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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in the indented clause, "partitioning... ", the language, "measured values whose measurement positions are within the respective zone" is defective. Examiner has interpreted and suggests amending the claims as follows, with additions underlined, deletions double-bracketed or struck through, and all changes in boldface: "... respective zones", to improve form and clarity. Alternatively, this language may be amended as follows: "measured values each of whose measurement positions is within the respective zone”.
Also, the language, "have substantially the same characteristic" is defective for encompassing interpretations that lack antecedent basis. Examiner has interpreted and suggests amending the claims as follows, with additions underlined, deletions double-bracketed or struck through, and all changes in boldface: "have a characteristic that is substantially the same ", to improve form and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (2010/0015889) in view of Kandel et al. (2013/0035888).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu et al. disclose a method for optimizing a measurement pattern (paths of sensor 150 described on W; see paragraph 144) of measurement points (measurement points MP1-n, MP2-n, etc.; see paragraph 128) for a semiconductor wafer (substrate W; see paragraphs 116 and 128), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of measured values (measurements; see paragraph 126) with associated measurement points (see paragraph 128) ... ;
partitioning the semiconductor wafer into a plurality of zones (C-1, C2, C3, and C4; see paragraph 152), wherein measured values whose measurement positions are within the respective zone have substantially the same characteristic (see paragraphs 128 and 152; the zones are radially distributed and the polishing-rate profile is substantially axisymmetric; thus measurement points within the same zone will be at locations with substantially the same polishing rate profile);
determining, for each of the zones, a variation (monitoring changes in film thickness; see paragraph 128) along a predetermined time period (predetermined time section of the moving average; see paragraph 138) of those measured values whose timestamps are within a predetermined time window; and
defining the measurement pattern (adjusting rotational-speed ratio so paths of sensor 150 are distributed substantially evenly; see paragraph 144), ... .
Shimizu et al. do not disclose the highlighted limitations:
obtaining a plurality of measured values with associated measurement points and timestamps;
... ; and
defining the measurement pattern, wherein a measurement point density is defined for each of the zones depending on the determined variations.
Kandel et al. disclose obtaining a plurality of measured values with associated measurement points and timestamps (see paragraph 134); and
defining the measurement pattern, wherein a measurement point density is defined for each of the zones depending on the determined variations (see paragraphs 77 and 129).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Shimizu et al. such that the measured values had associated timestamps, similarly to the invention of Kandel et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that a measurement point density is defined for each of the zones depending on the determined variations, similarly to the invention of Kandel et al., in order to better determine quality targets, as suggested by Kandel et al. (see paragraph 124).
Regarding claim 3, this combination of references further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the zones are each associated with a surface portion of the semiconductor wafer (see paragraph 152 of Shimizu et al.).
Regarding claim 4, this combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
wherein the variations are determined with a measure of dispersion.
Kandel et al. further disclose determining variations with standard deviation (see paragraph 93).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that the variations are determined with standard deviation, similarly to the invention of Kandel et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
This modification meets the variations being determined with a measure of dispersion.
Regarding claim 5, this combination of references further teaches an apparatus (combination of items 110, 112, 114, 118, 150, 153, and 154 of Shimizu et al.; see figure 1, and paragraphs 116, 118, and 124-125) which is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, this combination of references further teaches using a computer (153; see paragraph 124).
This combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is performed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1.
Kandel et al. disclose a computer program comprising instructions (510; see paragraph 88) which, when the program is performed by a computer (508; see paragraphs 82-87), cause the computer to carry out the method (see paragraphs 85-86).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination to include a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is performed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1, similarly to the invention of Kandel et al., in order to carry out the steps of the method, as suggested by Kandel et al. (see paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 7, this combination of references further teaches a machine-readable storage medium (520 of Kandel et al.; see paragraph 88 and the rejection of claim 6) on which the computer program according to claim 6 is stored.
Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (2010/0015889) in view of Kandel et al. (2013/0035888), further in view of Elings et al. (2021/0215622).
See the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 2, this combination of references does not meet the highlighted limitations:
a predetermined maximum number of measurement points is predetermined, and the predetermined number of measurement points is distributed on the wafer according to the measurement pattern.
Elings et al. disclose a predetermined maximum number of measurement points is predetermined (see paragraph 423), and the predetermined number of measurement points is distributed on the wafer according to the measurement pattern (see paragraphs 451-452).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the combination such that there were a predetermined maximum number of measurement points is predetermined, and the predetermined number of measurement points is distributed on the wafer according to the measurement pattern, similarly to the invention of Elings et al., because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (2010/0029177) is cited for disclosing monitoring of surface features of a wafer, including measurement at defined measurement points, partitioning the surface into zones based on shared characteristics, and optimization of the measurement pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights