the actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile are “combined” to create the claimed hybrid polishing-rate responsiveness profile. It’s unclear what values, data, parameters, or variables are utilized in the claimed “combined” process. It is unclear if the values from the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile and the actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile are being averaged, or manipulated in a particular method to result in said hybrid polishing-rate responsiveness profile as claimed in Claim 1. Similarity, it is unclear how the first polishing-rate profile and the second polishing-rate profile are combined to create the claimed third polishing-rate profile as claimed in Claim 6.
Claims 2-5, and 7-8 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US 20150255357, hereinafter: “Kobayashi”).
In reference to Claim 1
Kobayashi discloses:
A method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile (predicted control according to new model) indicating a distribution of polishing-rate responsiveness to pressure change in a first pressure chamber (one of the pressure chambers C1-C6; [0038-0045]) and a second pressure chamber (a second one of the pressure chambers C1-C6) (“parameters”; “[0070] In the above-discussed model predictive control, parameters, which represent characteristics of the polishing process to be controlled, include the C matrix indicating a ratio of the decreasing rate of the remaining film index to the pressure, the dead time to in the response, and the time constant .alpha.. Row of the C matrix corresponds respectively to the zones defined on the front surface of the wafer, and column of the C matrix corresponds respectively to the pressure chambers…”) when a workpiece (wafer) used for manufacturing a semiconductor device ([0002]) is pressed against a polishing pad (2) with an elastic membrane (24) forming the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber (“[0038] Four pressure chambers C1, C2, C3, and C4 are provided between the membrane 24 and the chucking plate 25”), the method comprising:
creating an estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile using simulation, the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile (prediction model; [0026, 0086-0087]) indicating a distribution of polishing-rate responsiveness to pressure change in the first pressure chamber (Fig. 5A-5B; 9; [0030, 0097]);
creating an actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile using polishing results of a workpiece (“actual state” [0086]), the actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of polishing-rate responsiveness to pressure change in the second pressure chamber (“[0086] FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B are diagrams showing a result of simulation that was conducted by virtually polishing one wafer using parameters for a prediction model which is different from an actual state, identifying a process model using polishing data of this polishing process to update the parameters”); and
creating a hybrid polishing-rate responsiveness profile by combining the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile and the actual polishing-rate responsiveness profile (“applying the updated parameters to a control operation in polishing of another wafer,” [0086]).(0032-0099; Fig. 1-9).
[0087, Kobayashi] FIG. 5A shows a temporal change in the film-thickness signal at the center and the edge of the wafer, and FIG. 5B shows a temporal change in the pressure in the pressure chamber while the control was performed. In an initial prediction model, the constant of proportionality C was assumed to be three times an actual value, and the dead time to and the time constant .alpha. were assumed to be one-third of respective actual values. As a result, the controlled variable (i.e., the difference in film thickness between the zones) and the manipulated variable (i.e., the pressure in the pressure chamber) converged very slowly. In contrast, according to the embodiment, polishing data of a first wafer was used to identify the process model, and the parameters were updated. As a result, the polishing control was greatly improved and the controlled variable (i.e., the difference in film thickness between the zones) and the manipulated variable converged rapidly, although each parameter was not exactly agreement with true value. A small fluctuation of the manipulated variable (i.e., the pressure in the pressure chamber) was observed in a latter half of the polishing operation, but this fluctuation is due to the assumed variation in the film thickness on the wafer edge along the circumferential direction of the wafer. This small fluctuation can be removed by smoothing the film-thickness signal values, e.g., by performing a moving average on the film-thickness signal values.
In reference to Claim 2
Kobayashi discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein creating the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile (prediction model; [0026, 0086-0087]) comprises: performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the first pressure chamber, the pressing pressure being applied from a first workpiece to the polishing pad in the simulation; polishing the first workpiece (“[0086] FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B are diagrams showing a result of simulation that was conducted by virtually polishing one wafer using parameters for a prediction model which is different from an actual state,..”) by pressing the first workpiece against the polishing pad while maintaining a predetermined pressure in the first pressure chamber (parameters including pressure in pressure chambers C1-C6; [0034]; [0045]); creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished first workpiece; and creating the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile ([0026, 0086-0087]; Fig. 5A,5B).
In reference to Claim 8
Kobayashi discloses:
A polishing method comprising: optimizing a polishing condition for a workpiece using the hybrid polishing-rate responsiveness profile created by the method according to claim 1 (“…applying the updated parameters to a control operation in polishing of another wafer.” [0086]); and polishing the workpiece by pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad with the elastic membrane under the optimized polishing condition.
[0034, Kobayashi] Polishing of the wafer W is performed as follows. The top ring 1 and the polishing table 3 are rotated in the same direction as indicated by arrows, while the polishing liquid is supplied from the polishing-liquid supply nozzle 5 onto the polishing pad 2. In this state, the top ring 1 presses the wafer W against the polishing surface 2a of the polishing pad 2. The surface of the wafer W is polished by a combination of a mechanical action of abrasive grains contained in the polishing liquid and a chemical action of the polishing liquid. The polishing apparatus having such structures is known as CMP (chemical mechanical polishing) apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakurai et al. (US 20070224916), Sakurai et al. (US 20070061036), Sakurai et al. (US 20070224916), Sasaki et al. (US 20220371153), Watanabe et al. (US 20190160626), Nakamura (US 20190389029),
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights