DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 12/05/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaefer et al. in WO2022/093576 (hereinafter “Schaefer”).
Regarding claim 1, Schaefer discloses a system 100 to perform a polishing operation on a sample, comprising: a sample holder 112 to secure a sample to be polished (see Fig. 1); a housing 108 to support a platen, the platen operable to allow movement of the sample holder during a polishing operation (paragraph [0026]); and one or more sensors 152 (paragraph [0042], [0050]) to monitor movement of the sample holder 112 relative to the housing.
Regarding claim 2, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a controller 190 operable to receive data from the one or more sensors (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the controller is further operable to: count a number of rotations of the sample holder relative to the housing; and determine an amount of polishing of the sample based on the number of rotations (Schaefer discloses employing a camera and thus is operable to count sample holder rotations; Schaefer is operable to determine an amount of polishing by either continuing or ceasing polishing operations as detailed in paragraphs [0049]-[0058]; note particularly paragraphs [0050]-[0051] that disclose iterative image processing, which means Schaefer is “operable to count a number of rotations”).
Regarding claim 4, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to control one or more operational parameters of the system based on the number of rotations (such as starting/stopping grinding/polishing; paragraphs [0049]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the one or more operational parameters is rotational speed of the sample (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 6, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising an actuator 117 to control movement of the sample holder (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 7, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the controller is operable to control the actuator to adjust the rotational speed of the sample holder based on the measurements from the one or more sensors (paragraph [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 6, further comprising a bowl connected to the actuator, the actuator to cause vibration of the bowl to move the sample holder (see the bowl shape of the structure where pad 110 sits in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a magnetic sensor, a Hall effect sensor, an optical sensor, an inductive sensor, or a mechanical sensor (paragraph [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 10, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors are arranged in a fixed position relative to the housing or the platen, each of the one or more sensors operable to detect movement of the sample holder as they move about the platen, wherein the one or more sensors are arranged within the system, including one or more of the housing, a cover, or the platen (paragraph [0031]-[0032]; see sensors 152 in Fig. 2 which are fixed to the housing; cameras are operable to detect movement).
Regarding claim 11, Schaefer discloses a system to perform a polishing operation on a sample (abstract; Fig. 1), comprising: a sample holder 112 to secure a sample to be polished; a bowl to vibrate the sample holder (the bowl is where the sample holder sits; see Fig. 1); and one or more sensors 152 to monitor movement of the sample holders relative to the bowl (paragraph [0042], [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising an actuator 117 to control a rate of vibration of the bowl and thereby a rate of movement of the sample holder (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 11, further comprising a controller 190 operable to: receive data from the one or more sensors; count a number of rotations of the sample holder relative to the bowl; and determine an amount of polishing of the sample based on the number of rotations (Schaefer discloses employing a camera and thus is operable to count sample holder rotations; Schaefer is operable to determine an amount of polishing by either continuing or ceasing polishing operations as detailed in paragraphs [0049]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 14, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the controller is further operable to: compare the number of rotations of the sample holder to a list of rotations corresponding to amounts of polishing; and determine an amount of polishing of the sample based on the number of rotations (Schaefer discloses employing a camera and thus is “operable to” count sample holder rotations; Schaefer is operable to determine an amount of sample holder rotations by use of the camera disclosed; see the polishing operation in paragraphs [0049]-[0058]; note particularly paragraph [0053] disclosing the use of sensors to take measurements to compare to a baseline value (which may be considered a list), as well as performing iterative image processing techniques during grinding).
Regarding claim 18, Schaefer discloses a system to perform a polishing operation on a sample (Fig. 1; abstract), comprising: a sample to be polished (a specimen); a housing 108 to support a platen (paragraph [0026]), the platen operable to allow movement of the sample during a polishing operation (paragraph [0026]); and one or more sensors 152 to monitor movement of the sample relative to the housing (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 18, further comprising a controller operable to: receive data from the one or more sensors; count a number of rotations of the sample relative to the housing; and determine an amount of polishing of the sample based on the number of rotations (Schaefer discloses a camera which is capable of recording a number of rotations, can determine whether a polishing operation is complete or not per paragraph [0041]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Schaefer discloses the system of claim 18, further comprising a controller operable to: receive data from the one or more sensors; and determine one or more characteristics of the sample based on the data, wherein the one or more characteristics include a type of sample, a color of the sample, a temperature of the sample, a consistency of the sample, or a material characteristic of the sample (paragraphs [0041]-[0052] disclose how material characteristics of a specimen/sample are monitored during a polishing operation, like whether the sample is contaminated or not).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer as applied above in view of Milbrett in US4833306 (hereinafter “Milbrett”).
Regarding claim 15, Schaefer as applied above does not explicitly disclose the system of claim 11, wherein the sample holder includes a sensor tag operable to be read by the one or more sensors. Milbrett is related art directed towards the process of manufacturing small precision electronic components (or specimens), just like Schaefer. Specifically, Milbrett teaches that in such manufacturing processes, it is desirable to embed barcode tags into the carriers upon which silicon wafers are manufactured and processed in order to track the physical location of wafers and their progression through the manufacturing process (see the Abstract and “Description of the prior art” section). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus and method of Schaefer by incorporating a barcode tag into the specimen/sample holder in order to physically identify and track a particular specimen during the manufacturing process, as taught by Milbrett, and the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Schaefer as modified by Milbrett comprises the system of claim 11, wherein the sample holder includes a material operable to trigger the one or more sensors (the combination of art comprises a barcode tag which is read by an optical sensor and may be said to “trigger” the corresponding sensor upon reading the barcode).
Regarding claim 17, Schaefer as modified by Milbrett comprises the system of claim 16, wherein the material is a ferrous metal (the barcode tag taught by Milbrett and incorporated into Schaefer is made of stainless steel which is a ferrous metal; see column 4 line 20 of the Milbrett document).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer as applied above in view of Birang et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2004/0166685 (hereinafter “Birang”).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, it is noted that these claims were addressed above under 102 with respect to Schaefer based upon a broad reading “operable to”. While Schaefer does not explicitly speak to counting rotations and comparing rotations to a list or look-up table, Schaefer is understood as being “operable to” perform these functions, particularly considering that Schaefer discloses a camera and controller. Nevertheless, appreciating the spirit of what is sought with claims 13 and 14, a rejection under 103 is made herein.
Birang teaches analogous art related to methods of polishing and manufacturing wafers, like Schaefer. Specifically, Birang teaches the employment of a control system that monitors polishing parameters like Schaefer. In paragraphs [0046]-[0048], Birang teaches that one way to optimize the polishing process is to use “look up tables that have been created from experimental results.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus and process of Schaefer by employing a controller that counts sample holder rotations and compares that number of rotations to a look-up table as a way to optimize wafer polishing parameters, as taught by Birang, and the result would have been predictable.
Further, the Court has held that simple substitution of one known step or element for another serves as basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. Instantly, the prior art (Schaeffer) differs only from what is claimed by failing to recite a comparative step of counting rotations in relation to a look-up table (or, a “list”). Birang is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that such a system capability (to quantify a manufacturing step and compare to a known value in a look-up table) is a known and accepted method of manufacturing polished wafers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus and process of Schaefer by simply substituting a controller that counts sample holder rotations and compares that number of rotations to a look-up table as a way to optimize wafer polishing parameters, as taught by Birang, and the result would have been predictable. The simple substitution of one known control parameter for wafer polishing with another that is already known in the art does not patentably distinguish claims 13 and 14. See MPEP 2141 and 2143.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant Prior Art: US2018/0158707 discloses embodiments for methods and an apparatus for detecting, authenticating, and tracking processing components including consumable components or non-consumable components used on substrate processing systems for electronic device manufacturing, such as semiconductor chip manufacturing. US20080004743 relates to abrasive articles useful in chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP), the articles including a substrate with opposite major surfaces, an abrasive material overlaying at least a portion of at least one of the major surfaces, a means for providing CMP information positioned near the substrate, and a transmitter positioned near the substrate and adapted to transmit the CMP information to a remote receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799