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
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US20200039028A1) in view of Lugg (US 20160229023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Peng (US20200039028A1) discloses a polishing pad comprising: a disc-shaped base to be mounted to a tip end of a rotatable spindle; (FIGS. 3 and 4: polishing pad 306 with a disc shaped bottom surface 420 mounted to a tip end of rotatable platen 104)
and a pad portion fixed to one end surface of the base (FIG. 4: polishing pad layer 306D fixed to an end surface of bottom surface 420)
wherein at least a polishing surface of the pad portion is coated with a film, (the top surface of layer 306D for polishing—see ¶[0033]-[0034]—is coated with a separation layer 400)
such that the film remains on the polishing surface during mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle and forms a barrier between the polishing surface and external components during mounting, (Peng provides that separation layer 400 is capable of remaining on the top surface of layer 306D when polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104 and forms a barrier between the top surface of layer 306D and external components until layer 306D is removed, and thus during mounting, further meeting the limitations of the claim. See also FIG. 3 and ¶[0026])
and wherein the film is removable from the polishing surface after mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle (Peng provides that separation layer 400 is removed from the top of layer 306D when polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104, and thus after mounting of polishing pad 306 to platen 104, further meeting the limitations of the claim. See also FIG. 3 and ¶[0026]).
Peng does not disclose that the film is a resin film. However, Lugg (US 20160229023 A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing pads, teaches that a removable film on top of a polishing surface is a resin film (FIG. 3 and ¶[0029]: suitable pressure sensitive adhesive materials, e.g. layer 46 in FIG. 3 or layer 53 in FIG. 5, may include polyacrylates or polyolefins, which are resins).
However, given that both Lugg and Peng teach binding layers in multi-layer polishing pad, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the film of Peng with the resin film of Lugg. The result would have been predictable, and one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this substitution, which would have resulted in the claimed limitation of a film removable from the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified by Lugg as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the resin film is formed of water-soluble resin (Lugg ¶[0029]: pressure sensitive adhesive materials may be soluble in water).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified by Lugg as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the resin film is formed of a thermoplastic resin sheet (Lugg ¶[0029]: pressure sensitive adhesive material may include polyacrylates or polyolefins, which are classified as thermoplastic resins).
Regarding claim 4, Peng discloses a polishing method for polishing a workpiece with a polishing pad, (¶[0022]-[0023]) the polishing method comprising: a polishing pad mounting step of mounting the polishing pad (see ¶[0022]: polishing pad is loaded on a tip end of rotating platen 104) which includes a disc-shaped base to be mounted to a tip end of a rotatable spindle (FIGS. 3 and 4: polishing pad 306 with a disc shaped bottom surface 420 mounted to a tip end of rotatable platen 104) and a pad portion fixed to one end surface of the base, (FIG. 4: polishing pad layer 306D fixed to an end surface of bottom surface 420)
at least a polishing surface of the pad portion being coated with a film that remains on the polishing surface during mounting of the polishing pad onto the tip end of the spindle; (multilayer polishing pad 306 comprises separation layer 400 on the top surface of layer 306D, with the polishing pad as a whole loaded on the tip end of platen 104)
a separating step of separating the film from the pad portion after completion of the polishing pad mounting step and while the polishing pad is mounted to the spindle; (see ¶[0026] and [0046]-[0047]: the separation layer is removed from the polishing pad in method 600 when the polishing pad is mounted on the platen, after completion of the polishing pad mounting step)
a holding step of holding the workpiece on a holding surface of a chuck table; (wafer 112 is held on a bottom surface of wafer carrier 106; see ¶[0022] and FIG. 3)
and a polishing step of polishing the workpiece by individually rotating the polishing pad and the chuck table while the pad portion and the workpiece are brought into contact with each other (the wafer is polished by the individual rotation of the polishing pad on the platen and the wafer carrier—see ¶[0023]—with the wafer pressed against the rotating pad and thus in contact with each other—see ¶[0022]).
Peng does not disclose that the film is a resin film. However, Lugg (US 20160229023 A1) in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing pads, teaches that a removable film on top of a polishing surface is a resin film (FIG. 3 and ¶[0029]: suitable pressure sensitive adhesive materials, e.g. layer 46 in FIG. 3 or layer 53 in FIG. 5, may include polyacrylates or polyolefins, which are resins).
However, given that both Lugg and Peng teach binding layers in multi-layer polishing pad, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the film of Peng with the resin film of Lugg. The result would have been predictable, and one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this substitution, which would have resulted in the claimed limitation of a film removable from the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified by Lugg per the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches that the resin film is formed of water-soluble resin, (Lugg ¶[0029]: pressure sensitive adhesive materials may be soluble in water) and, in the separating step, water is jetted toward the resin film formed of the water-soluble resin, (see Peng ¶[0045]: the removal operation 600 includes pressurized water directed towards the separation layer, formed of water-soluble resin per Lugg).
Peng, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the water is jetted toward the resin film to dissolve the resin film and thereby separating the resin film from the pad portion. However, Peng teaches in ¶[0045] that rinsing removes byproducts from the top surface of the polishing pad and Lugg further teaches in ¶[0027] that any remaining portion of the resin film may be removed by rinsing with an appropriate solvent that solvates the resin layer. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separating step so that water is jetted toward the resin film formed of the water-soluble resin to dissolve the resin film, as the combination of Peng and Lugg teaches. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to “[limit] the downtime associated with polishing pad replacement” (Lugg ¶[0024]).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified by Lugg per the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches that the resin film is formed of a thermoplastic resin sheet, (Lugg ¶[0029]: pressure sensitive adhesive material may include polyacrylates or polyolefins, which are classified as thermoplastic resins) and, in the separating step, the resin film formed of the thermoplastic resin sheet is removed from the pad portion, thereby separating the resin film from the pad portion (see ¶[0026] and [0046]-[0047]: the separation layer is removed from the polishing pad in method 600).
Peng, as modified, does not teach that in the separating step, the resin film is removed from the pad portion by being peeled off.
However, Lugg further teaches a separating step in which the resin film is peeled from the pad portion (¶[0025]: pressure sensitive adhesive layer 46, along with pad layer 42, may be removed from the polishing pad with a peel force).
Given that both Peng and Lugg teach removal of binding layers in multi-layer polishing pads, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the removal means of Peng with the peeling step of Lugg. The result would have been predictable, and one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this substitution, which would have resulted in the claimed limitation of separating the resin film from the polishing pad portion.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that the resin film is configured to prevent direct contact between the polishing surface and a component of a polishing apparatus during mounting of the polishing pad (Peng provides that separation layer 400 is capable of remaining on the top surface of layer 306D when polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104 preventing direct contact between the top surface of layer 306D and external components of the polishing apparatus until layer 306D is removed, and thus during mounting, further meeting the limitations of the claim. See also FIG. 3 and ¶[0026])
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that the resin film remains on the polishing surface throughout mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle (Peng provides that separation layer 400 is capable of remaining on the top surface of layer 306D when polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104 until layer 306D is removed after wear, and thus throughout mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle, further meeting the limitations of the claim. See also FIG. 3 and ¶[0026]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that the resin film is removable from the polishing surface as a unitary layer (the entirety of separation layer is completely removed from the top surface of the polishing pad; see Peng ¶[0021] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that in the separating step, water is jetted toward the resin film while the polishing pad is mounted to the spindle (see Peng ¶[0045]: the removal operation 600 includes pressurized water directed towards the separation layer, formed of water-soluble resin per Lugg, with the polishing pad on the platen—see FIG. 3 and ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, further teaches that the resin film is removed without mechanically contacting the polishing surface (laser unit 302 removes the separation layer to expose a fresh top surface of layer 306D without mechanically contacting the layer 306D; see ¶[0034]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches a polishing apparatus comprising: a rotatable spindle; (Peng FIG. 3: polisher 300 comprising platen 104)
a polishing pad according to claim 1 mounted to the spindle; (see the discussion of claim 1 above; polishing pad 306 mounted to platen 104)
a pure water supply unit configured to jet water toward the polishing pad (nozzle 310 dispensing pressurized water 312 on the surface of polishing pad 306; see FIG. 3 and ¶[0045]);
and at least one component positioned adjacent the polishing pad during mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle, (FIG. 3: slurry feeder 110 positioned adjacent the polishing pad 306 as an integral part of the polishing apparatus—see ¶[0026] and [0045]—and thus present during mounting of the polishing pad to platen 104)
wherein the resin film of the polishing pad forms a barrier between the polishing surface and the at least one component during mounting of the polishing pad, (Peng provides that separation layer 400 is capable of remaining on the top surface of layer 306D when polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104 and forms a barrier between the top surface of layer 306D and external components until layer 306D is removed, and thus during mounting of the polishing pad, further meeting the limitations of the claim. See also FIG. 3 and ¶[0026])
and wherein the pure water supply unit is configured to direct water toward the resin film to facilitate removal of the resin film from the polishing surface after mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle (Please note that “to facilitate removal of the resin film from the polishing surface after mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle” is an intended use. Given that Peng teaches in ¶[0045] and [0052] that nozzle 310 directs water toward the top surface of the polishing pad in preparation of removal of the film while the polishing pad 306 is mounted to platen 104—and thus after mounting of the polishing pad to the platen—and further given that Lugg, as used to modify Peng in the discussion of claim 1, teaches that the resin film may be soluble in water—see Lugg ¶[0029]—with no additional structure provided or structural difference, the prior art would be capable of direct water toward the resin film to facilitate removal of the resin film from the polishing surface after mounting of the polishing pad to the spindle, meeting the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, further teaches that the pure water supply unit is positioned to direct water toward the polishing surface while the polishing pad is mounted to the spindle (nozzle 310 dispenses pressurized water 312 on the top surface of polishing pad 306, the polishing pad mounted to the platen; see FIG. 3 and ¶[0045]).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng (US20200039028A1) in view of Lugg (US 20160229023 A1), further in view of Murachi (US20180071884A1).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that the pure water supply unit comprises a nozzle positioned around the polishing pad and oriented to jet water toward the polishing surface (nozzle 310 is positioned around polishing pad 306 and dispenses water on the surface of polishing pad 306; see Peng ¶[0045]).
Peng, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the nozzle is positioned below the polishing pad. However, Murachi (US20180071884A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing apparatuses teaches a pure water supply unit comprising a nozzle positioned below the rotating polishing head and oriented to jet water toward the polishing surface (FIGS. 2 and 3: nozzle 410N is positioned below polishing head ph and supplies cleaning liquid, which may be water—see ¶[0055], towards a polishing surface of polishing head ph; see ¶[0059]).
Given that Peng and Murachi both teach water nozzles positioned toward the polishing surface of a polishing apparatus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the position of the nozzle in Peng, as modified, with the lower position of Murachi. The result would have been predictable, and one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this substitution, which would have resulted in the claimed limitation of jetting water towards the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated in this rejection. Peng, as modified, teaches that the pure water supply unit comprises a nozzle positioned around the polishing pad to jet water toward the polishing surface (nozzle 310 is positioned around polishing pad 306 and dispenses water on the surface of polishing pad 306; see Peng ¶[0045]).
Peng, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the nozzle is positioned below the polishing pad. However, Murachi (US20180071884A1), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to polishing apparatuses teaches a pure water supply unit comprising a nozzle positioned below the rotating polishing head and oriented to jet water toward the polishing surface (FIGS. 2 and 3: nozzle 410N is positioned below polishing head ph and supplies cleaning liquid, which may be water—see ¶[0055], towards a polishing surface of polishing head ph; see ¶[0059]).
Given that Peng and Murachi both teach water nozzles positioned toward the polishing surface of a polishing apparatus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the position of the nozzle in Peng, as modified, with the lower position of Murachi. The result would have been predictable, and one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this substitution, which would have resulted in the claimed limitation of jetting water towards the polishing surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner reminds the Applicant that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
