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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Amendments filed 6/22/2026 have been entered, wherein claims 1-16 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-16 have been examined herein. This action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-14 and 16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 1 recites performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber; creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished workpiece; and creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of responsiveness of a polishing rate to a pressure change in a pressure chamber when a workpiece for use in manufacturing of semiconductor devices is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the pressure chamber therein, the method comprising:
performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraph 0043 of instant application where the performing simulation is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece, while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber;
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished workpiece (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph 0046 of the instant specification, wherein step 3 is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph 0047 of the instant specification, wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece, while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber
generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece, while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber
generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee (US PGPUB 20070184759), who teaches a conventional apparatus for performing the CMP process (hereinafter, referred to as "CMP apparatus") includes a polishing pad, a platen for supporting the polishing pad, a polishing head to which a wafer is secured, a slurry reservoir from which the slurry is supplied to the polishing pad, and a pad conditioner for improving the quality of the polishing pad. The wafer is rotated on a central axis of the polishing head, and the polishing pad makes contact with the rotating wafer, so that a thin layer present on the wafer is polished by the chemical reaction and mechanical friction between the thin layer on the wafer and the polishing pad [0006] and that a conventional CMP apparatus includes bladders and a pressure membrane on a platen, and each of the bladders is pressurized individually [0007]. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 2, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 2 additionally recites wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile;
determining the polishing-rate coefficient that minimizes a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 2 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 2 recites the method according to claim 1, and further recites
wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
determining the polishing-rate coefficient that minimizes a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 3, the analysis of Claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 3 additionally recites wherein the pressure chamber comprises a plurality of pressure chambers, and the polishing-rate coefficient comprises a plurality of polishing-rate coefficients corresponding to the plurality of pressure chambers, respectively, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 3 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 3 recites the method according to claim 2, and further recites
wherein the pressure chamber comprises a plurality of pressure chambers, and the polishing-rate coefficient comprises a plurality of polishing-rate coefficients corresponding to the plurality of pressure chambers, respectively (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and the polishing rate coefficient is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 4, the analysis of Claim 2 is incorporated. Claim 4 additionally recites further comprising determining a correction factor that eliminates the difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile, wherein multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient and the determined correction factor to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 4 recites the method according to claim 2, and further recites
further comprising determining a correction factor that eliminates the difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile, wherein multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient and the determined correction factor to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and the polishing rate coefficient is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 5, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 5 additionally recites wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
adding a polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile;
determining the polishing-rate coefficient and the polishing-rate offset that minimize a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and
adding the determined polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 5 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 5 recites the method according to claim 1, and further recites
wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
adding a polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0077 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
determining the polishing-rate coefficient and the polishing-rate offset that minimize a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0077 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.); and
adding the determined polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0077 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 6, the analysis of Claim 5 is incorporated. Claim 6 additionally recites wherein the pressure chamber comprises a plurality of pressure chambers, and the polishing-rate coefficient comprises a plurality of polishing-rate coefficients corresponding to the plurality of pressure chambers, respectively, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 6 recites the method according to claim 5, and further recites
wherein the pressure chamber comprises a plurality of pressure chambers, and the polishing-rate coefficient comprises a plurality of polishing-rate coefficients corresponding to the plurality of pressure chambers, respectively (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0077 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and the polishing rate coefficient is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 7, the analysis of Claim 5 is incorporated. Claim 7 additionally recites further comprising determining a correction factor that eliminates the difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile,
wherein multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises adding the determined polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient and the determined correction factor to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 7 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 7 recites the method according to claim 5, and further recites
further comprising determining a correction factor that eliminates the difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile,
wherein multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises adding the determined polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient and the determined correction factor to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0077 of instant application where the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and the polishing rate coefficient is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 8, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 8 additionally recites wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises:
performing simulation to create a first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a first pressure to a second pressure in the pressure chamber;
performing simulation to create a second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a third pressure to a fourth pressure in the pressure chamber; and
creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 8 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 8 recites the method according to claim 1, and further recites
wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises:
performing simulation to create a first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a first pressure to a second pressure in the pressure chamber;
performing simulation to create a second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a third pressure to a fourth pressure in the pressure chamber; and
creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0054-0055 of instant application where the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 9, the analysis of Claim 8 is incorporated. Claim 9 additionally recites wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by interpolation or extrapolation using the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 9 recites the method according to claim 8, and further recites
wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by interpolation or extrapolation using the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0054-0055 of instant application where the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 10, the analysis of Claim 8 is incorporated. Claim 10 additionally recites wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises inputting the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile into a model constructed by machine learning, and outputting the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile from the model, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 10 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 10 recites the method according to claim 8, and further recites
wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises inputting the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile into a model constructed by machine learning, and outputting the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile from the model (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0054-0055 of instant application where the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile is created, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 11, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 11 additionally recites wherein the polishing-rate profile comprises one selected from a plurality of polishing-rate profiles created by polishing a plurality of workpieces,
the plurality of polishing-rate profiles are obtained by:
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces; and
creating the plurality of polishing-rate profiles indicating distributions of polishing rate of the plurality of polished workpieces, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, Claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 11 recites the method according to claim 1, and further recites wherein the polishing-rate profile comprises one selected from a plurality of polishing-rate profiles created by polishing a plurality of workpieces,
the plurality of polishing-rate profiles are obtained by:
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces; and
creating the plurality of polishing-rate profiles indicating distributions of polishing rate of the plurality of polished workpieces, (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph 0059 of the instant application where the plurality of polishing-rate profiles are created and utilized, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee (US PGPUB 20070184759), who teaches a conventional apparatus for performing the CMP process (hereinafter, referred to as "CMP apparatus") includes a polishing pad, a platen for supporting the polishing pad, a polishing head to which a wafer is secured, a slurry reservoir from which the slurry is supplied to the polishing pad, and a pad conditioner for improving the quality of the polishing pad. The wafer is rotated on a central axis of the polishing head, and the polishing pad makes contact with the rotating wafer, so that a thin layer present on the wafer is polished by the chemical reaction and mechanical friction between the thin layer on the wafer and the polishing pad [0006] and that a conventional CMP apparatus includes bladders and a pressure membrane on a platen, and each of the bladders is pressurized individually [0007]. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 12, the analysis of Claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 12 additionally recites further comprising optimizing a polishing condition for other workpiece using the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 12 recites the method according to claim 1, and further recites
further comprising optimizing a polishing condition for other workpiece using the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 wherein the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and utilized, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 13, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 13 additionally recites wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a current film-thickness profile of the other workpiece, while the other workpiece is polished; and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber for minimizing a difference between the current film-thickness profile and a target film-thickness profile based on the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites the method according to claim 12, and further recites
wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a current film-thickness profile of the other workpiece, while the other workpiece is polished; and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber for minimizing a difference between the current film-thickness profile and a target film-thickness profile based on the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 wherein the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and utilized, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Regarding claim 14, the analysis of Claim 12 is incorporated. Claim 14 additionally recites wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a film-thickness profile before the polishing of the workpiece and a film- thickness profile after the polishing of the workpiece which has been used to create the polishing-rate profile; and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber based on the film-thickness profile before the polishing, the film-thickness profile after the polishing, a target film-thickness profile, and the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 14 recites the method according to claim 12, and further recites
wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a film-thickness profile before the polishing of the workpiece and a film- thickness profile after the polishing of the workpiece which has been used to create the polishing-rate profile; and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber based on the film-thickness profile before the polishing, the film-thickness profile after the polishing, a target film-thickness profile, and the polishing-rate responsiveness profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraphs 0060-0063 wherein the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is created and utilized, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Claim 15
Although claim 15 includes the at least one mental process as identified above with respect to claim 1, the claim recites at least one additional element of pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad with the elastic membrane to polish the workpiece under the optimized polishing condition which provides a practical application and significantly more because the pressing action is based on the mental process.
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 16 recites performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber;
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the workpiece polished; and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile which are grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The claimed limitations involve observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to cause a computer to create a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of responsiveness of a polishing rate to a pressure change in a pressure chamber when a workpiece for use in manufacturing of semiconductor devices is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the pressure chamber therein, the program being configured to cause the computer to perform the steps of:
performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), See paragraph 0043 of instant application where the performing simulation is described, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.);
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the workpiece polished (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph 0046 of the instant specification, wherein step 3 is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.) by pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber; and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile (involves an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), See paragraph 0047 of the instant specification, wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile is performed, which can be performed in the mind or with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper.).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitation of
by pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, it is not considered a practical application.
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05. The additional limitation of
by pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and is well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee (US PGPUB 20070184759), who teaches a conventional apparatus for performing the CMP process (hereinafter, referred to as "CMP apparatus") includes a polishing pad, a platen for supporting the polishing pad, a polishing head to which a wafer is secured, a slurry reservoir from which the slurry is supplied to the polishing pad, and a pad conditioner for improving the quality of the polishing pad. The wafer is rotated on a central axis of the polishing head, and the polishing pad makes contact with the rotating wafer, so that a thin layer present on the wafer is polished by the chemical reaction and mechanical friction between the thin layer on the wafer and the polishing pad [0006] and that a conventional CMP apparatus includes bladders and a pressure membrane on a platen, and each of the bladders is pressurized individually [0007]. Thus, it is not considered significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki.
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of responsiveness of a polishing rate to a pressure change in a pressure chamber ([0066 of the attached translation], distribution data of the polishing coefficient) when a workpiece for use in manufacturing of semiconductor devices is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the pressure chamber therein (see annotated fig. 3 below and figs. 1 and 5, [0034]), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
570
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber ([0065], the simulation tool calculates the predicted value of the polishing profile based on the pressure set value given to the back surface of the wafer and the distribution of the pressing force);
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece, while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber ([0067], in step 2, the wafer is polished under a specific set pressure condition);
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished workpiece ([0067], in step 5, the distribution of the calculated polishing amount is divided by the polishing time to distribute the polishing rate per unit pressure at each point on the wafer surface); and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile ([0066-0067], After step 5, the distribution of coefficients is found, wherein the polishing coefficient distribution data is interpreted as the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, wherein the polishing coefficient distribution data is based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile that is simulated, the predetermined pressure during polishing and the polishing rate profile).
Regarding claim 8, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Mochizuki teaches wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises:
performing simulation to create a first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a first pressure to a second pressure in the pressure chamber ([0050, 0052 and 0059], wherein 27 combinations are synthesized and stored in the memory);
performing simulation to create a second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of the pressing pressure changed in response to a change from a third pressure to a fourth pressure in the pressure chamber ([0050, 0052 and 0059], wherein 27 combinations are synthesized and stored in the memory); and
creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile ([0059], the wafer surface pressing force distribution data can be obtained by appropriately selecting from among the 27 combinations the wafer surface corresponding to the set pressure on the arbitrary back surface of the wafer).
Regarding claim 12, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Mochizuki teaches further comprising optimizing a polishing condition for other workpiece using the polishing-rate responsiveness profile ([0077], As the polishing profile changes with time due to the degree of wear of the polishing member, the change can be corrected in a timely manner, and a desired polishing profile can be stably obtained via predicting and calculating the respective pressures).
Regarding claim 13, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Mochizuki teaches wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a current film-thickness profile of the other workpiece, while the other workpiece is polished ([0079], the distribution of the thickness of the wafer is measured by a film thickness measuring device that is an in-line monitor installed in the polishing apparatus); and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber for minimizing a difference between the current film-thickness profile and a target film-thickness profile based on the polishing-rate responsiveness profile ([0080-0086], based on the measurement result, a polishing pressure condition for creating a target polishing profile is calculated based on the measurement data previously stored in the memory [0081]).
Regarding claim 14, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 12. Additionally, Mochizuki teaches wherein optimizing the polishing condition for the other workpiece comprises:
creating a film-thickness profile before the polishing of the workpiece and a film- thickness profile after the polishing of the workpiece which has been used to create the polishing-rate profile [0067 and 0077-0079]; and
determining the pressure in the pressure chamber based on the film-thickness profile before the polishing, the film-thickness profile after the polishing, a target film-thickness profile, and the polishing-rate responsiveness profile ([0080-0086], based on the measurement result, a polishing pressure condition for creating a target polishing profile is calculated based on the measurement data previously stored in the memory [0081]).
Regarding claim 15, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Mochizuki teaches
a polishing method comprising:
optimizing a polishing condition for a workpiece using the polishing-rate responsiveness profile created by the method according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, [0080-0081], based on the measurement result, a polishing pressure condition for creating a target polishing profile is calculated based on the measurement data previously stored in the memory [0081]); and
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad with the elastic membrane to polish the workpiece under the optimized polishing condition [0077].
Regarding claim 16, Mochizuki teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [0043] storing a program to cause a computer to create a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of responsiveness of a polishing rate to a pressure change in a pressure chamber ([0066 of the attached translation], distribution data of the polishing coefficient) when a workpiece for use in manufacturing of semiconductor devices is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the pressure chamber therein (see annotated fig. 3 below and figs. 1 and 5, [0034]), the program being configured to cause the computer to perform the steps of:
PNG
media_image2.png
570
911
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber ([0065], the simulation tool calculates the predicted value of the polishing profiled based on the pressure set value given to the back surface of the wafer and the distribution of the pressing force);
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the workpiece polished ([0067], in step 5, the distribution of the calculated polishing amount is divided by the polishing time to distribute the polishing rate per unit pressure at each point on the wafer surface) by pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber ([0067], in step 2, the wafer is polished under a specific set pressure condition); and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile ([0066-0067], After step 5, the distribution of coefficients is found, wherein the polishing coefficient distribution data is interpreted as the polishing-rate responsiveness profile, wherein the polishing coefficient distribution data is based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile that is simulated, the predetermined pressure during polishing and the polishing rate profile).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki, in view of Sasaki et al. (US PGPUB 20080146119), hereinafter Sasaki.
Regarding claim 9, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 8. Mochizuki does not explicitly teach wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by interpolation or extrapolation using the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile.
However, Sasaki teaches a substrate polishing method and apparatus wherein when there are a relatively small number of points at which a polished shape is measured, the polishing coefficient may be calculated using a curve which is smoothly interpolated by the measuring points [0012]. Overall, Sasaki teaches using interpolation to calculate a coefficient when a small number of data points are present.
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 Mochizuki to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to provide wherein the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile uses interpolation based on the first and second pressing pressure responsiveness profiles and any other data points from the small number of data points. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Mochizuki to use interpolation to accurately calculate intermediary values. Doing so would promote accuracy of the calculations by basing the calculations on the existing data points. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by customizing the calculations to values that may not be present in the preexisting data set.
In summary, Mochizuki, as modified, teaches wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by interpolation or extrapolation using the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile (see above combination wherein the interpolation teachings of Sasaki were incorporated into the calculations of Mochizuki).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki, in view of Hemes et al. (US PGPUB 20210394336), hereinafter Hemes.
Regarding claim 10, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 8. Mochizuki does not explicitly teach wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises inputting the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile into a model constructed by machine learning, and outputting the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile from the model.
However, Hemes teaches an abrading apparatus and method, wherein measurements and data points can be input into machine learning or other algorithms for useful purposes including control of the device [0108]. The device then receives instructions recommended by the machine learning unit [0123]. Overall, Hemes teaches inputting data points into the machine learning model and receiving controlling instructions from the machine learning model.
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 Mochizuki to incorporate the teachings of Hemes to provide wherein creating the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile based on the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile comprises inputting the first pressing-pressure responsiveness profile and the second pressing-pressure responsiveness profile into a model constructed by machine learning, and outputting the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile from the model. Specifically, it would have been obvious to input the existing data points and correlations into a machine learning model and receive controlling instructions from the machine learning module. Doing so would promote quality of the workpiece by providing customized parameters to the specific situation. Additionally, incorporating the model would allow the recommendations to adapt and change as the processing fluctuates over time, thereby promoting increased quality of the workpiece.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki, in view of Prahbu et al. (US Patent 6439964), hereinafter Prahbu.
Regarding claim 11, Mochizuki teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Mochizuki does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing-rate profile comprises one selected from a plurality of polishing-rate profiles created by polishing a plurality of workpieces,
the plurality of polishing-rate profiles are obtained by:
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces; and
creating the plurality of polishing-rate profiles indicating distributions of polishing rate of the plurality of polished workpieces.
However, Prahbu teaches a method of controlling a polishing machine, wherein a method of determining a polishing recipe includes polishing a plurality of test substrates, measuring a polishing profile for each of the plurality of test substrates, and calculating a polishing time for each polishing parameter set which minimizes the difference between a predicted substrate profile and a desired substrate profile (col. 2, lines 50-57).
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 Mochizuki to incorporate the teachings of Prahbu to provide wherein a plurality of test substrates are polished, measured and calculated, and wherein the corresponding values are chosen according to the test substrate which minimizes the difference between the predicted substrate profile and the desired substrate profile (as taught by Prahbu). Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide a plurality of polishing-rate profiles created by polishing a plurality of test workpieces, and wherein the selected polishing-rate profile is selected based on minimizing the difference between the substrate profile and the desired substrate profile. Doing so would promote increased quality of the workpiece by customizing the calculations in order to minimize the difference with respect to a desired profile.
In summary, Mochizuki, as modified, teaches
wherein the polishing-rate profile comprises one selected from a plurality of polishing-rate profiles created by polishing a plurality of workpieces (as incorporated from Prahbu above, wherein a plurality of polishing-rate profiles are created by polishing a plurality of test workpieces),
the plurality of polishing-rate profiles are obtained by:
pressing the plurality of workpieces one by one against the polishing pad to polish the plurality of workpieces with different pressures set in the pressure chamber for each of the plurality of workpieces (as incorporated above, wherein a plurality of test workpieces are polished under different parameters); and
creating the plurality of polishing-rate profiles indicating distributions of polishing rate of the plurality of polished workpieces (as incorporated above, wherein each test workpiece is measured and provided as an option for comparison).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-7 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 and if the above 35 USC 101 rejections were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki, is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile; determining the polishing-rate coefficient that minimizes a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1 and 2.
Claims 3-4 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Mochizuki et al. (JP 2006043873), hereinafter Mochizuki, is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of adding a polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile; determining the polishing-rate coefficient and the polishing-rate offset that minimize a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and adding the determined polishing-rate offset to a value determined by multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 5 and 1.
Claims 6-7 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 5.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/519,827 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant 18/565,046
Copending 18/519,827
(Original) A method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of responsiveness of a polishing rate to a pressure change in a pressure chamber when a workpiece for use in manufacturing of semiconductor devices is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the pressure chamber therein, the method comprising:
1. (Original) A method of creating a polishing-rate responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of polishing-rate responsiveness to pressure change in a first pressure chamber and a second pressure chamber when a workpiece used for manufacturing a semiconductor device is pressed against a polishing pad with an elastic membrane forming the first pressure chamber and the second pressure chamber, the method comprising:
performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber;
2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein creating the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile 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;
pressing the workpiece against the polishing pad to polish the workpiece, while a predetermined pressure is maintained in the pressure chamber;
polishing the first workpiece by pressing the first workpiece against the polishing pad while maintaining a predetermined pressure in the first pressure chamber;
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished workpiece; and
creating a polishing-rate profile indicating a distribution of polishing rate of the polished first workpiece; and
creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile.
creating the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile based on the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile, the predetermined pressure, and the polishing-rate profile.
(Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein creating the polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein creating the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile comprises:
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile;
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the predetermined pressure and a polishing-rate coefficient to create a virtual polishing-rate profile;
determining the polishing-rate coefficient that minimizes a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and
determining the polishing-rate coefficient that minimizes a difference between the polishing-rate profile and the virtual polishing-rate profile; and
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the polishing-rate responsiveness profile.
multiplying the pressing-pressure responsiveness profile by the determined polishing-rate coefficient to create the estimated polishing-rate responsiveness profile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits the 101 rejection of claim 16 should be withdrawn in view of the amended language of “non-transitory”. The respective 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claim 1 is not directed towards a mental process. Applicant argues pressing the workpiece is not a mental step. Applicant argues the claim as a whole requires a physical processing step then generating step. Applicant argues the profile and generation steps are not mental processes and cannot be performed mentally (page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the 101 rejection above, the “pressing the workpiece” step was interpreted as an additional element which generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use and is well understood, routine and conventional as shown by Lee. Thus the additional element does not provide significantly more or a practical application. Additionally, the simulating and creating the polishing rate profile and the polishing rate responsiveness profile can be performed in the mind (with use of a physical aid, e.g. pen and paper) via conducting calculations, observing a polishing process and evaluating the results to create the claimed polishing rate profile. Therefore, the simulating and creating are mental processes and/or mathematical calculations. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the additional element of pressing the workpiece provides a practical application because the polishing-rate profile is obtained from the physically polished workpiece. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the generating steps were treated as mental processes and/or mathematical calculations. Regarding the pressing the workpiece step, this element was identified as an additional element rather than a mental process and/or mathematical calculation. The pressing the workpiece step was evaluated as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use, similar to how limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid was insufficient (MPEP 2106.05(h)vi). See above rejection and cited MPEP section for more details.
Applicant argues the analysis under step 2B is conclusory and unsupported and does not address the claim as a whole. Applicant argues the office action fails to analyze the claimed combination and relies instead on general statement regarding CMP apparatuses. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, the generating steps were treated as mental processes and/or mathematical calculations. Regarding the pressing the workpiece step, this element was identified as an additional element rather than a mental process and/or mathematical calculation. Therefore, the combination was evaluated as including part mental processes and/or mathematical calculations and part additional elements. The pressing the workpiece step was evaluated as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use and as well understood, routine and conventional, as shown by Lee. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Mochizuki fails to teach the language of performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber. Applicant argues Mochizuki’s teachings in [0065] fail to teach this limitation and that [0067] does not cure this deficiency. Applicant also argues the polishing-rate responsiveness profile cannot be based on the pressing pressure responsiveness profile if the pressing pressure responsiveness profile was never taught (pages 11-14 of Applicant’s Remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mochizuki teaches performing simulation to calculate a pressing-pressure responsiveness profile indicating a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied from the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber ([0065], the simulation tool calculates the predicted value of the polishing profile based on the pressure set value given to the back surface of the wafer and the distribution of the pressing force). Mochizuki teaches “This simulation tool can calculate the predicted value of the polishing profile based on the pressure set value given to the back surface of the wafer and the distribution of the pressing force and the polishing coefficient on the wafer surface calculated in advance” [0065]. That is, the simulated predicted value of the polishing profile based on the pressure set value given to the back surface of the wafer and the distribution of the pressing forces indirectly indicates a distribution of pressing pressure, which is to be applied form the workpiece to the polishing pad, changed in response to a change in unit pressure in the pressure chamber. The examiner recommends specifically narrowing what is intended by the word “indicates” as the profile is currently interpreted as indirectly indicating a distribution of pressing pressure. See above rejection for more details.
Claim 1 has been rejected over Mochizuki above. Claim 16 has been rejected similarly. Claims depending from claim 1 have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Claims 2-7 continue to be indicated as allowable. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues the double patenting rejections do not identify how the rejected claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims nor does it address any differences. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The formatting of the double patenting rejection was itemized to convey which section of the copending claims were utilized to teach the instant rejected claim. See above double patenting rejection table for more details. The double patenting rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
8. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights