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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 05/15/2025, claims 1, 5, 10, 14, and 18 have been amended, and claims 4 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are pending and under examination.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,717.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,717 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,899,801.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,120 in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0060134.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,919,120 in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,899,801.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/214290 and 18/494632 in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2003/0060134.
Please refer to the Double Patenting rejections addressed in the Non-Final Rejection Office action dated on 11/20/2024.
Applicant has not filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d); therefore, the Double Patenting rejections remain.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In pg. 8, line 21, the term “a region 44” is not clear. It may be amended as “the angularly limited region 44”.
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.
(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.
Claims 10, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tolles et al. (US 5899801, cited on 09/10/2024 IDS, hereinafter Tolles).
Regarding claim 10, Tolles discloses, in fig. 4, a platen (rotatable platen 30) having an annular top surface (see annotated Tolles fig. below) to support an annular main polishing pad (38), the platen having a circular aperture in the top surface of the platen in approximately a center of the platen (see at least 286, 288, as well as the interior space of the top potion 150 which has the aperture 288), the platen rotatable about an axis of rotation that passes through approximately the center of the platen (col. 7;6-24, a motor rotates the platen);
an annular flange projecting radially inward from an inner edge of the platen into the circular aperture (wherein the annular flange shown in annotated Tolles fig. 4 below is radially inward from the outer surface of the platen, and projects into the circular recess/aperture area. The recess is circular when viewed from top; annotated Tolles fig. 5 below, fig. 4 of Tolles shows expanded components designated as the annular flange. The annular flange is marked with bold lines in fig. 5. The annular flange occupies the recess and a part of the annular flange contacts an inner edge of the platen in the recess. Therefore, the annular flange is considered being projected radially inward from the inner edge of the platen) and having an annular top surface to support an annular inner polishing pad (wherein the seal 230 and lifting member 240 are configured to support the lower layer 38), the annular flange having an outer edge secured to and rotatable with the platen (wherein the flange 278 edge [corresponds to the recited outer edge] is fixed to the interior of the rotatable platen assembly via fasteners 294) and vertically fixed relative to the top surface of the platen, wherein an outer perimeter of the annular top surface of the annular flange is coplanar with the top surface of the platen (wherein the outer perimeter of element 240 will have a ring/circumference portion that is coplanar with the top surface of the platen), and wherein the annular flange is deformable such that an inner edge of the annular flange is vertically movable relative to the outer edge (wherein the seal element 230 is flexible such that is may displace the inner edge 242 in the vertical direction; see Figure 5 as well as col. 7:45-8:7);
an actuator configured to apply pressure to an underside of the annular flange to deflect the flange to move the inner edge of the annular flange vertically relative to the outer edge of the annular flange and the platen (fig. 3 and col. 7:45-53, a pneumatic source 200 [corresponds to the recited actuator] forces air to flex the seal 230 and cause a bumper 240, which is connected to the inner edge 242, to move vertically upward. As shown in fig. 5, the outer edge 278 is fixed to the platen. Thus, the inner edge moves relative to the outer edge); and
a carrier head to hold a substrate in contact with the main polishing pad and movable to selectively position a portion of the substrate on the inner polishing pad (col. 5:64-6:5, a carrier head 100 holds the substrate against the polishing pad and laterally oscillates).
PNG
media_image1.png
859
1026
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Tolles Figure 4
PNG
media_image2.png
783
1083
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Tolles Fig. 5
Regarding claim 11, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein in absence of deflection by the actuator the annular top surface of the flange is a planar surface that is coplanar with the circular top surface of the platen (fig. 3, a top surface of the bumper 240 of the flange is coplanar with a top surface of the platen 150 before lifting as shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein the annular flange comprises a first section contacting to the platen and a second section projecting radially inward from the first section and having a uniform thickness (a first section and a second section of the annular flange can be defined as shown in annotated Tolles fig. 4 above. The first section contacts the platen and the second section is projected radially inward from the first section).
Regarding claim 15, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 14, wherein the annular flange has an L-shaped cross-section with a first arm of the L-shaped cross-section providing the first section and a second arm of the L-shaped cross-section extending radially inward to provide the second section and the annular top surface of the annular flange (a first arm and a second arm of an L-shaped cross-section can be defined as shown in annotated Tolles fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 16, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 10, wherein the aperture comprises a recess extending partially but not entirely through the platen (figs. 3 and 4, recess 280 is formed under the passage 288 where the recess extends through platen 150 but does not extend through platen base portion 152).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurusamy et al. (US 2003/0060134, cited on 09/10/2024 IDS, hereinafter Gurusamy), in view of Tolles et al. (US 5899801, cited on 09/10/2024 IDS, hereinafter Tolles).
Regarding claim 1, Gurusamy discloses, in fig. 5, a polishing system, comprising:
a platen (platen 504) having a top surface to support a main polishing pad (figs. 2 and 5 and ¶ 0027, platen 504 has a top surface which can support a main polishing pad/polishing material 102), the platen rotatable about an axis of rotation that passes through approximately a center of the platen (see fig. 5 and para. 0032, platen 504 can rotate about an axis that passes through a center of the platen);
an annular flange (lifting mean 502) projecting radially outward from an outer edge of the platen and having an annular top surface to support an annular outer polishing pad (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 below, top surface 510 of the frame assembly 506 is disposed radially outward from an outer edge of the platen 504, and it can support an outer polishing pad), the annular flange having an inner edge secured to and rotatable with the platen and vertically fixed relative to the top surface of the platen, wherein an inner perimeter of the annular top surface of1 the annular flange is coplanar with the top surface of the platen (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 below, inner edge of the annular flange/lifting mean 502 is fixed to the platen 504 and can rotate with the platen; ¶ 0066, the lifting means 502 maintains the relative orientation between the platen and frame assembly 506 during rotation, therefore, its top surface is coplanar with a top surface of the platen and can maintain a level with the top surface of the platen), and wherein the annular flange is deformable such that an outer edge of the annular flange is vertically movable relative to the inner edge (¶ 0067, frame assembly 506 [corresponds to the recited outer edge of the annular flange] may move vertically, therefore, outer edge can be deflectable vertically. Claim defines the annual flange is deformable because the outer edge is vertically movable. See annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 below);
an actuator (cylinder 514) configured to apply pressure to an underside of the annular flange to deflect the flange to move the outer edge of the annular flange vertically relative to the inner edge of the annular flange and the platen (¶ 0067-68, cylinder 514 provide force to displace the frame assembly 506 to move vertically relative to the inner edge of the annular flange and the top surface of the platen 504. One end of the cylinder is attached to a low side of the frame assembly); and
a carrier head to hold a substrate in contact with the main polishing pad and movable to selectively position a portion of the substrate on the outer polishing pad (fig. 1 and ¶ 0031, polishing head 152 can hold a substrate in contact with the polishing pad and movable out to the lifting means 502), but does not disclose the platen is circular having a circular top surface to support a circular main polishing pad.
Tolles teaches, in an analogous chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) field of endeavor, the platen is circular having a circular top surface to support a circular main polishing pad (fig. 1, a platen 30 is circular having a circular top surface to support a circular main polishing pad 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing system of Gurusamy to provide the circular platen as taught by Tolles because rotation of the circular platen may perform better polishing uniformly than non-circular platens.
PNG
media_image3.png
742
1243
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Gurusamy Figure 5
Regarding claim 2, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein in absence of deflection by the actuator the annular top surface of the flange is a planar surface that is coplanar with the circular top surface of the platen (the top surfaces of the flange and the platen can be coplanar as seen in annotated Gurusamy Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 3, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the inner edge of the annular flange directly contacts an outer diameter surface of the circular platen such that the annular top surface of the annular flange forms a continuous surface with the circular top surface of the platen (see annotated Gurusamy Fig. 5 above, the top surface of the inner edge of the annular flange forms continuous surface with the top surface of the platen).
Regarding claim 5, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the annular flange comprises a first section contacting to the platen and a second section projecting radially outward from the first section and having a uniform thickness (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above, a first section of the annular flange and a second section of the annular flange are defined as recited).
Regarding claim 6, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 5, wherein the annular flange has an L-shaped cross-section with a first arm of the L-shaped cross-section providing the first section and a second arm of the L-shaped cross-section extending radially outward to provide the second section and the annular top surface of the annular flange (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above, a first arm of an L-shaped cross-section provides the first section of the annular flange and a second arm of the L-shaped cross-section provides the second section of the annular flange as recited).
Regarding claim 8, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the actuator includes an arm having a wheel in contact with the underside of the annular flange (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above and ¶ 0067, cylinder 514 has an arm and is connected to linear bearings 508, which are in contact with the low side of the frame assembly. Bearing is a machine element comprising wheels).
Regarding claim 9, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 8, wherein the wheel is in static contact with the underside of the annular flange (Gurusamy, fig. 5 and ¶ 0067, linear bearings 508 are in contact with the low side of the frame assembly).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurusamy in view of Tolles, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Butterfield et al. (US 7,422,516, cited on 09/10/2024 IDS, hereinafter Butterfield).
Regarding claim 7, Gurusamy as modified by Tolles teaches the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the platen and/or annular flange comprise a conduit having an opening in the top surface of the platen and/or annular flange for polishing residue to drain from a gap between the outer polishing pad and the main polishing pad.
Butterfield teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, the platen and/or annular flange comprise a conduit having an opening in the top surface of the platen and/or annular flange for polishing residue to drain from a gap between the outer polishing pad and the main polishing pad (fig. 2, platen 206 includes plurality of perforations or channels 222 and fluid flowing through the perforations can be drained through a drain 214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Gurusamy as modified by Tolles to incorporate the teachings of Butterfield to provide a conduit so that electrolyte used especially for copper polishing for reduced mechanical abrasion during CMP processes can flow to be drained properly (Butterflied, col. 3:27-55 and col. 9:63 – 10:5). It may help improving a polishing rate.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tolles, as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose explicitly the outer edge of the annular flange directly contacts an inner diameter surface of the circular aperture in the platen such that the annular top surface of the annular flange forms a continuous surface with the annular top surface of the platen.
However, figs. 3 and annotated Tolles fig. 4 above show the outer edge of the annular flange can make a direct contact with an inner surface of the circular aperture in the platen and the top surface of the annular flange can form a continuous surface with the top surface of the platen 150.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing system of Tolles to position the top surface of the annular flange to be continuous with the top surface of the platen when the apparatus polishes a substrate for smooth polishing of the substrate near a center of the platen.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tolles, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Butterfield.
Regarding claim 17, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 16, but does not disclose a conduit through the platen for liquid polishing residue to drain from the recess.
Butterfield teaches, in the analogous CMP field of endeavor, a conduit through the platen for liquid polishing residue to drain from the recess (fig. 2 and col. 8:3-12, platen includes plurality of perforations or channels 222 in fig. 2, and fluid can be drained through a drain 214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pad of Tolles to incorporate the teachings of Butterfield to provide a conduit so that electrolyte used especially for copper polishing for mechanical abrasion during CMP processes can be drained properly (Butterflied, col. 3:27-55 and col. 9:63 – 10:5). If the electrolyte and fluid do not flow, an abrasive effect will decrease.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolles, as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Gurusamy.
Regarding claim 18, Tolles discloses the polishing system as in the rejection of claim 10 but does not disclose a second annular flange projecting radially outward from the platen having a second annular top surface to support an annular outer polishing pad, the second annular flange having an inner edge secured to and rotatable with the platen and vertically fixed relative to the top surface of the platen, wherein an inner perimeter of the second annular top surface of the second annular flange is coplanar with the top surface of the platen, and wherein the second annular flange is deformable such that an outer edge of the second annular flange is vertically movable relative to the inner edge of the second annular flange; and a second actuator configured to apply pressure to an underside of the second annular flange to deflect the second annular flange to move the outer edge of the second annular flange vertically relative to the inner edge of the second annular flange and the platen.
Gurusamy teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, a second annular flange (fig. 5, lifting mean 502) projecting radially outward from the platen having a second annular top surface to support an annular outer polishing pad (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above, top surface 510 of the frame assembly 506 is disposed radially outward with respect to the platen 504, and it can support an outer polishing pad), the second annular flange having an inner edge secured to and rotatable with the platen and vertically fixed relative to the top surface of the platen, wherein an inner perimeter of the second annular top surface of the second annular flange is coplanar with the top surface of the platen (see annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above, inner edge of the annular flange/lifting mean 502 is fixed to the platen 504 and can rotate with the platen; ¶ 0066, the lifting means 502 maintains the relative orientation between the platen and frame assembly 506 during rotation, therefore, its top surface is coplanar with a top surface of the platen and can maintain a level with the top surface of the platen), and wherein the second annular flange is deformable such that an outer edge of the second annular flange is vertically movable relative to the inner edge of the second annular flange (¶ 0067, frame assembly 506 [corresponds to the recited outer edge of the annular flange] may move vertically, therefore, outer edge can be deflectable vertically. Claim defines the annual flange is deformable because the outer edge is vertically movable. See annotated Gurusamy fig. 5 above); and
a second actuator (Gurusamy, fig. 5, cylinder 514) configured to apply pressure to an underside of the second annular flange to deflect the second annular flange to move the outer edge of the second annular flange vertically relative to the inner edge of the second annular flange and the platen (Gurusamy, ¶ 0067-68, cylinder 514 provide force to displace the frame assembly 506 to move vertically relative to the inner edge of the annular flange and the top surface of the platen 504. One end of the cylinder is attached to a low side of the frame assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing system of Tolles to provide the second annular flange and the second actuator as taught by Gurusamy in order to provide additional polishing capacity for outer part of a substrate for effective polishing in a short time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues the Office Action is not clear on which elements of Tolles provides the aperture or annular flange. In response to the Applicant’s argument, annotated Tolles fig. 5 is added to further explain what components of Tolles make the annular flange.
Next, Applicant argues Tolles does not disclose the amended claim limitations of claim 10 that an annular flange projecting radially inward from an inner edge of the platen into the circular aperture and having an annular top surface to support an annular inner polishing pad. Applicant further argues the plunger 288 projects upward instead of projecting radially inward from the passage 288. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The components of Tolles defined as the annular flange looks different from the annular flange of the instant application. However, claim does not define a particular shape, and the annular flange of Tolles makes contact with an inner edge of the platen wherein the contacting inner edge exists within the aperture formed at a center of the platen. Therefore, the annular flange of Tolles is considered projecting radially inward from the inner edge of the platen into the circular aperture. Further, the plunger 288 is only a part of the annular flange. The projection of the annular flange is made at a body of the annular flange below the plunger. In addition, the seal 230 and lifting member 240, which are a part of the annular flange, support the lower layer 38 of the polishing pad including the annular inner polishing pad.
On the other hand, Applicant argues the Office Action did not apply the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the use of the terms in the specification and claims were not given their plain meaning, especially regarding the phrase “projecting radially inward in reference to a circular aperture”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As Examiner mentioned above, the annular flange of Tolles look different from the annular flange of the instant application, but it is provided with structures that read on claim language. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider the annular flange of Tolles teaches the claim limitations.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Gurusamy does not teach the annular flange projecting radially outward from the platen. Applicant argues the Office did not apply reasonable interpretations consistent with the specification. Applicant specifically argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a flange is a flat, rim-like extension formed at the edge of a component, therefore, the lifting mean 502 of Gurusamy does not teach the claim limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in annotated Gurusamy fig. 5, the annular flange of Gurusamy has the inner edge and the outer edge, and the inner edge is clearly a flat, rim-like extension formed at the outer edge of the platen.
Applicant further argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the lifting means 502 of Gurusamy is deformable because the lifting means is not deformed as described in the specification of the instant application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 defines the annular flange is deformable because the outer edge of the annular flange is vertically movable relative to the inner edge. As Examiner mentioned above, the annular flange of Gurusamy comprises the outer edge and the inner edge, and the outer edge moves vertically while the inner edge is fixed to the platen. Therefore, it reads on the recited claim limitations.
Finally, Applicant argues Gurusamy does not teach the annular flange having a top surface to support an annular outer polishing pad. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in annotated Gurusamy fig. 5, the top surface 510 of the annular flange is disposed radially outward on the same height with respect to a top surface of the platen 504. Therefore, it can support the annular outer polishing pad.
For the reasons above, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights