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 Species C (claims 1-3 and 5-20) in the reply filed on 11 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “a CMP apparatus”, however, claims 16 or 19 have not defined what CMP stands for. The examiner recommends using a similar recitation format as used in claims 1 to properly introduce CMP. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a flexible pressurizing member” in claim 10, and “a control module” in claims 12 and 16.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zuniga et al – hereafter Zuniga – (US 20070082589 A1; also US 7,207,871 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Zuniga teaches a polishing head of a CMP apparatus (Fig.1-8, 100) comprising:
a head block (not shown) configured to be positioned over a substrate (¶1);
a distribution block (102) rotatably connected to a lower surface of the head block with respect to a vertical direction (inherent configuration), the distribution block including a plurality of pressure lines (122, only one shown, ¶27; also ¶31, multiple pressure sources) configured to provide a working fluid flowing therethrough;
a main actuator (¶27, drive shaft to rotate 102) configured to rotate the distribution block with respect to the vertical direction;
a head module (104) connected to the lower surface of the distribution block and configured to rotate with respect to the vertical direction together with the distribution block (Fig.1A/B and Fig.4, note head module rotates with distribution block in order to polish a substrate), the head module configured to locally pressurize the substrate using the working fluid provided through the plurality of pressure lines (¶6, note valves can be controllable to create a plurality of pressure zones; ¶39); and
a control module configured to independently control pressures of the working fluid provided to the head module through each of the plurality of pressure lines (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a plurality of pressure control valves and controllers to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Zuniga teaches ¶6, note valve controller controls each of the plurality of valves; ¶39, note controller can include software, such as a software-implemented polishing recipe that includes the time at which each valve is switched to connect the desired pressure source with at least one of the chambers).
Regarding claim 17, Zuniga further teaches the head module comprises a single integral head (Fig.1A/B, 104) connected to the distribution block, and the single integral head is configured to be moved independently upon the distribution block along the vertical direction (¶28, note 104 is a vertically movable assembly located beneath the housing 102).
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) 1-3, 5, 11-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga in view of Akazawa et al – hereafter Akazawa – (US 20200094371 A1; also US 11,511,389 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Zuniga teaches a polishing head of a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) apparatus (Fig.1-8) comprising:
a head block (not shown) configured to be positioned over a substrate (¶1);
a distribution block (102) rotatably connected to a lower surface of the head block with respect to a vertical direction (inherent configuration), the distribution block including a plurality of pressure lines (122, only one shown, ¶27; also ¶31, multiple pressure sources) configured to provide a working fluid flowing therethrough; and
a head module (104) connected to the lower surface of the distribution block and configured to rotate with respect to the vertical direction together with the distribution block (Fig.1A/B and Fig.4, note head module rotates with distribution block in order to polish a substrate), the head module configured to locally pressurize the substrate using the working fluid provided through the plurality of pressure lines (¶6, note valves can be controllable to create a plurality of pressure zones; ¶39).
Zuniga does not explicitly teach the head module being a segmentation type head module.
Akazawa teaches a polishing head and a polishing apparatus (Fig.1-5; ¶2). Akazawa further teaches the head module being a segmentation type head module (Fig.2A/2B/4/5; note segments defined by elements 220).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polishing head of Zuniga by having the head module being a segmentation type head module based on the teachings of Akazawa because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (head module of Zuniga) for another (head module of Akazawa) to obtain predictable results (provide localized pressures to a substrate being polished).
Regarding claim 2, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the segmentation type head module comprises:
a gimbal shaft (Zuniga 106) connected to a central portion of the lower surface of the distribution block (Fig.1A/1B);
a plurality of segmentation type heads (Akazawa Fig.2A/2B/4/5; note segments defined by elements 220) around the gimbal shaft and connected to the distribution block (Zuniga Fig.8, note pressure zones 1006/1008 configured around the gimbal shaft; when modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained), the plurality of segmentation type heads configured to be moved independently with respect to the distribution block along the vertical direction (Akazawa ¶24, note elastic bags 210 are expanded at least in a direction away from the head body portion 200 (Z-axis negative direction in the present example, that is, a downward direction on FIG. 2A). The expanded elastic bags 210 press the substrate holding plate 230 discussed later in a direction away from the head body portion 200 through the support plates 220); and
a plurality of actuators (Zuniga Fig.1B, 216) connected to the plurality of pressure lines and configured to independently operate the plurality of segmentation type heads (Zuniga ¶6, note valves can be controllable to create a plurality of pressure zones, ¶39; note pressure zones modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained).
Regarding claim 3, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the plurality of segmentation type heads are spaced apart from each (Akazawa Fig.2B) other by a uniform gap along a circumferential line of the gimbal shaft (Zuniga Fig.8, note pressure zones 1006/1008 configured around the gimbal shaft; valve when modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained).
Regarding claim 5, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the plurality of segmentation type heads comprise resilient members (Akazawa ¶27, note support plates 220 are preferably higher in rigidity than the elastic bags 210. For example, the support plates 220 may be made of stainless steel).
Regarding claim 11, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the segmentation type head module further comprises a plurality of supports on the lower surface of the distribution block and configured to support the actuators (Zuniga Fig.1B, 212).
Regarding claim 12, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach a control module configured to independently control operations of the segmentation type head module (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a plurality of pressure control valves and controllers to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Zuniga teaches ¶6, note valve controller controls each of the plurality of valves; ¶39, note controller can include software, such as a software-implemented polishing recipe that includes the time at which each valve is switched to connect the desired pressure source with at least one of the chambers).
Regarding claim 13, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the control module comprises:
a plurality of pressure control valves on the plurality of pressure lines and a controller configured to independently control operations of the pressure control valves (Zuniga ¶6, note valve controller controls each of the plurality of valves; ¶39, note controller can include software, such as a software-implemented polishing recipe that includes the time at which each valve is switched to connect the desired pressure source with at least one of the chambers).
Zuniga and Akazawa do not explicitly teach a plurality of controllers configured to independently control operations of the pressure control valves.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; in the current instance the application does not disclose any new and unexpected result being produced by having plural controllers to control operations of pressure control valves. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control module of Zuniga and Akazawa by having a plurality of controllers configured to independently control operations of the pressure control valves as a duplication of parts since no new and unexpected result is produced other than controlling the pressure control valves.
Regarding claim 14, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach the control module further comprises a main controller (Zuniga ¶39, note controller can be a part of or be in communication with a computer system, such as a computer system including instructions operable to send signals to open or close the valves) configured to control the plurality of controllers.
Regarding claim 15, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach a main actuator configured to rotate the distribution block with respect to the vertical direction (Zuniga ¶27, note 102 can be generally circular in shape and can be connected to a drive shaft to rotate therewith during polishing).
Regarding claim 19, Zuniga teaches a segmentation type head module of a CMP apparatus (Fig.1-8) comprising:
a gimbal shaft (106) configured to receive a rotary force for rotating a substrate with respect to a vertical direction (¶27, note 102 can be generally circular in shape and can be connected to a drive shaft to rotate therewith during polishing); and
a head (104) connected to the gimbal shaft (Fig.1A/1B).
Zuniga does not explicitly teach the head being a plurality of segmentation type heads configured to be moved independently with respect to the gimbal shaft along the vertical direction.
Akazawa teaches a polishing head and a polishing apparatus (Fig.1-5; ¶2). Akazawa further teaches the head module being a segmentation type head module (Fig.2A/2B/4/5; note segments defined by elements 220).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polishing head of Zuniga by having the head module being a segmentation type head module based on the teachings of Akazawa because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (head module of Zuniga) for another (head module of Akazawa) to obtain predictable results (provide localized pressures to a substrate being polished).
With respect to the plurality of segmentation type heads configured to be moved independently with respect to the gimbal shaft along the vertical direction (Zuniga Fig.8, note pressure zones 1006/1008 configured around the gimbal shaft; when modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained).
Regarding claim 20, Zuniga and Akazawa further teach a plurality of actuators independently operating the plurality of segmentation type heads (Zuniga Fig.1B, 216; Zuniga ¶6, note valves can be controllable to create a plurality of pressure zones, ¶39; note pressure zones modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Akazawa.
Regarding claim 18, Zuniga teaches all the limitations of claim 16, see above, and further teaches a gimbal shaft (106) connected to a central portion of the lower surface of the distribution block (Fig.1A/1B), and a plurality of actuators connected to the plurality of pressure lines to independently operate pressure zones (Fig.1B, 216); however does not explicitly teach a plurality of segmentation type heads around the gimbal shaft and connected to the distribution block, the plurality of segmentation type heads being configured to move independently with respect to the distribution block along the vertical direction; and the plurality of actuators connected to the plurality of pressure lines to independently operate the plurality of segmentation type heads.
Akazawa teaches a polishing head and a polishing apparatus (Fig.1-5; ¶2). Akazawa further teaches the head module being a segmentation type head module (Fig.2A/2B/4/5; note segments defined by elements 220).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polishing head of Zuniga by having the head module being a segmentation type head module based on the teachings of Akazawa because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (head module of Zuniga) for another (head module of Akazawa) to obtain predictable results (provide localized pressures to a substrate being polished).
With respect to the plurality of segmentation type heads configured to be moved independently with respect to the gimbal shaft along the vertical direction (Zuniga Fig.8, note pressure zones 1006/1008 configured around the gimbal shaft; when modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained). With respect to the plurality of actuators connected to the plurality of pressure lines to independently operate the plurality of segmentation type heads (Zuniga ¶6, note valves can be controllable to create a plurality of pressure zones, ¶39; note pressure zones modified based on Akazawa to include segmentation type heads, the claimed configuration is obtained).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga and Akazawa as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zuniga et al – hereafter Zuniga 558 – (US 20210402558 A1; also US 11,780,049 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Zuniga and Akazawa teach all the limitations of claim 2, see above, however do not explicitly teach each of the actuators comprises: a housing including a pressure chamber connected to each of the plurality of pressure lines to receive the working fluid; and a flexible pressurizing member selectively expanded by a pressure of the working fluid in the pressure chamber to pressurize the substrate.
Zuniga 558 teaches a carrier head having a membrane with multiple angularly disposed pressurizable zones in a polishing process (¶2). Zuniga 558 further teaches each of a plurality of actuators (Fig.2A/3A/3B) comprises: a housing (182/185) including a pressure chamber (185a-j) connected to each of a plurality of pressure lines (187a-187i; note 187f is labelled twice) to receive the working fluid; and a flexible pressurizing member (¶32, note membrane 182 can be made of a flexible and somewhat elastic material, e.g., a rubber, such as silicone rubber or neoprene) selectively expanded by a pressure of the working fluid in the pressure chamber to pressurize a substrate (10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the polishing head of Zuniga and Akazawa by having each of the actuators comprises: a housing including a pressure chamber connected to each of the plurality of pressure lines to receive the working fluid; and a flexible pressurizing member selectively expanded by a pressure of the working fluid in the pressure chamber to pressurize the substrate based on the teachings of Zuniga 558 because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (head module actuators of Zuniga) for another (head module actuators of Zuniga 558) to obtain predictable results (provide localized pressures to a substrate being polished).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The following claim limitations were not found in the prior art.
the plurality of segmentation type heads further comprises a sealing member between ones of the plurality of segmentation type heads (as in the context of claim 6).
at least one kerf is between the plurality of segmentation type heads along a radial direction of the gimbal shaft (as in the context of claim 7).
the gimbal shaft comprises a plurality of gimbal portions independently connected to the plurality of segmentation type heads (as in the context of claim 8).
The closest prior art reference (Zuniga) does not disclose segmentation type heads and is silent about the gimbal shaft including a plurality of gimbal portions.
A cited relevant prior art (Akazawa) discloses segmentation type heads, however is silent about sealing members between adjacent ones of the segmentation type heads and at least one kerf between the plurality of segmentation type heads.
Another cited relevant prior art (Zuniga 558) is silent about the limitations above.
No other prior art reference was found that would anticipate or allow establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the cited prior art above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific 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, Nathan E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights