DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figure 1B: 199
Figure 2: H1, S1
Figure 3B: 421, 423, 427
Figure 4B: 421, 423, 427
Figure 5: 500
Figure 6: 421, 423, 427, 450
Figure 8A: 810
Figure 8B: 1, 2, 82 (note: these reference characters may have been intended to be “821” and “822”, which are described in the Specification)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 2-4, 12-14, 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 all recite a limitation where a variable (“N” or “M”) is required to be an integer and is required to be ≈ a formula. The symbol ≈ is understood to mean “approximately”, however it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what potential range of values might be considered “approximately” the result of calculating the formula. For example, since the formula is capable of resulting in non-integer values, it is not clear if approximately only requires that the result be rounded to the nearest integer, or if the integer both higher and lower than the result could be considered approximately. Further, approximately could be understood to encompass every integer within a range of the result (for example every integer within 3 integers, or within 5 integers, of the calculated result) or every integer within a percentage of the result (for example 10% or 20%). As it is not clear what would be required by this limitation, the claims 2, 3, and 13 are indefinite. Claims 4 and 14 are indefinite due to being dependent upon claims 2 and 13.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, any value that is either within 5 integers of the result, or within 20% of the result, will be considered to be meeting the requirement of being approximately the result.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the multiplicity of consecutive traces provide a multiplicity of sweeps that substantially cover the substrate”. It is unclear what exactly is required in order for the substrate to be considered “substantially” covered by the sweeps. There is no ordinary and customary meaning to this term for those of ordinary skill in the art and the instant Specification does not have the express intent to provide a special definition, teaching only that “the 'substantiality' of the scanned portion is not solely based on the percentage of areas scanned by one or more sensors” and “it encompasses various factors”. Therefore, it would not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art what is required by the instant limitation, and claim 15 is indefinite.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation will be used: the term “substantially” will be interpreted as meaning only the standard definition: “to a significant extent”, such that any multiplicity of consecutive traces considered by the prior art as being suitable for generating an estimated thickness or determining an endpoint will be considered meeting the instant limitation, as those multiplicity of consecutive traces would be sufficient for their desired use.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 5, and 10 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 5, and 7 of Application No. 18/582,534. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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, 5, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/582.534 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application recite every limitation required by the claims of the instant application and differ only by including additional method steps. Therefore, the claims of the instant application can be considered anticipated by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 CFR 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US-20190299356-A1, hereafter Xu-356) in view of Xu et al. (US-20180079052-A1, hereafter Xu-052).
Regarding Claim 1, Xu-356 teaches a computer program product for controlling a polishing system, the computer program product residing on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising instructions (Paragraph [0118] operations can be implemented as computer software, a computer program product in non-transitory machine readable storage medium) for causing one or more computers to:
during polishing of a conductive layer on a substrate, receive a sequence of traces from a sensor of an in-situ eddy current monitoring system, each trace being a sequence of raw signal values generated by sweeping the sensor across the substrate (Paragraph [0044] a sequence of values are gathered from the in-situ monitoring system. Paragraph [0045]. In-situ monitoring system is an eddy current monitoring system. Paragraph [0048-0053] signals are due to impedance changes, and vary over time during processing. Paragraph [0067] a combination of multiple values gathered during a sweep can form a trace);
generate a sequence of estimated thickness values based on the sequence of traces (Paragraph [0056] signals gathered can be used to estimate the thickness); and
at least one of detect a polishing endpoint or modify a polishing parameter based on the sequence of estimated thickness values (Paragraph [0007] endpoint is detected or polishing parameter is modified based on the thickness values).
Xu-356 fails to teach generate a sequence of average traces by calculating a running average of a multiplicity of consecutive traces from the sequence of traces.
Xu-052 teaches a method of polishing that includes an in-situ monitoring system that measures the thickness of the layer being polished (Paragraphs [0008-0009]). Xu-052 teaches that the signal gathered by the in-situ monitoring system, which can be an eddy current monitoring system, can be modified by having a running average applied to it (Paragraph [0013]). Xu-052 teaches that the use of a filter, such as calculating the running average, can reduce the noise in the signal (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Xu-356 by applying a filter, in particular a running average filter, to the traces gathered prior to generating the sequence of estimated thickness values, as taught by Xu-052.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of such a filter would reduce the noise in the signal and therefore improve the accuracy of the estimated thickness values (Xu-052 Paragraph [0024]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of providing a set of instructions that could generate estimate thickness values for detecting an endpoint. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches wherein the instructions to generate the sequence of estimated thickness values comprise instructions to generate a sequence of measured thickness profiles, each thickness profiling includes thickness values as a function of time or radial position on the substrate (Paragraph [0058] Figure 4 thickness profile example given of sweep over time or radial position).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches wherein the instructions to generate the sequence of measured thickness profiles comprise instruction to convert signal values from a trace to thickness values using a correlation curve (Paragraph [0056] correlation curve can be used to relate signal measured into thickness).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Xu-356 fails to teach wherein the instructions to detect a polishing endpoint include instructions to compensate for a delay introduced by the running average.
Xu-052 further teaches that a compensation for a time delay, due to the filtering of the signal, is used to adjust the triggering of a polishing endpoint (Paragraphs [0008-0009]). Xu-052 teaches that the use of a compensation for the time delay allows the process to ensure the polishing is stopped when the endpoint is reached, and polishing does not continue past the endpoint due to the time needed for measurement (Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Xu-356 by including the delay taught by Xu-052.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of the compensation time value would have ensured that the substrate was not polished past the desired endpoint (Xu-052 Paragraph [0025]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This modification would have had the predictable result of including an additional calculation (the compensation for the time delay) into the process of detecting the endpoint. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above. Xu-052 further teaches wherein the instructions to compensate for the delay introduced by the running average include instructions to adjust a target thickness by an amount based on a polishing rate and a delay time for the running average or adjusting an endpoint time by the delay time (Paragraphs [0055-0056] the target thickness can be adjusted by using the delay time and the polishing rate. Paragraphs [0057-0058] the endpoint can be adjusted by the delay time).
Regarding Claim 10, Xu-356 teaches a method of chemical mechanical polishing (Paragraph [0007] method of polishing taught), comprising:
polishing a conductive layer on a substrate (Paragraph [0006] conductive layer thickness measurement can be done using eddy current measurements. Paragraph [0046-0048] conductive layer is measured for changes in thickness during operation, as the conductive layer is being polished in the process);
monitoring the conductive layer during the polishing with an in-situ eddy current monitoring system, including repeatedly sweeping a sensor of the in-situ eddy current monitoring system across substrate such that each sweep generates a sequence of raw signal values that provides a trace and the repeated sweeping provides a sequence of traces (Paragraph [0044] a sequence of values are gathered from the in-situ monitoring system. Paragraph [0045]. In-situ monitoring system is an eddy current monitoring system. Paragraph [0048-0053] signals are due to impedance changes, and vary over time during processing. Paragraph [0067] a combination of multiple values gathered during a sweep can form a trace);
generating a sequence of estimated thickness values based on the sequence of traces (Paragraph [0056] signal gather can be used to estimate the thickness); and
at least one of detecting a polishing endpoint or modifying a polishing parameter based on the sequence of estimated thickness values (Paragraph [0007] endpoint is detected or polishing parameter is modified based on the thickness values).
Xu-356 fails to teach generating a sequence of average traces by calculating a running average of a multiplicity of consecutive traces from the sequence of traces.
Xu-052 teaches a method of polishing that includes an in-situ monitoring system that measures the thickness of the layer being polished (Paragraphs [0008-0009]). Xu-052 teaches that the signal gathered by the in-situ monitoring system, which can be an eddy current monitoring system, can be modified by having a running average applied to it (Paragraph [0013]). Xu-052 teaches that the use of a filter, such as calculating the running average, can reduce the noise in the signal (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Xu-356 by applying a filter, in particular a running average filter, to the traces gathered prior to generating the sequence of estimated thickness values, as taught by Xu-052.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of such a filter would reduce the noise in the signal and therefore improve the accuracy of the estimated thickness values (Xu-052 Paragraph [0024]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of providing a set of instructions that could generate estimate thickness values for detecting an endpoint. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches wherein each trace includes signal values as a function of time or position (Paragraph [0058] Figure 4 thickness profile of a trace example given which notes data is thickness over time or radial position) and Xu-052 further teaches calculating the running average comprises averaging signal values from the multiplicity of traces having the same time or position (Paragraphs [0051-0052] the signals are acquired at a set frequency).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches wherein a polishing pad and the sensor are supported on a rotating platen (Paragraphs [0039] and [0046] Figure 1A eddy current monitoring system (element 160) and polishing pad (element 110) are supported by rotating platen (element 120)).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above. Modified Xu-356 as outlined above further teaches wherein the multiplicity of consecutive traces provide a multiplicity of sweeps that substantially cover the substrate (Note: this claim is being interpreted as outlined in the 112 rejection section above. Examiner takes the position that method of modified Xu-356 as outlined above in the rejection of claim 10, teaches that the multiplicity of sweeps substantially cover the substrate as they are taught to cover the substrate to an extent that is considered to be sufficient within the taught methods).
Claims 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xu-356 in view of Xu-052, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US-20240043719-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches comprising instructions to control a rotation rate of a platen, control a rotation rate of a carrier head holding the substrate (Paragraph [0055] controller can control the carrier head (element 140) rotation rate and platen rotation rate).
Modified Xu-356 fails to teach wherein the multiplicity of sweeps is at least N sweeps, where N is an integer with N≈(1/2)*(R1/(R2-R1)) where R1 is the rotation rate of the carrier head and R2 is the rotation rate of the platen. However, Xu-052 teaches an example where the running average includes 5 values (Paragraph [0054]).
Park teaches a method of polishing a semiconductor device (Paragraph [0001]). Park teaches that during polishing both the polishing pad and the substrate can be rotated at rates from 10 to 500 rpm (Paragraph [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Xu-356 by using rotation rates for the polishing pad and the carrier head within the range of rpms taught by Park. With this modification, then the modified Xu-356 would teach that the N could equal a range of values from 2 to 250 ( (100/(125-100))*0.5=2 , (499/(500-499))*.5=249.5 ). As noted above, Xu-052 teaches that the running average can include 5 values, which would be included within the range possible by the rotation rates taught by Park.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing suitable rotation rates for a polishing method. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Examiner takes the position that the range of values for N, as calculated through the use of the rotation rates as outlined above, when N is considered as the minimum number of sweeps overlaps with the number of sweeps included within the multiplicity of sweeps that are taught by the prior art and these can be considered as overlapping with what is claimed by the instant limitation. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. As outlined above in regards to claim 2, modified Xu-356 teaches a range of rotation rates for the polishing pad and substrate, using these rotation rates the value of M can be calculated to range from 2 to 499 ( (100/(150-100))=2 , (499/(500-499))=499 ).
Examiner takes the position that the range of values for M, as calculated through the use of the rotation rates as outlined above, when M is considered as the maximum number of sweeps overlaps with the number of sweeps included within the multiplicity of sweeps that are taught by the prior art and these can be considered as overlapping with what is claimed by the instant limitation. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Xu-052 further teaches wherein N is 4 to 8 (Paragraph [0054] an example where the running average includes 5 values is taught).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Xu-356 further teaches comprising instructions to control a rotation rate of a platen, control a rotation rate of a carrier head holding the substrate (Paragraph [0055] controller can control the carrier head (element 140) rotation rate and platen rotation rate).
Modified Xu-356 fails to teach wherein the multiplicity of sweeps is at least N sweeps, where N is an integer with N≈(1/2)*(R1/(R2-R1)) where R1 is the rotation rate of the carrier head and R2 is the rotation rate of the platen. However, Xu-052 teaches an example where the running average includes 5 values (Paragraph [0054]).
Park teaches a method of polishing a semiconductor device (Paragraph [0001]). Park teaches that during polishing both the polishing pad and the substrate can be rotated at rates from 10 to 500 rpm (Paragraph [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Xu-356 by using rotation rates for the polishing pad and the carrier head within the range of rpms taught by Park. With this modification, then the modified Xu-356 would teach that the N could equal a range of values from 2 to 250 ( (100/(125-100))*0.5=2 , (499/(500-499))*.5=249.5 ). As noted above, Xu-052 teaches that the running average can include 5 values, which would be included within the range possible by the rotation rates taught by Park.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing suitable rotation rates for a polishing method. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Examiner takes the position that the range of values for N, as calculated through the use of the rotation rates as outlined above, when N is considered as the minimum number of sweeps overlaps with the number of sweeps included within the multiplicity of sweeps that are taught by the prior art and these can be considered as overlapping with what is claimed by the instant limitation. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. Xu-052 further teaches wherein N is 4 to 8 (Paragraph [0054] an example where the running average includes 5 values is taught).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Xu-356 in view of Xu-052, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US-20210379723-A1, hereafter Xu-723).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Xu-356 fails to teach comprising instructions to, for each average trace, subtract an underlying layer trace from the average trace to generate a modified trace.
Xu-723 teaches a method of polishing a substrate that includes using an in-situ eddy current monitoring system to determine the endpoint or modify a polishing parameter (Paragraph [0007]). Xu-723 teaches that a trace is measured that can represent the profile of the underlying layers of the substrate to be polished (Paragraph [0082]). Xu-723 teaches that the trace that represents the underlying layers is subtracted from the measured trace of the water that is polished, and that doing this subtraction results in a more accurate measurement of the thickness of the layer that is being polished (Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Xu-356 by subtracting a trace representing the underlaying layers from the average trace in order to generate a modified trace that could be used for endpoint detection as taught by Xu-723.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow from a more accurate measurement of the thickness of the layer being polished (Xu-723 Paragraph [0029]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a modified trace that could then be used in the further method steps. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Xu-356 teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as outlined above.
Modified Xu-356 fails to teach comprising instructions to, for each average trace, subtract an underlying layer trace from the average trace to generate a modified trace.
Xu-723 teaches a method of polishing a substrate that includes using an in-situ eddy current monitoring system to determine the endpoint or modify a polishing parameter (Paragraph [0007]). Xu-723 teaches that a trace is measured that can represent the profile of the underlying layers of the substrate to be polished (Paragraph [0082]). Xu-723 teaches that the trace that represents the underlying layers is subtracted from the measured trace of the water that is polished, and that doing this subtraction results in a more accurate measurement of the thickness of the layer that is being polished (Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Xu-356 by subtracting a trace representing the underlaying layers from the average trace in order to generate a modified trace that could be used for endpoint detection as taught by Xu-723.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow from a more accurate measurement of the thickness of the layer being polished (Xu-723 Paragraph [0029]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a modified trace that could then be used in the further method steps. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights