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 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the film falls below a predetermined film thickness” should read --the film falls below the predetermined film thickness-- as a predetermined film thickness is previously recited in claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 “a first sensor that outputs a first signal” and “a second sensor that outputs a second signal”. Since “outputs” is an active method step, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus with a first and second sensor which is capable of outputting a signal or whether infringement occurs when the first and second sensors actually outputs the first and second signals. See MPEP 2173.05(p)-II. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “a first sensor that outputs a first signal” to be --a first sensor configured to output a first signal-- and “a second sensor that outputs a second signal” to be --a second sensor configured to output a second signal--.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation that the detector “detects”. Since “detects” is an active method step, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates an apparatus with a detector which is capable of detecting or whether infringement occurs when the detector actually detects. See MPEP 2173.05(p)-II. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this action, examiner is interpreting “detects” to be --configured to detect--.
Claims 3-9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tada et al. (US20120088438), hereinafter Tada.
Regarding claim 1, Tada discloses a polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing table (Fig. 1 element 100) with a polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 101) for polishing a film formed on a substrate (0118, where "wafer W" corresponds to a substrate and the surface of the substrate being polished corresponds to a film);
a holder (Fig. 1 element 1) configured to hold the substrate and press the substrate against the polishing pad (0119);
a first sensor (Fig. 5A element 51,0035 and 0205-0207, where "end point detecting sensor" and "sensor A" are the same sensor and corresponds to a first sensor) that outputs a first signal corresponding to film thickness of the film (0035, where "an output of the end point detecting sensor" corresponds to a first signal);
a second sensor (Fig. 5B element 60, 0035, where "different sensor" and "sensor B" are the same sensor and corresponds to a second sensor) that is more sensitive than the first sensor (0039) and that outputs a second signal corresponding to film thickness of the film (0035, where "an output of…a different sensor" corresponds to a second signal); and
a film thickness detector (Fig. 18A element 56) configured to detect, when the film thickness is equal to or smaller than a predetermined film thickness, the film thickness of the film according to the second signal (0040, 0188, and 0194, where switching "from the end point detecting sensor to a different sensor" corresponds to using the second signal, "polishing end point" corresponds to the film thickness being equal to or smaller than a predetermined film thickness, and the controller being "a single controller" for monitoring the film thickness throughout the process means that the film thickness detector detects the film thickness when the film thickness is equal to or smaller than the predetermined thickness) and configured to detect, when the film is thicker than the predetermined film thickness, the film thickness of the film according to the first signal and the second signal (0206, where the film thickness detector monitoring the film thickness based on the first signal or the second signal means that the film thickness detector is capable of detecting the thickness of the film according to the first signal and the second signal).
Regarding claim 2, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses when the film thickness of the film detected by the first signal falls below the predetermined film thickness, the film thickness detector is configured to detect the film thickness of the film by using the second signal (0206).
Regarding claim 3, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the second sensor is an eddy current sensor (0207) and the output of the second signal is equal to or less than a saturation level when the film thickness of the film falls below the predetermined film thickness (Fig. 24C shows the output of the second signal being equal to or less than a saturation level when the film thickness of the film falls below the predetermined film thickness; 0219).
Regarding claim 4, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses the first sensor is an eddy current sensor (0207) and the first sensor is smaller in size than the second sensor (Figs. 5A-5B, 0165, where the diameter of the first sensor being smaller (i.e. having less turns, smaller diameter of wire, and distance between wires all reduced (see 0165)) than the second sensor corresponds to the first sensor being smaller in size than the second sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses a magnetic field generated by the second sensor is stronger than the magnetic field generated by the first sensor (Figs. 5-5B, 0134, 0136, and 0165, where 0134 and 0136 disclose magnetic fields and where paragraph 0054 of Applicant's spec says that increasing "the number of windings" and increasing the "outer diameter" both generate a stronger magnetic field, and examiner finds that Figs. 5A-5B and 0165 of Tada shows that the second sensor has more windings and a larger outer diameter than the first sensor, and therefore the magnetic field generated by the second sensor is stronger than the magnetic field generated by the first sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the first sensor and the second sensor are arranged on a circumference of substantially one circle inside the polishing table (Fig. 1 shows a sensor being arranged inside of the polishing table and Figs. 24A-24B shows the first and second sensors being arranged on a circumference of substantially one circle).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (US20130260645), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi discloses A polishing method comprising:
a holder (Fig. 1 element 1) pressing a substrate (Fig. 1 element W) against a polishing pad (Fig. 1 element 101) and polishing a film provided on the substrate (01212-0213, where “film” corresponds to film);
a first sensor (Figs. 23A-24, 0209, where "the sensor having a large sensor diameter" corresponds to a first sensor) outputting a first signal corresponding to a film thickness of the film (Figs. 23A-24, 0209, where "output of the sensor having a large sensor diameter" corresponds to a first signal);
a second sensor (Figs. 23A-24, 0209, where "the sensor having a small sensor diameter" corresponds to a second sensor) that is more sensitive than the first sensor (last sentence of 0209) outputting a second signal corresponding to the film thickness of the film (Figs. 23A-24, 0209, where "output of the sensor having a small sensor diameter" corresponds to a second signal);
before the film reaches a predetermined film thickness, a film thickness detector (0235, where a subset of “the controller 56” which receives “a thickness distribution of the film” corresponds to a film thickness detector) detecting the film thickness of the film according to the first signal and the second signal (0208 and 0213, where “polishing end point” corresponds to a predetermined film thickness); and
when the film falls below a predetermined film thickness, the film thickness detector detecting the film thickness of the film according to the second signal (0213).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses a controller (0235, where a subset of “the controller 56” which “controls internal pressures of the pressure chambers P1, P2, P3 and P4 in accordance with the thickness distribution of the film” corresponds to a controller) controlling pressures inside a plurality of pressure chambers (Fig. 30 elements P1, P2, P3, and P4) provided in the holder (Fig. 30) in accordance with the film thickness detected by the film thickness detector (0235); and
while the pressures inside the plurality of pressure chambers are being controlled, the holder pressing the substrate against the polishing pad and polishing the film provided on the substrate (Fig. 30, 0237).
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.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tada et al. (US20120088438), hereinafter Tada, in view of Takahashi et al. (US10625390), hereinafter Takahashi’.
Regarding claim 6, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the polishing apparatus comprises a plurality of the first sensors and/or a plurality of the second sensors.
Takahashi’ is also concerned with a polishing apparatus and teaches the polishing apparatus comprises a plurality of sensors (10:7-25, where "a plurality of eddy current sensors 210" corresponds to a plurality of sensors). It 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 to modify the polishing apparatus of Tada to have a plurality of sensors, as taught by Takahashi’, because Takahashi’ teaches that providing a plurality of sensors reduces the time delay for receiving measurements and that by reducing the time delay "the accuracy of endpoint detection is improved" (10:7-25).
Tada, as modified, then yields the polishing apparatus comprises a plurality of the first sensors and/or a plurality of the second sensors (Takahashi’, 10:7-25, where "a plurality of eddy current sensors 210" can be applied to correspond to a plurality of first sensors, a plurality of second sensors, or a plurality of first and second sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Tada discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, but fails to disclose the number of the first sensors is plural, the first sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference, and/or the number of the second sensors is plural, the second sensors being arranged mutually and substantially at equal intervals on the circumference.
Takahashi’ is also concerned with a polishing apparatus and teaches the polishing apparatus comprises a plurality of sensors (10:7-25, where "a plurality of eddy current sensors 210" corresponds to a plurality of sensors) being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference (10:7-25, where "an eddy current sensor 210 is disposed at a location point-symmetric to the eddy current sensor 210 about the rotation center CT illustrated in FIG. 1" corresponds to the plurality of sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference). It 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 to modify the polishing apparatus of Tada to have a plurality of sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference, as taught by Takahashi’, because Takahashi’ teaches that providing a plurality of sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference reduces the time delay for receiving measurements and that by reducing the time delay "the accuracy of endpoint detection is improved" (10:7-25).
Tada, as modified, then yields, the number of the first sensors is plural (Takahashi’, 10:7-25, where "a plurality of eddy current sensors 210" is applied to making the number of the first sensors be plural), the first sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference (Takahashi’, 10:7-25, where "an eddy current sensor 210 is disposed at a location point-symmetric to the eddy current sensor 210 about the rotation center CT illustrated in FIG. 1" corresponds to the first sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference), and/or the number of the second sensors is plural (Takahashi’, 10:7-25, where "a plurality of eddy current sensors 210" is applied to making the number of the second sensors be plural), the second sensors being arranged mutually and substantially at equal intervals on the circumference (Takahashi’, 10:7-25, where "an eddy current sensor 210 is disposed at a location point-symmetric to the eddy current sensor 210 about the rotation center CT illustrated in FIG. 1" corresponds to the second sensors being arranged at mutually and substantially equal intervals on the circumference).
Regarding claim 9, Tada, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further discloses the number of the first sensors is equal to the number of the second sensors (Tada, 0206), and the first sensors and the second sensors are alternately arranged on the circumference (Tada, 0188, where "After the polishing end point is detected, the process is shifted to monitoring of the remaining film without separating the semiconductor wafer W from the polishing surface (polishing pad)" corresponds to the first and second sensors being at different locations along the circumerence as there is no mention of physical switching out of the first sensor for the second sensor and Takahashi, 10:11-14, where "an eddy current sensor 210 is disposed at a location point-symmetric to the eddy current sensor 210 about the rotation center CT illustrated in FIG. 1" corresponds to the first and second sensors being alternately arranged).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights