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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 10/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 and double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Moslehi (US 5871588 A).
Double Patenting
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 1-3, 7 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Moslehi (US 5871588 A) and Economikos (US 20080051008 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of ‘358 teaches A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets”);
a platen comprising a plurality of stator magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “a platen; a plurality of second magnets;”); and
a controller coupled to the plurality of stator magnets, the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by controlling the plurality of the stator magnets (Claim 1 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets to rotate the polisher head.”).
but does not explicitly disclose the first magnets arranged along a peripheral region of the polisher head
wherein the plurality of stator magnets surround the polisher head in a plan view
the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by individually alternating a north-south polarity of each of the stator magnets between a north pole and a south pole.
Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of stator magnets (27) and rotor magnets (26 Analogous to first magnets) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller configured to rotate the polisher head by individually alternating a north-south polarity of each of the stator magnets between a north and south pole (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to simply substitute the magnetic arrangement and controller of ‘358 in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi as both disclose methods for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and such a substitution of ‘358 in view of Moslehi to drive a polishing head would have predictable results.
And, Economikos discloses a single magnet (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded above the platen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”) and teaches this magnet can be external to the polishing head and platen such that it surrounds the periphery of the polisher head in a top plan view, or in the polishing head or in the platen (See Para [0023] “In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 1 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen (See Claim 1 of ‘358 “a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen;”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 1 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 1 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of stator magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a major surface of the platen
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 21, ‘358 as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein an orientation of the north pole of the plurality of stator magnets sequentially alternates (First See Moslehi Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Moslehi Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Moslehi Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic arrangement and controller of Natalicio in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi such that wherein an orientation of the north pole of the plurality of stator magnets sequentially alternates as these are known equivalents for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and as such it would be obvious to substitute one for the other (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
Claims 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Moslehi (US 5871588 A1) and Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Hayashi (US 20020033230 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 1 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate.
However, Hayashi discloses a similar CMP polishing head utilizing magnets wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate (See 54 and 55 in Fig. 2 of Hayashi).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic configuration of ‘358 as modified in such a way that the north-south poles of magnets alternate as doing so would assist in fixing the polishing head in a specific position, minimizing undesirable movement during the polishing operation and increasing the efficacy of the polishing operation.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Moslehi (US 5871588 A1) and Economikos (US 20080051008 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 8 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented horizontally with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head (Claim 8 of ‘358 “wherein the first magnets are oriented laterally within the polisher head.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented such that the north-south poles of each magnet are oriented horizontally, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 8 of ‘358 as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of each of the first magnets has a same orientation (Claim 1 of ‘358 as modified in claim 5 has oriented magnets in the same orientation).
Claim 8-12, 14, and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Moslehi (US 5871588 A1) and Economikos (US 20080051008 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 11 of ‘358 teaches A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (Claim 9 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets”);
a plurality of second magnets (Claim 9 of ‘358 “a plurality of second magnets;”) arranged around a periphery of the polisher head in a top-down view (Claim 11 ‘358 “wherein each of the plurality of second magnets are arranged such that an axis between poles of each of the plurality of second magnets are parallel to the axis of the polisher head when the polisher head is placed on the platen.”); and
a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets (See Claim 9 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control a polarity of each of the second magnets to rotate the polisher head.”).
but does not disclose the second magnets surround an outer periphery of the polisher head in a top-down view
the controller configured to independently alternate a polarity of each of the second magnets between a north pole and a south pole to alternate between an attracting force and a repelling force between corresponding ones of the plurality of second magnets and the plurality of first magnets.
Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of stator magnets (27) and rotor magnets (26 Analogous to first magnets) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller configured to rotate the polisher head by individually alternating a north-south polarity of each of the stator magnets between a north and south pole (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer)
And, Economikos discloses a single magnet (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded above the platen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”) and teaches this magnet can be external to the polishing head and platen such that it surrounds the outer periphery of the polisher head in a top down view, or in the polishing head or in the platen (See Para [0023] “In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses a platen, wherein the plurality of second magnets is within the platen (See Claim 10 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned within the platen.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses A platen (See Claim 9 of ‘358 “a platen”), but does not explicitly disclose the plurality of second magnets is outside the platen.
However, Economikos teaches a similar CMP apparatus wherein an electromagnet (coils 118) is positioned outside of the platen (See Figure 2B. of Economikos).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magnets of ‘358 to be located outside of the platen as doing so would reduce unwanted forces on the polishing head, keeping the head in a desired position and keeping a uniform force on the polishing head during the operation as doing so would help ensure an even polishing profile.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets is evenly spaced apart.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the spacing of the magnets in such a way that they are evenly spaced apart as doing so would be a simple matter of rearrangement of parts and would allow for a more uniform attraction between the polishing head and platen, and assist in promoting an even grinding profile. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of first magnets is different than a number of the plurality of second magnets.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the number of first or second magnets as doing so would be a simple matter of duplication of parts and would allow for flexibility in the design while still allowing for an even grinding profile on the substrate from the polishing operation. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise permanent magnets (Rotor Magnets 26 of Moslehi are permanent magnets).
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 11 of ‘358 discloses all the limitations of claim 8 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets are stationary magnets during use of the polishing apparatus.
However, Economikos discloses a similar polishing apparatus with a magnet (118) that remains stationary during the use of the polishing apparatus.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magnets of Claim 11 of ‘358 to be stationary during the operation of the polishing apparatus as doing so would reduce unwanted forces on the polishing head, keeping the head in a desired position and keeping a uniform force on the polishing head during the operation as doing so would help ensure an even polishing profile.
Claims 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11964358 in view of Moslehi (US 5871588 A) and Economikos (US 20080051008 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 17 of ‘358 disclose A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (See Claim 17 of ‘358 “a polisher head, the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets; a platen;”);
a platen (Claim 17 of ‘358 “a platen”);
a plurality of second magnets (Claim 17 of ‘358 “plurality of second magnets;”); and
a controller electrically coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to alternate an orientation of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets (Claim 17 of ‘358 “and a controller coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to control rotation of the polisher head by controlling a magnetic field generated by the plurality of second magnets.”).
But does not explicitly disclose that these first magnets are permanent magnets and the second magnets are electromagnets.
The plurality of electromagnets arranged surrounding the polisher head in a plan view; and
the controller configured to alternate an orientation of a north pole and a south pole of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets, wherein alternating the orientation of the north pole and the south pole of the magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets alternates between attracting and repelling nearby corresponding ones of the plurality of permanent magnets to rotate the polisher head.
Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of electromagnets magnets (Stator magnets 27) and permanent magnets (Rotor Magnets 26) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller configured to alternate an orientation of a north pole and a south pole of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets, wherein alternating the orientation of the north pole and the south pole of the magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets alternates between attracting and repelling nearby corresponding ones of the plurality of permanent magnets to rotate the wafer (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the magnetic arrangement and controller of ‘358 in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi as these are known equivalents for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and as such it would be obvious to substitute one for the other (See MPEP 2144.06 II).
And, Economikos discloses a single electromagnet arranged to surround the polisher head in a plan view (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 2(a)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus by controlling a polarity of the magnet (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the electromagnets to be arranged to surround the polisher head in a plan view, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stators/electromagnets in the polishing head, See Para [0023] “The coil 118 has an alternating current (AC) excitation source 120 so as to provide a magnetic field of varying polarity. In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 of ‘358 disclose further comprising: a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen (See Claim 17 of ‘358 “a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen;”).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 17 of ‘358 does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the permanent magnets are arranged vertically relative to a polishing surface of the platen.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to explicitly modify the orientation of the magnets to be oriented vertically, as doing so would be a simple matter of changing the shape of the magnets, which has been held to be a choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 18 of ‘358 discloses all the limitation of claim 16 as taught above and in addition disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned within the platen (See Claim 18 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned within the platen.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 19 of ‘358 discloses all the limitation of claim 16 as taught above and in addition disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned outside of the platen (See Claim 19 of ‘358 “wherein the plurality of second magnets is positioned outside of the platen.”).
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, 3-12, 14-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Moslehi (US 5871588 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Natalicio discloses
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (250) arranged along a peripheral region of the polisher head (See 250 in Fig. 3);
a platen (202)
The polishing head additionally including a plurality of stator magnets (260);
a controller coupled to the plurality of stator magnets (electric power source), the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by controlling a polarity of each of the stator magnets (See Col 5 Line 53-65 “With reference to FIG. 3, when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”).
But does not explicitly disclose the platen comprising the plurality of stator magnets; wherein the plurality of stator magnets surround the polisher head in a plan view;
The controller configured to rotate the polisher head by individually alternating a north-south polarity of each of the stator magnets between a north and south pole
Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of stator magnets (27) and rotor magnets (26 Analogous to first magnets) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller configured to rotate the polisher head by individually alternating a north-south polarity of each of the stator magnets between a north and south pole (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to simply substitute the magnetic arrangement and controller of Natalicio in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi as both disclose methods for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and such a substitution Natalicio in view of Moslehi to drive a polishing head would have predictable results.
And, Economikos discloses a single magnet (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded above the platen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”) and teaches this magnet located in the platen such that it surrounds the periphery of the polisher head in a top plan view, or in the polishing head or in the platen (See Para [0037] “As stated above, the electromagnetic coil 118 (in addition to being located within a structurally isolated housing) could also being incorporated into the chuck 108 and/or polishing platen 102 as well. For example, FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) illustrate a second embodiment of a CMP apparatus 200 with magnetically spinning slurry particles responsive to an alternating magnetic field. As particularly shown in FIG. 3(b), the polishing platen 202 has a coil housing 222 integrated into a non-rotating portion therein.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 3, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the magnets as modifying the orientation of the magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of Moslehi cited above that the polar faces of the stator and rotor magnets should face or confront in order to produce an effective electromagnetic drive, additionally,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polar faces of a rotor and stator would need to face each other in order to produce the forces necessary for the device to work as expected, and that if one were to place the stator magnets in the platen (as modified in claim 1) the stator and rotor magnets would be spatially oriented vertically to each other, and would have their polar faces oriented in the north-south direction.
Finally, Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 4, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition discloses wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of adjacent first magnets of the plurality of first magnets alternate (As modified in Claim 1, See Moslehi Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”).
Regarding Claim 5, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of first magnets are oriented horizontally with respect to each other relative to a bottom surface of the polisher head (See Fig. 4 of Moslehi showing the stator magnet 26 having a horizontally oriented poles, with the north facing outward and the south facing inward).
Regarding Claim 6, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses suggests wherein an orientation of the north-south poles of each of the first magnets has a same orientation (As modified in claim 1, See Moslehi Fig. 2 wherein the poles of the magnets are all oriented horizontally with respect to the center of the platen, as each north-south polar axis extends through the center).
Regarding Claim 7, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein north-south poles of each of the plurality of stator magnets are oriented vertically with respect to each other relative to a major surface of the platen
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the magnets as modifying the orientation of the magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of Moslehi cited above that the polar faces of the stator and rotor magnets should face or confront in order to produce an effective electromagnetic drive.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polar faces of a rotor and stator would need to face each other in order to produce the forces necessary for the device to work as expected, and that if one were to place the stator magnets in the platen (as modified in claim 1) the stator and rotor magnets would be spatially oriented vertically to each other, and would have their polar faces oriented in the north-south direction.
Finally, Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 8, Natalicio discloses:
A polishing apparatus comprising:
a polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of first magnets (250);
a plurality of second magnets (260) arranged around a periphery of the polisher head in a top-down view (arranged around the periphery of the lower housing 230); and
a controller (electric power source) coupled to the plurality of second magnets, the controller configured to rotate the polisher head by controlling the plurality of magnets to create an attracting force or a repelling force between corresponding ones of the plurality of second magnets and the plurality of first magnets (See Col 5 Line 53-65 “For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”).
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets surround an outer periphery of the polisher head in a top-down view;
the controller configured independently alternate a polarity of each of the second magnets between a north and a south pole to alternate between an attracting force and a repelling force between corresponding ones of the plurality of second magnets and the plurality of first magnets.
However, Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of stator magnets (27 analogous to second magnets) and rotor magnets (26 Analogous to first magnets) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller coupled to the plurality of stator magnets (27) the controller configured to independently control alternate a polarity of each of the second magnets between a north pole and a south pole to alternate between an attracting force and a repelling force between corresponding ones of the plurality of second magnets and the plurality of first magnets. (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to simply substitute the magnetic arrangement and controller of Natalicio in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi as both disclose methods for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and such a substitution Natalicio in view of Moslehi to drive a polishing head would have predictable results.
And, Economikos discloses a single magnet (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded above the platen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”) and teaches this magnet can be external to the polishing head and platen such that it surrounds the periphery of the polisher head in a top down view, or in the polishing head or in the platen (See Para [0023] “In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the second magnets such that the second magnets surround an outer periphery of the polisher head in a top down view as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the polishing is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 9, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses a platen (202), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of second magnets are within the platen.
However, Economikos discloses a single magnet in a platen (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
And Moslehi discloses the plurality of second magnets (rotors 26) below the wafer (30, analogous to the upper surface of the platen See Fig. 4)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 10, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses further comprising:
a platen (202), wherein the plurality of second magnets is outside of the platen (As modified in claim 8, See Figure 2 of Natalicio showing magnets 260 outside of the platen and Fig. 2a of Economikos showing the magnet 118 surrounding the footprint of the CMP device).
Regarding Claim 11, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses, wherein the plurality of second magnets is evenly spaced apart (See Fig. 3 showing the magnets 260 evenly spaced apart).
Regarding Claim 12, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of the plurality of first magnets is different than a number of the plurality of the second magnets (Natalicio describes that the number of rotor and stator magnets is flexible depending on the needed torque, and that the pattern that said rotors and stators are placed is similarly flexible, See Col 6 Line 10-26
“Although eight rotors 250 and eight stators 260 are depicted in FIG. 3, it should be appreciated that any number of rotors 250 and stators 260 can be employed depending on the particular application. For example, the torque applied to pressure plate 210 can be increased or decreased by employing more or fewer rotors 250 and stators 260. This aspect of the present invention is particularly advantageous in that the torque applied to pressure plate 210 can be increased without necessarily increasing the size of the existing rotors 250 and stators 260 which would increase the vertical profile of wafer carrier 200.
Additionally, although rotors 250 and stators 260 are depicted in FIG. 3 as being disposed in equally spaced increments, it should be appreciated that rotors 250 and stators 260 can be disposed in various patterns depending on the particular application. Disposing rotors 250 and stator 260 in equally spaced increments, however, has the advantage of equally distributing the torque applied to the pressure plate 210, thus facilitating a more uniform polishing and planarizing of wafer 102.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the number of rotor and stator magnets as advantageously suggested by Natalicio as doing so would not disrupt the operation of the device and would allow for desirable changes in applied torque, and the distribution of torque which would affect the uniformity of the polishing and planarization of a wafer and to better suit the particular application the device is applied to.
Regarding Claim 14, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8, and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of first magnets comprises permanent magnets (Col 5 Line 23-26 “With reference to FIG. 2, in the present exemplary embodiment, plurality of rotors 250 include permanent magnets ranging in diameter from about 8 to 12 inches in diameter and about 3/4 inch wide.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and in addition discloses, Wherein the plurality of second magnets are stationary magnets during use of the polishing apparatus (Stator magnets are stationary with respect to the pressure plate 210, See Natalicio Col 5 Line 3-10 “an electric direct drive motor comprising a plurality of rotors 250 and stators 260 is employed to rotate pressure plate 210 about lower housing 230 of wafer carrier 200. With reference to FIG. 3, in the present exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a plurality of rotors 250 are disposed about the circumference of arm 212, and a plurality of stators 260 are disposed about the circumference of lower housing 230.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Natalicio discloses a polishing apparatus comprising:
A polisher head (200), the polisher head comprising a plurality of permanent magnets (250);
A platen (202);
A plurality of electromagnets (stators 260); and
A controller electrically coupled to the plurality of electromagnets (Power source of magnets 260, See Col 5 Line 53-65 “With reference to FIG. 3, when electric power is provided to plurality of stators 260 sequentially in the desired rotational direction, the magnetic flux generated by plurality of stators 260 exerts a force on the plurality of rotors 250 to rotate pressure plate 210 (FIG. 2) in the same direction. For example, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a clockwise direction. Similarly, when electric power is provided to stators 260 sequentially in a counter-clockwise direction, pressure plate 210 also rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. Additionally, the direction in which power is provided to stators 260 may be alternated, thus oscillating pressure plate 210.”),
But does not explicitly disclose
The plurality of electromagnets arranged surrounding the polisher head in a plan view; and
the controller configured to alternate an orientation of a north pole and a south pole of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets, wherein alternating the orientation of the north pole and the south pole of the magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets alternates between attracting and repelling nearby corresponding ones of the plurality of permanent magnets to rotate the polisher head.
Moslehi discloses an electromagnetic substrate rotation apparatus wherein the plurality of electromagnets magnets (Stator magnets 27) and permanent magnets (Rotor Magnets 26) surround the wafer (30, analogous to the polishing head, See Fig. 4, additionally see arrows 23 in Figs. 3 and 4 identifying the inner side of the rotor housing, which the wafer is inside the bounds of).
Wherein the polarity of the rotor magnets alternates (See Fig. 2 and Col 5 Line 38-46 “The magnets 26 are coupled to the rotor section 24 so that the magnets 26 have alternating magnetization poles (preferably radial magnetilization) facing stator 28. To illustrate as shown in FIG. 2, magnet 26 labeled M.sub.1 has a north magnetic pole on the side of the magnet M.sub.1 facing the stator assembly 28, and magnets 26 labeled M.sub.2 and M.sub.16 each has its south magnetic pole on the side of the magnet facing the stator 28. Thus, the permanent magnets 26 have an alternating pole pattern on the rotor section 24 (FIG. 2).”)
A controller configured to alternate an orientation of a north pole and a south pole of a magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets, wherein alternating the orientation of the north pole and the south pole of the magnetic field generated by each of the plurality of electromagnets alternates between attracting and repelling nearby corresponding ones of the plurality of permanent magnets to rotate the wafer (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to simply substitute the magnetic arrangement and controller of Natalicio in view of the magnetic arrangement and drive controller of Moslehi as both disclose methods for utilizing magnetic force to induce rotation in a body, and such a substitution Natalicio in view of Moslehi to drive a polishing head would have predictable results.
And, Economikos discloses a single magnet (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded above the platen in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”) and teaches this magnet can be external to the polishing head and platen such that it surrounds the periphery of the polisher head in a plan view, or in the polishing head or in the platen (See Para [0023] “In the exemplary embodiment depicted, the coil 118 is disposed within a housing 122 that is structurally independent from the rest of the CMP apparatus 100 (i.e., the chuck 102 and polishing head 108), the footprint of which is generally indicated as 124 in FIG. 2(a). However, as described herein after, other embodiments contemplate the coil 118 also being incorporated into the chuck 102 and/or polishing head 108 as well.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the electromagnets such that the electromagnets are arranged to surround the polisher head in a plan view as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the polishing is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 18, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 does not explicitly disclose wherein magnetic poles of each of the permanent magnets are arranged vertically relative to a polishing surface of the platen.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the orientation of the magnets as modifying the orientation of the magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on the disclosure of Moslehi cited above that the polar faces of the stator and rotor magnets should face or confront in order to produce an effective electromagnetic drive,
Additionally, it would be obvious to have the polar faces of the magnets to be oriented be in a vertical orientation as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the polar faces of a rotor and stator would need to face each other in order to produce the forces necessary for the device to work as expected, and that if one were to place the stator magnets in the platen (as modified in claim 1) the stator and rotor magnets would be spatially oriented vertically to each other, and would have their polar faces oriented in the north-south direction.
Finally, Examiner notes that applicant has not assigned criticality to the orientation of the magnets, See Specification Para [0042] “In some embodiments, the stators 330 are configured to be repositioned in order to control the interaction between the magnetic fields of the stators 330 and the magnetic fields of the polisher head 105. For example, a stator 330 may be brought closer to the polisher head 105 to increase the strength of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. As another example, a stator 330 may be tilted to change the relative strengths of the horizontal component and vertical component of the magnetic field of the stator 330 that interacts with the polisher head 105. For example, the stators 330 may be tilted to an angle between about 0 degrees and about 90 degrees with respect to the plane of the platen 101. A more vertical angle (e.g., closer to 90 degrees) may impart a stronger vertical component of the magnetic field relative to the horizontal component, and a more horizontal angle (e.g., closer to 0 degrees) may impart a stronger horizontal component of the magnetic field relative to the vertical component.”
Regarding Claim 19, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of electromagnets is position within the platen.
However, Economikos discloses a single magnet in a platen (See Magnet 118 formed by the coils threaded throughout the platen in Fig. 3(b)), for causing rotation of an element in the CMP apparatus (See Abstract “The electromagnetic coil is configured to provide a magnetic field of alternating polarity to cause the rotation of ferromagnetic slurry particles disposed on the workpiece to facilitate polishing of the workpiece.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the location of the stator magnets such that the platen comprises the plurality of stator magnets as doing so would not affect the operation of the device, as Economikos discloses that incorporating the magnet into the platen is an equivalent to having the stator magnets in the polishing head, See Para [0037] “One skilled in the art will appreciate that a variant of the second embodiment may be easily constructed from FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b) where the coil housing is integrated in a similar manner into the carrier head 102 instead of the integrating it into the polishing platen as depicted in FIGS. 3(a) and 3(b).” As such the modifying the platen such that it comprises the plurality of stator magnets would be a matter of rearrangement of parts, See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 20, Natalicio discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition discloses wherein the plurality of electromagnets is positioned outside of the platen (See Fig. 2a and 2b of Economikos where electromagnets 118 surrounds the platen).
Regarding Claim 21, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein an orientation of the north pole of the plurality of stator magnets sequentially alternates (First See Col 8 Lines 3-36, which discusses the drive system of the device, the stator coils are connected to an alternating current, Secondly, See Col 9 Lines 31-48, which summarizes the way the drive system produces rotation via controlling the stator motors. Then referring back to the citation of Col 8 Starting at Line 32, Moslehi discusses how the direction of rotation can be changed by the phase of the applied power, and Finally note in Line 26 of Col 8 that Fig. 5 shows plots of the waveforms driving the stator motor, which as seen in Fig. 5 alternate between positive and negative values, As such the alternating current the drive system applies to the stator magnets, alternates the north south polarity of the stators between a north and south pole in order to drive the rotation of the wafer).
Claim(s) 2 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natalicio (US 6213855 B1) in view of Economikos (US 20080051008 A1) and Moslehi (US 5871588 A) as modified in claims 1 and 16 and in further view of Doan (US 5738562 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and in addition teaches further comprising: a holder (220) configured to place the polisher head on the platen (See Figure 2 and Col 3 Line 51-56 “A depicted in FIG. 2, a carrier head 200 according to various aspects of the present invention is suitably employed to polish or to planarize a wafer 102 by applying pressure on wafer 102 to engage the underside of wafer 102 against a polishing pad 206.”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen.
However, Doan does teach a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein the polisher head is configured to sit directly on the polishing pad without a holder, (See 20 Fig. 1 and Col 2 Line 11-20 “Those having skill in the field of this invention will, of course, understand that a wide variety of variations to the design of the described chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus are possible, and that these variations are encompassed within the scope of the claims. For example, although the wafer carrier 20 is depicted in the FIGURE as being held on the polishing pad 12 by the force of gravity, it will be understood that the wafer carrier 20 could also be held against the polishing pad 12 by a force exerted by a mechanical arm attached to the wafer carrier 20.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the polishing head with a mechanical arm of Natalicio as modified with the free standing polishing head as taught by Doan as necessary to better suit a given polishing operation as Doan teaches that these are known equivalents that would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding Claim 17, Natalicio as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and in addition discloses a holder configured to place the polisher head on the platen (220 holds the head on the platen, see figure 2).
But does not explicitly disclose, wherein the holder is configured to release the polisher head after placing the polisher head on the platen
However, Doan does teach a similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatus wherein the polisher head is configured to sit directly on the polishing pad without a holder, (See 20 Fig. 1 and Col 2 Line 11-20 “Those having skill in the field of this invention will, of course, understand that a wide variety of variations to the design of the described chemical-mechanical polishing apparatus are possible, and that these variations are encompassed within the scope of the claims. For example, although the wafer carrier 20 is depicted in the FIGURE as being held on the polishing pad 12 by the force of gravity, it will be understood that the wafer carrier 20 could also be held against the polishing pad 12 by a force exerted by a mechanical arm attached to the wafer carrier 20.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the polishing head with a mechanical arm of Natalicio with the free standing polishing head as taught by Doan as necessary to better suit a given polishing operation as Doan teaches that these are known equivalents that would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. See MPEP 2144.06.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights