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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 21, 23-30 are pending and rejected under prior arts.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 21, 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 100744099B1).
With respect to claims 1, 21, 27 Lee teaches a CMP process comprising: providing a semiconductor substrate 22 to a polishing head 20 in a polishing chamber of the CMP apparatus in fig. 1; providing a slurry or unheated slurry through a slurry supply 10 surrounded by coiled heating wire 14 or electro-thermal heating component that is protected by a protective cover or claimed a jacket surrounding the slurry supply 10; heating the slurry with coiled heating wire 14; dispensing the slurry onto the pad 32; and polishing a multilayer on the substrate 22 with the heated slurry on the pad by pressing the substrate against the pad (page 2-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
240
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 23, the method includes a “temperature sensor 12 for sensing the temperature of the slurry is mounted, the outer peripheral surface of the nozzle 10 to heat the slurry to a supply a high temperature slurry” (page 3).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 21, 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticiapted by KR 20210131616A (referred below as KR ‘616).
With respect to claims 1, 21 KR ‘616 describes a CMP method comprising: providing a semiconductor wafer to a polishing head 42, which would be in a processing chamber of the apparatus 10; providing a slurry or claimed unheated slurry through the slurry supply line 101a into a heater 106 to heat the slurry; wherein the heater 106 includes induction heater 107 or claimed an electro-thermal heating surrounding the slurry supply 101a, the heater device 106, containing the induction heater 107, would provide claimed a jacket that surrounds at least a portion of the slurry line 101a since under the broadest reasonable interpretation, any type of material 106 containing the heater 107 surrounding the slurry supply line 101a would provide claimed jacket (fig. 2, 3; page 3); dispensing the heated slurry through the spray nozzle 104 onto the pad and polishing a layer on the semiconductor wafer against the polishing pad using the heated slurry and the polishing pad (page 4)
PNG
media_image2.png
552
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
342
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 2, 3, 8, 23, the method further comprises providing a slurry temperature detector 140 to detect the slurry temperature on the polishing pad and a polishing pad temperature detector (not shown). These temperature detectors would provide information of the temperature of the slurry on the pad and of the pad and “the controller 130 may be connected to the slurry temperature detector 140 and the polishing pad temperature detector to obtain temperature information of the slurry solution sprayed from the slurry spray nozzle 104 and temperature information of the polishing pad” to control a slurry temperature by increasing to a first temperature based on the a temperature of the slurry and the pad, for example at starting point 1 of the polishing process (page 4, 5).
With respect to claim 4, the method further dispersing a temperature control fluid from fluid spray nozzle 114, heated by a heater 116 onto the pad 30 (fig. 2; page 3, 4).
With respect to claims 5, 6, 26 the temperature detector 140 and polishing pad temperature detector (not shown) (page 4), connect to the controller 130, provides a temperature information of the slurry on the pad and of the pad during an initial polishing point 1, so that the heater 116 can be used to provide heated fluid to increase the pad temperature as described in page 5: “In example embodiments, the second heater 116 may be operated to supply a relatively high (third temperature) temperature control fluid at the initiation point 1 of the wafer polishing process. The temperature control fluid may be supplied onto the polishing pad to increase the temperature of the polishing pad, thereby increasing the removal rate of the polishing process. Accordingly, the temperature control fluid may be supplied together with the slurry solution at the start point 1 of the polishing process of the wafer to improve the output per hour (UPEH).”
With respect to claims 7 and 25, the controller 130 opens and closes the valve 103c, 113c providing the heated fluid and slurry, which would also control a flow rate of the heated fluid (fig. 2; page 4).
With respect to claims 10 and 24, fig. 1 shows the heated fluid supplied through fluid dispersion nozzle 114 proximate to the supplied slurry nozzle 104
PNG
media_image4.png
556
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
With respect to claims 27 and 28, fig. 1-3 show the slurry is heated while in the slurry supplied arm 101a and prior to the slurry entering a conduit of the slurry dispense arm 104.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘616 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mikhaylichenko et al. (US 2022/0281070 A1).
With respect to claim 11, KR ‘616 doesn’t teach adjusting other polishing operations including a rotational velocity of the polishing head or a compressive force or pressure of the polishing head against the polishing pad. Mikhaylichenko teaches a similar slurry-based temperature control method having a heated slurry before being dispensed (para 32, 37) by in-situ monitoring a slurry temperature (para 38-40) using monitoring system 70 to control polishing parameters including adjusting a pressure applied to the substrate from the carrier head (para 9, 23, 25, 53). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control other polishing parameters including a pressure applied to the substrate from the carrier head in light of Mikhaylichenko because it would provide in-situ monitoring and control of the polishing process to polish a layer on a semiconductor wafer with expected results.
With respect to claim 12, Mikhaylichenko further teaches a controller 90 stored a desired temperature or temperature range, e.g. as part of a polishing recipe and operates to maintain the polishing temperature from the acquired data and the action is taken can also depend on the charge of the abrasive ceria particles and “this data can be stored and accessed by the controller 90, e.g., as control logic or a lookup table, in order to determine how to adjust the temperature if the removal rate deviates from the desired polishing rate (212)” (para 40-42). The controller, e.g. control logic that determines how to adjust the temperature would provide a machine learning model to determine at least one parameter related for adjustment.
Claim(s) 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘616 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (CN 212044170U).
With respect to claim 29, KR ‘616 doesn’t teach using the slurry supply line made of a polytetrafluoroethylene material. However, it is a well known material for slurry container and pipeline as shown here by Su (page 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to use any known material for the slurry supply line as long as it can supply the slurry for the polishing process with expected results.
With respect to claim 30, Su doesn’t teach the polytetrafluoroethylene material comprises one or more conductive particles. However, apparatus limitations, unless they affect the process in a manipulative sense, may have little weight in process claims. In re arczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150 (CCPA 1968); In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387 (CCPA 1961); Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA 1959); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193 (PO BdPatApp 1957); In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA 1940); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA 1947). In this case, the polytetrafluoroethylene material comprises one or more conductive particles in claim 30 doesn’t affect the process in a manipulative sense. Therefore, using a slurry supplied line made of polytetrafluoroethylene material comprising one or more conductive particles would have been obvious to provide slurry supply line for the polishing apparatus with expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 21, 23-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 9/8/2026
Prosecution Insights