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 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 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “a second drive current detector” and “a second controller.” However, no “first” drive current detector or controller is recited in the claims. This makes it unclear if two detectors and controllers are necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, only a single drive current detector and controller will be read as being necessary to meet the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2022/0281069) in view of Mitsuhashi (US 6530827) and Kodera (US 2007/0254558).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches a polishing apparatus comprising: a head (106) configured to hold an object (wafer; [0059]); a polishing table (104; fig 2A) configured to polish a polishing target surface of the object (polishing table at second station 146; fig 3); a rotation table (table 104 at first station 146) that is capable of contacting the polishing target surface ([0059]); a particle supplier (110) configured to supply slurry onto the rotation table so that the particles are fixed onto at least part of the polishing target surface (slurry fixes to the target surface of the wafer upon contact), while the polishing target surface is contacting the rotation table ([0059]).
Hsu does not teach a chamber in which the polishing table and the rotation table are housed. Mitsuhashi teaches a polishing apparatus including a chamber (1) housing the polishing apparatus (as shown in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the polishing table and rotation table of Hsu in a chamber in order to achieve the predictable result of preventing contamination from the outside environment into the polishing process.
Hsu does not teach the supplied slurry contains particles. Kodera teaches a polishing apparatus including a slurry containing particles ([0051-0052]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slurry of Kodera, which contains particles, as the polishing slurry in the apparatus of Hsu in order to increase the contact area between the polishing pad and substrate as taught by Kodera ([0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 2 further defines at least part of the polishing target surface includes a stepped portion or concave portion of the polishing target surface. However, the “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115). As the apparatus of Hsu is capable of working on such a workpiece, claim 2 is seen as obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu further teaches the particle supplier includes a dropper (122) configured to supply the slurry onto the rotation table by dropping the slurry from above the rotation table (fig 2B; [0041]).
Regarding claims 5-7, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kodera further teaches the particle supplier supplies the slurry (the slurry of Kodera is included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above), the slurry further containing at least one of a flocculant that flocculates the particles or a dispersant that disperses the particles (Kodera [0146]); the slurry containing a plurality of the particles having different particle diameters ([0052]); and the particles contain at least one of silica, ceria, polyurethane, or polyethylene (Kodera [0146]).
Regarding claim 12, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu further teaches the rotation table includes a pad (104) provided on a contact surface (fig 2A; top surface of 102) with the polishing target surface (contacting target surface of wafer 108 as shown in fig 2A).
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, Mitsuhashi, and Kodera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2019/0314950).
Regarding claim 3, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu does not teach the particle supplier including a supply tube penetrating through the rotation table an being opened at a surface of the rotation table which contacts the polishing surface. Inoue teaches a polishing apparatus including a particle supplier including a supply tube (78) through which the slurry is supplied onto the rotation table (76; fig 3; [0059]), the supply tube penetrating through the rotation table and being opened at a surface of the rotation table which contacts the polishing target surface (as shown in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a particle supplier including a supply tube penetrating through the rotation table an being opened at a surface of the rotation table which contacts the polishing surface of Hsu, as this ensures slurry always exists at the portion which contacts the polishing table as taught by Inoue ([0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu does not teach a gas supplier configured to supply gas onto the rotation table. Inoue teaches a polishing apparatus including a gas supplier (82) configured to supply gas onto the rotation table (fig 2) in order to help spread slurry across the rotation table as taught by Inoue ([0005]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, Mitsuhashi, and Kodera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2021/0046603).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu does not teach the rotation table including a temperature control system. Wu teaches a polishing apparatus including rotation table (30) including a table temperature control system configured to adjust temperature of the rotation table ([0110-0113]; temperature control system controls temperature of slurry which is deposited onto rotation table for heating). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a table temperature control system to adjust the temperature of the rotation table of Hsu, as temperature of the rotation table can affect polishing uniformity as taught by Wu ([0020]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, Mitsuhashi, and Kodera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 10058974).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu does not teach a first drive current detector or first controller configured to control the particle supplier based on change of the detected drive current. Chen teaches a polishing apparatus including a first drive current detector (60) configured to detect drive current of a head during rotation (paragraph starting col 4, line 65); and a first controller (70) configured to control a particle supplier (35) based on change of the detected drive current (col 5, lines 11-15; col 5, lines 35-43). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first drive current detector to detect drive current of the head of Hsu and to control the particle supplier, as this allows automatic control to maintain proper polishing layer uniformity as taught by Chen (col 5, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 11, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hsu does not teach a second drive current detector or second controller configured time switching between processing of the object by the polishing table and rotation table. Chen teaches a polishing apparatus including a second drive current detector (60) configured to detect drive current of the head during rotation (paragraph starting col 4, line 65) and a second controller (70) configured to control, based on change of the detected drive current, timing of switching between processing of the object by the polishing table (col 5, lines 11-15). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a drive current detector to detect drive current of the head of Hsu and to control processing time on the rotation table as taught by Chen (col 5, lines 11-15), thus controlling the time of switching to processing at the polishing table of Hsu, as this allows control of polishing thickness as taught by Chen (col 5, lines 53-43).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2022/0281069) in view of Kodera (US 2007/0254558).
Regarding claim 13, Hsu teaches a polishing method comprising: supplying slurry (with 110; [0023]) onto a rotation table (rotation table 104 at first station 146; fig 3); contacting a polishing target surface of an object with the rotation table (as shown in fig 2A) so that the particles are fixed onto at least part of the polishing target surface (slurry fixes to the target surface of the wafer upon contact); and polishing the polishing target surface on at least part of which the particles are fixed, the polishing target surface being polished with a polishing table (polished with slurry at polishing table including table at second station 146 as described [0059]).
Hsu does not teach the supplied slurry contains particles. Kodera teaches a polishing apparatus including a slurry containing particles ([0051-0052]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slurry of Kodera, which contains particles, as the polishing slurry in the apparatus of Hsu in order to increase the contact area between the polishing pad and substrate as taught by Kodera ([0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 14, Hsu, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Hsu further teaches repeatedly contacting the polishing target surface with the rotation table and then polishing the polishing target surface on at least part of which the particles are fixed (repeated contact described in [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Hsu teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing method for a semiconductor substrate on which a film is formed, the method comprising: polishing the film on the semiconductor substrate (film discussed [0003]) by: supplying slurry (with 110; [0023]) onto a rotation table (rotation table 104 at first station 146; fig 3), contacting a surface of the film with the rotation table (as shown in fig 2A) so that the particles are fixed onto at least part of the surface (slurry fixes to the target surface of the wafer upon contact), and polishing the surface on at least part of which the particles are fixed, the surface being polished with a polishing table (polished with slurry at polishing table including table at second station 146 as described [0059]).
Hsu does not teach the supplied slurry contains particles. Kodera teaches a polishing apparatus including a slurry containing particles ([0051-0052]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the slurry of Kodera, which contains particles, as the polishing slurry in the apparatus of Hsu in order to increase the contact area between the polishing pad and substrate as taught by Kodera ([0051-0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar polishing apparatuses and methods are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723