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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“of inter-plate distance” (claim 5, line 7) should be changed to --of an inter-plate distance--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the desired inter-plate distance” (lines 20-21). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-4 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the desired inter-plate distance” (line 15). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 6-7 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 5.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pietsch
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20080233840 A1 (“Pietsch”).
Regarding claim 1, Pietsch discloses a double-side polishing method for a work (Abstr.; ¶¶ 0152-0169; Figs. 1-3, 25a-b, 26) comprising,
holding a work on a carrier plate having one or more holding holes to hold a work, sandwiching the work with a rotating plate comprising an upper plate and a lower plate (Figs. 1-3, 25a-b, 26, wafers 15 are held in holes 14 on carriers 13 between the upper plate 1 and lower plate 4 for polishing; ¶¶ 0147-0150),
and simultaneously polishing both sides of the work by rotating the rotating plate and the carrier plate relative to each other through a rotation of a sun gear provided at a center of the rotating plate and a rotation of an internal gear provided at a periphery of the rotating plate (Figs. 1-3, 25a-b, 26, polishing both sides of wafer 15 by rotating upper plate 1 and lower plate 4 relative to the carriers 13 via sun gear 7 and internal gear 9; ¶¶ 0147-0150),
wherein the method further comprises:
a relational data obtaining process, including obtaining relational data, in advance, that indicates a relationship between an inter-plate distance, which is a distance between the upper plate and the lower plate at two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different, and a flatness of the work (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, the relationship between the inter-plate distances at multiple positions and wafer flatness is obtained and known in advance (e.g., from previous polishing processes): “the greatest flatness of the semiconductor wafers in the case of machining by the method according to the invention is obtained if the working gap has a largely uniform width in the radial direction during machining, that is to say that the working disks run parallel to one another or have a slight gape from the inside toward the outside” (¶ 0168); ¶ 0160, “This involves firstly determining the radial profile of the working gap in the rest state of the grinding apparatus used, for a plurality of temperatures of the working disks. For this purpose, by way of example, the upper working disk with three identical end measures at fixed points and under fixed applied load is brought to nominally uniform distance with respect to the lower working disk and the radial profile of the resulting gap between the working disks is determined for example using a micrometer probe. This is carried out for different temperatures of the cooling circuit of the working disks. This yields a characterization of the alteration of the form of the working disks and of the working gap depending on the temperature.”),
an optimum distance calculation process, including calculating, by a calculation section, an optimum value of the inter-plate distance at two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different to obtain a desired flatness of the work, based on the relational data obtained in the relational data obtaining process (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, during the grinding process, calculation section 92, 93 calculates an optimum value (e.g., a value to obtain a flat wafer) of inter-plate distance at multiple positions as recited via distance sensors 37, 38, based on the relational data obtained above; ¶ 0167, “In a first, slow control loop, the contactless distance sensors 37 and 38 continuously transmit measurement signals 90 and 91 to a control element 93 via a differential element 92. The control element transmits a manipulated variable 94 to an actuating element 23 for disk deformation. A slow drift in the geometry of the working gap can thus be corrected.”; ¶ 0159, “Preferably, during the course of grinding, the gap is measured continuously by means of at least two contactless distance measuring sensors incorporated into at least one of the working disks and at least one of the two working disks is constantly readjusted by measures for targeted deformation in such a way that despite an alternating thermal load input during the machining, which, as is known, brings about an undesirable deformation of the working disks, a desired course of the working gap is always obtained.”),
and a control process, including; controlling a shape of the rotating plate, based on real-time measurements of the inter-plate distance, to control the inter-plate distance to the optimum value determined by the optimum distance calculation process until the desired inter-plate distance is reached. (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, control section 93 controls actuators 23 to adjust the tilt of the upper plate 1 to control the inter-plate distance at multiple positions to the optimum value; ¶ 0167, “In a first, slow control loop, the contactless distance sensors 37 and 38 continuously transmit measurement signals 90 and 91 to a control element 93 via a differential element 92. The control element transmits a manipulated variable 94 to an actuating element 23 for disk deformation. A slow drift in the geometry of the working gap can thus be corrected.”; ¶ 0159, “Preferably, during the course of grinding, the gap is measured continuously by means of at least two contactless distance measuring sensors incorporated into at least one of the working disks and at least one of the two working disks is constantly readjusted by measures for targeted deformation in such a way that despite an alternating thermal load input during the machining, which, as is known, brings about an undesirable deformation of the working disks, a desired course of the working gap is always obtained.”).
Regarding claim 2, Pietsch discloses the double-side polishing method for a work of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein in the relational data obtaining process and the optimum distance calculation process, the two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different include, at least, a radially outer end position of the rotating plate and a radially inner end position of the rotating plate (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, the two or more positions include a radially inner end position (at sensor 37) and a radially outer end position (at sensor 38)).
Regarding claim 3, Pietsch discloses the double-side polishing method for a work of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses:
wherein
in the relational data obtaining process, differential relational data that indicates a relationship between a difference between the inter-plate distances at only two positions, where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different, and the flatness of the work is obtained in advance (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, the relationship between the difference of the inter-plate distances at two positions (at sensor positions 37 and 38, via differential element 92) and wafer flatness is obtained and known in advance (e.g., from previous polishing processes): “the greatest flatness of the semiconductor wafers in the case of machining by the method according to the invention is obtained if the working gap has a largely uniform width in the radial direction during machining, that is to say that the working disks run parallel to one another or have a slight gape from the inside toward the outside” (¶ 0168)),
in the optimum distance calculation process, the optimum value of the difference is calculated (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, calculation section 92, 93 calculates the optimum value of the difference (e.g., a value to obtain a flat wafer) between two inter-plate distance at two positions as recited via distance sensors 37, 38, based on the relational data obtained above),
and in the control process, the shape of the rotating plate is controlled to control the difference to the optimum value of the difference (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, control section 93 controls actuators 23 to adjust the tilt of the upper plate 1 to control the difference between the inter-plate distances at two positions to the optimum value).
Regarding claim 5, Pietsch discloses a double-side polishing apparatus for a work (Abstr.; ¶¶ 0152-0169; Figs. 1-3, 25a-b, 26) comprising:
a rotating plate having an upper plate and a lower plate, a sun gear provided at a center of the rotating plate, an internal gear provided at a periphery of the rotating plate, and a carrier plate provided between the upper plate and the lower plate having one or more holding holes to hold the work (Figs. 1-3, 25a-b, 26, double-side polishing apparatus as shown, with a rotating plate having upper plate 1 and lower plate 4, wafers 15 are held in holes 14 on carriers 13 between the upper plate 1 and lower plate 4 for polishing, where the carrier 13 is rotated by sun gear 7 and internal gear 9; ¶¶ 0147-0150),
wherein the apparatus further comprises:
a calculation section that calculates an optimum value of [an] inter-plate distance, which is a distance between the upper plate and the lower plate at two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different, to obtain a desired flatness of the work, based on previously obtained relational data indicating a relationship between the inter-plate distance at two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different and a flatness of the work (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, calculation section 92, 93 calculates an optimum value (e.g., a value to obtain a flat wafer) of inter-plate distance at multiple positions as recited via distance sensors 37, 38, where the relationship between the inter-plate distances at multiple positions and wafer flatness is a previously known relationship: “the greatest flatness of the semiconductor wafers in the case of machining by the method according to the invention is obtained if the working gap has a largely uniform width in the radial direction during machining, that is to say that the working disks run parallel to one another or have a slight gape from the inside toward the outside” (¶ 0168); ¶ 0160, “This involves firstly determining the radial profile of the working gap in the rest state of the grinding apparatus used, for a plurality of temperatures of the working disks. For this purpose, by way of example, the upper working disk with three identical end measures at fixed points and under fixed applied load is brought to nominally uniform distance with respect to the lower working disk and the radial profile of the resulting gap between the working disks is determined for example using a micrometer probe. This is carried out for different temperatures of the cooling circuit of the working disks. This yields a characterization of the alteration of the form of the working disks and of the working gap depending on the temperature.”; ¶ 0167, “In a first, slow control loop, the contactless distance sensors 37 and 38 continuously transmit measurement signals 90 and 91 to a control element 93 via a differential element 92. The control element transmits a manipulated variable 94 to an actuating element 23 for disk deformation. A slow drift in the geometry of the working gap can thus be corrected.”; ¶ 0159, “Preferably, during the course of grinding, the gap is measured continuously by means of at least two contactless distance measuring sensors incorporated into at least one of the working disks and at least one of the two working disks is constantly readjusted by measures for targeted deformation in such a way that despite an alternating thermal load input during the machining, which, as is known, brings about an undesirable deformation of the working disks, a desired course of the working gap is always obtained.”),
and a control section that controls a shape of the rotating plate, based on real-time measurements of the inter-plate distance, to control the inter-plate distance to the optimum value determined by the calculation section until the desired inter-plate distance is reached (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, control section 93 controls actuators 23 to adjust the tilt of the upper plate 1 to control the inter-plate distance at multiple positions to the optimum value; ¶ 0167, “In a first, slow control loop, the contactless distance sensors 37 and 38 continuously transmit measurement signals 90 and 91 to a control element 93 via a differential element 92. The control element transmits a manipulated variable 94 to an actuating element 23 for disk deformation. A slow drift in the geometry of the working gap can thus be corrected.”; ¶ 0159, “Preferably, during the course of grinding, the gap is measured continuously by means of at least two contactless distance measuring sensors incorporated into at least one of the working disks and at least one of the two working disks is constantly readjusted by measures for targeted deformation in such a way that despite an alternating thermal load input during the machining, which, as is known, brings about an undesirable deformation of the working disks, a desired course of the working gap is always obtained.”).
Regarding claim 6, Pietsch discloses the double-side polishing apparatus for a work of claim 5 as applied above and further discloses wherein the two or more positions where distances from the center of the rotating plate are different include, at least, a radially inner end position of the rotating plate and a radially outer end position of the rotating plate (Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169, the two or more positions include a radially inner end position (at sensor 37) and a radially outer end position (at sensor 38)).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Pietsch in view of Ogata
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20080233840 A1 (“Pietsch”) in view of US 20150165585 A1 (“Ogata”).
Pietsch pertains to a wafer polishing apparatus and method (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Ogata pertains to a wafer polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Pietsch discloses the double-side polishing method for a work of claim 1 as applied above. Pietsch does not explicitly disclose wherein the flatness of the work is the flatness indexed by GBIR. However, the Pietsch/Ogata combination makes obvious this claim.
Ogata discloses wherein the flatness of the work is the flatness indexed by GBIR (Figs. 9, 13; ¶¶ 0091-0096, flatness of the polished wafer is evaluated under GBIR (global backside ideal focal plane range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ogata with Pietsch by modifying the method of Pietsch to use flatness based on GBIR (as opposed to other measurements of flatness) as taught by Ogata because it is known that “GBIR is an indicator representing the flatness of the entire surface of the wafers and a smaller GBIR means a higher flatness”, and GBIR flatness would account for the entire surface of the wafer as opposed to other flatness metrics such as ESFQR that do not account for the entire surface of the wafer (Ogata ¶ 0091). Further, available measurement systems in the industry use GBIR to evaluate wafer flatness: “In this example, a flatness measurement system (WaferSight manufactured by KLA-Tencor Corporation) was used for the measurement.” (Ogata ¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 7, Pietsch discloses the double-side polishing apparatus for a work of claim 5 as applied above. Pietsch does not explicitly disclose wherein the flatness of the work is the flatness indexed by GBIR. However, the Pietsch/Ogata combination makes obvious this claim.
Ogata discloses wherein the flatness of the work is the flatness indexed by GBIR (Figs. 9, 13; ¶¶ 0091-0096, flatness of the polished wafer is evaluated under GBIR (global backside ideal focal plane range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ogata with Pietsch by modifying the apparatus of Pietsch to use flatness based on GBIR (as opposed to other measurements of flatness) as taught by Ogata because it is known that “GBIR is an indicator representing the flatness of the entire surface of the wafers and a smaller GBIR means a higher flatness”, and GBIR flatness would account for the entire surface of the wafer as opposed to other flatness metrics such as ESFQR that do not account for the entire surface of the wafer (Ogata ¶ 0091). Further, available measurement systems in the industry use GBIR to evaluate wafer flatness: “In this example, a flatness measurement system (WaferSight manufactured by KLA-Tencor Corporation) was used for the measurement.” (Ogata ¶ 0091).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification.
Claims – The objections to claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-7 are pending. Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As an initial matter, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Pietsch (Reply at 13-15). The new grounds of rejection above for claims 1 and 5 address Applicant’s arguments (Reply at 15) concerning the amended limitations, including the “real-time measurements of the inter-plate distance”. Applicant’s argument that Pietsch fails to show the “relational data” relies on a narrow interpretation of the term and relies on additional limitations that are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP § 2145(VI). Specifically, Pietsch discloses the recited “relational data” (e.g., Figs. 8-10, 16-17, 25a-b, 26; ¶¶ 0152-0169) between inter-plate distance and work flatness, which is used to calculate an optimal inter-plate distance in real time, where the optimal inter-plate distance is the one that produces the flattest work (¶ 0159, “Preferably, during the course of grinding, the gap is measured continuously by means of at least two contactless distance measuring sensors incorporated into at least one of the working disks and at least one of the two working disks is constantly readjusted by measures for targeted deformation in such a way that despite an alternating thermal load input during the machining, which, as is known, brings about an undesirable deformation of the working disks, a desired course of the working gap is always obtained.”).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights