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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on July 7, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 11 and 18 been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 2 and 13 been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 11 and 18 filed on July 7, 2026.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170341201). However, the amendments are not considered to have overcome the art of record, as the amendment incorporates limitations from claim 2, which was rejected in view of Hsu and Li (US PG Pub No. 20130012108).
The applicant’s amendments to claims 16 and 18 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously applied Khanna (US PG Pub No. 20220055181). However, the amendments are not considered to have overcome the art of record, as the amendment incorporates limitations from claim 13, which was rejected in view of Khanna and Li (US PG Pub No. 20130012108).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection from the previous office action has been withdrawn.
102/103 Rejections: The examiner agrees, as applicant remarks on pages 5-6, that the 102 rejections for the previous office action are not sustainable due to amendment. The independent claims require that the ratio between lewis polymer acid and base range between 0.2 to 0.8 This limitation is not disclosed within Hsu or Khanna by themselves, as they are silent to molar ratios.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are now in conditions for allowance. The art of record, which includes teaching references previously used to address the limitations that have been amended into the independent claims, provides teachings for the amended limitations.
The examiner recognizes that Li does not disclose a retaining ring, but it is still within the field of CMP processes. Li teaches the advantages/strengths in material composition found when combining some ratios of different polymers, some of which meet the descriptions of Lewis polymer bases and polymer acids. So while not disclosing a polishing pad, given the polishing pad of Li undergo similar, if not more extreme stresses, giving support to the strength for teaching materials that are able withstand said stresses.
Further, the range of values appear to be result effective variables. Applicant’s disclosure relates that “other ratios” can be utilized without departing from the scope of the present disclosure ([0040]). The statement alludes that the claimed values are not non-obvious, but rather could be obtained without undue experimentation, further supporting that these values are reasonably discernable within the chemical mechanical polishing field.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US PG Pub No. 20170341201) in view of Li. (US PG Pub No. 20130012108).
In regards to claim 1, Hsu discloses
a method, comprising:
rotating a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) pad (polishing pad 206, fig. 2; [0025]: pad and carrier head are rotated);
supplying a slurry ([0026]) onto the CMP pad (polishing pad 206, fig. 2; [0025]);
[0026] During CMP, a chemical slurry is dispensed over a top surface of the polishing pad 206 by a slurry dispenser (not illustrated). Although not explicitly illustrated, in an embodiment, a gap may be disposed between the retainer ring 100 and the polishing pad 206 during CMP to allow the slurry to be distributed under a bottom surface (e.g., a surface to be planarized) of the wafer 200. In other embodiments, the retainer ring 100 may contact the polishing pad 206, and the retainer ring 100 may include one or more grooves extending from an outer sidewall to an inner sidewall in order to dispense slurry onto the wafer 200.
holding a wafer (wafer 200, fig. 2) with a CMP head (carrier head 202, fig. 2; [0022]-[0023]) including
[0022] Initially, the carrier head 202 may be lowered towards a wafer 200 placed on a stage (not illustrated). The carrier head 202 may pick up the wafer 200 from the stage using vacuum suction on the membrane 204 so that the wafer 200 is disposed within an opening 108 of the retainer ring 100...
[0023] The carrier head 202 may carry the wafer 200 to a polishing pad 206 disposed over a platen 208…
a retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) that is a blend of a Lewis acid polymer and Lewis base polymer ([0020]) surrounding a lateral edge of the wafer; and
[0020] … the outer ring 102 comprises polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), any combination thereof, or any other suitable material.
placing the wafer (wafer 200, fig. 2; [0023]) in contact with the CMP pad (polishing pad 206, fig. 2; [0025]).
but fails to explicitly disclose a molar ratio of the Lewis acid polymer to the Lewis base polymer of the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is between 0.2 and 0.8.
However, Li, which also discloses a CMP wafer polishing method, teaches ratios between different polymer groups:
[0050] Suitable polymer particles include polyvinylchloride, polyvinylfluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, polycarbonate, polyester, poly(meth)acrylate, polyether, polyamide, polyurethane, polyepoxide, polystyrene, polyimide (e.g., polyetherimide), polysulfone and mixtures thereof. In some embodiments, the polymer particles can be chosen from poly(meth)acrylate, polyurethane, polyepoxide and mixtures thereof.
[0074] In some embodiments, suitable polymer particles useful for practicing the present disclosure include particulate polyepoxides. A particulate polyepoxide can be prepared, for example, from a reaction product of a first resin having at least two epoxide groups; and a second resin having at least two groups that are reactive with the epoxide groups of the epoxide.
[0081] The molar equivalents ratio of epoxide groups to epoxide-reactive groups of the reactants used to prepare the particulate crosslinked polyepoxide is typically from 0.5:1.0 to 2.0:1.0, e.g., from 0.7:1.0 to 1.3:1.0 or from 0.8:1.0 to 1.2:1.0.
Hsu and Li considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CMP polishing methods
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hsu and provide the ratio between acid and base polymers at 0.5 (which is between 0.2 and .8) in order to ensure proper balance of chemical elements.
In regards to claim 3, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the molar ratio of the Lewis acid polymer to the Lewis base polymer of the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is between 0.4 and 0.6 (0.5 at taught by Li).
In regards to claim 4, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is in contact with the slurry ([0026]).
In regards to claim 5, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the Lewis base polymer includes one or more of nylon, PVAc, PLA, PMMA, and PPS ([0020]: PPS).
In regards to claim 6, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the Lewis acid polymer includes one or more of PVDF, PVC, PS, PVDC, and PEEK ([0020]: PEEK).
In regards to claim 7, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is anti-electrostatic.
Examiner’s Note: Per applicant’s specification, [0034] states the retaining ring is “made of a material that is anti-electrostatic.” As Hsu discloses a retaining ring composed of the same polymers recited within the applicant’s disclosure, a skilled artisan would recognize that a material property of the polymers would include being anti-electrostatic.
In regards to claim 8, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, wherein the slurry ([0026]) includes an abrasive including silica or cerium oxide ([0027-0028]),
[0027] The composition of the slurry depends on the type of material on the wafer surface undergoing CMP. For example, the slurry may comprise a first reactant, an abrasive, a first surfactant, and a solvent…
[0028] The abrasive may be any suitable particulate that, in conjunction with the polishing pad 206, aids in the planarization of the wafer 200. In an embodiment the abrasive may be silica (e.g., silicon oxide). However, any other suitable abrasive, such as aluminum oxide, cerium oxide, polycrystalline diamond, polymer particles such as polymethacrylate or polymethacryclic, combinations of these, or the like, may alternatively be utilized and are fully intended to be included within the scope of the embodiments.
wherein the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) resists developing an electrostatic charge from contact with the abrasive (see note from rejection of claim 7).
In regards to claim 9, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a multistep CMP process (process flow 400, see fig. 4; [0035-0036]) on the wafer (wafer 200, fig. 2) while the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) surrounds the wafer.
[0035] FIG. 4 illustrates a process flow 400 of a semiconductor process in accordance with some embodiments. In step 402, a retainer ring is provided. Retainer ring includes an outer ring and an inner ring attached to the outer ring…
[0036] The inner ring encircles a hollow, center area of the retainer ring, and a wafer may be secured in the hollow center area of the retainer ring during processing. In step 406, a wafer is positioned within the retainer ring (e.g., within the hollow center area of the retainer ring). The inner ring may be disposed between edges of the wafer and the outer ring while the wafer is secured by the retainer ring. The inner ring may be at least as tall as the wafer in order to protect wafer edges during processing. In step 406, processing is performed on the wafer while the wafer is secured by the retainer ring… Furthermore, a chemical slurry may be dispensed under the wafer (e.g., under the retainer ring and/or through grooves in the retainer ring) during processing…
In regards to claim 10, Hsu as modified discloses
the method of claim 9, wherein multistep CMP process includes a first step with a first removal rate (bulk removal process) and a second step (buffing process) with a second removal rate smaller than the first removal rate.
[0032] The CMP process may be a one-step CMP process (e.g., where a single polishing pad 206 is used) or a multi-step CMP process. For example, the polishing pad 206 may be used during a bulk CMP process. In such embodiments, the wafer 200 may be removed from the polishing pad 206 and may be transferred to a buffing polishing pad (not illustrated).
[0033] In an embodiment the second polishing pad may be a soft buffing pad which may planarize the wafer 200 at a slower and more controlled rate than the first polishing pad 206 while also buffing and eliminating defects and scratches that may have been caused by the bulk CMP process. In an embodiment the second polishing pad may be rotated relative to the wafer 200 while the buffing slurry is dispensed on the second polishing pad. The buffing CMP process may be continued until desired materials have been removed from the surface of the wafer 200. In some embodiments, a timed or optical end-point detection may be used to determine when to stop the polishing on the wafer 200.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanna et al. (US PG Pub No. 20220055181) in view of Li. (US PG Pub No. 20130012108).
In regards to claim 11, Khanna discloses
a device, comprising: a retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) for a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) head, the retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) including:
an annular interior surface (inner surface 102, fig. 1B);
PNG
media_image1.png
339
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bottom surface (bottom surface 321, fig. 3A) configured to contact a CMP pad;
PNG
media_image2.png
475
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a coupler ([0038]) configured to fixedly couple the retaining ring to the CMP head,
[0038] The retaining ring 100 is secured near the edge of the housing 52 to confine the substrate 10 below the membrane 54. For example, the retaining ring 100 is secured by mechanical fasteners 158 that extend through passages 159 in the housing 52 into aligned threaded receiving recesses in a top surface of the retaining ring 100.
wherein the retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) includes a Lewis acid polymer and a Lewis base polymer blended together ([0046-0047]).
[0046] FIG. 3D is a side cross-sectional view of a portion of a retaining ring assembly 300C that includes two concentric retaining rings that can be separately actuated by components within the carrier head 50…
[0047] FIGS. 4A to 4F illustrate different embodiments of the sections 320. Referring to FIG. 4A, the sections 320 (e.g., 320A) include rows of posts 326 that are arranged in a radially concentric pattern. The posts 326, in some embodiments, include a plurality of posts 326 that are composed of one or more polymer compositions. The polymer compositions are generally chemically inert to polishing chemistry used in a CMP process. Any of the polymers and/or polymer compositions described herein include polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyaryletherketone (PAEK), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polybenzimidazole (PBI), polyetherimide (PEI), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), polybutylene naphthalete (PBN), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polycarbonate, semi-crystalline polyester (e.g., Semitron CMP LL5 polyester), polyamide-imide (e.g., Semitron XL20), polyurethane (PUR), Duraplastic and PurPlastic, combinations thereof, and/or mixtures thereof.
Khanna fails to explicitly disclose a molar ratio of the Lewis acid polymer to the Lewis Acid base Lewis base polymer is between 0.2 and 0.8.
However, Li, which also discloses a CMP wafer polishing method, teaches ratios between different polymer groups:
[0050] Suitable polymer particles include polyvinylchloride, polyvinylfluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, polycarbonate, polyester, poly(meth)acrylate, polyether, polyamide, polyurethane, polyepoxide, polystyrene, polyimide (e.g., polyetherimide), polysulfone and mixtures thereof. In some embodiments, the polymer particles can be chosen from poly(meth)acrylate, polyurethane, polyepoxide and mixtures thereof.
[0074] In some embodiments, suitable polymer particles useful for practicing the present disclosure include particulate polyepoxides. A particulate polyepoxide can be prepared, for example, from a reaction product of a first resin having at least two epoxide groups; and a second resin having at least two groups that are reactive with the epoxide groups of the epoxide.
[0081] The molar equivalents ratio of epoxide groups to epoxide-reactive groups of the reactants used to prepare the particulate crosslinked polyepoxide is typically from 0.5:1.0 to 2.0:1.0, e.g., from 0.7:1.0 to 1.3:1.0 or from 0.8:1.0 to 1.2:1.0.
Khanna and Li considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of CMP polishing methods and apparatuses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khanna and provide the ratio between acid and base polymers at 0.5 (which is between 0.2 and .8) in order to ensure proper balance of chemical elements.
In regards to claim 12, Khanna as modified discloses
the device of claim 11, wherein the retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) includes a metal portion (metal portion 620, fig. 6C) coupled to the blend of the Lewis Acid polymer and the Lewis base polymer.
[0061] FIG. 6C depicts a side cross-sectional view of a retaining ring 600 and a substrate 10. In one embodiment, the retaining ring 600 includes a dual ring configuration that includes a metal portion 620 composed of a metal such as stainless steel and a polymer section 621 that is coupled to and disposed below the metal portion 620.
In regards to claim 14, Khanna as modified discloses
the device of claim 11, further comprising grooves (channels 322, fig. 3A; [0041-0042]) in the bottom surface (bottom surface 321, fig. 3A) of the retaining ring.
In regards to claim 15, Khanna as modified discloses
the device of claim 11, wherein the Lewis base polymer includes one or more of nylon, PVAc, PLA, PMMA, and PPS ([0047]: polyphenylene sulfide (PPS)).
In regards to claim 16, Khanna as modified discloses
the device of claim 11, wherein the Lewis acid polymer includes one or more of PVDF, PVC, PS, PVDC, and PEEK ([0047]: polyetheretherketone (PEEK)).
In regards to claim 18, Khanna as modified discloses
a method, comprising:
forming a layer on a wafer with a thin film deposition process;
[0003] An integrated circuit is typically formed on a substrate by the sequential deposition of conductive, semiconductive or insulative layers on a silicon substrate. Fabrication includes depositing a filler layer over a non-planar surface, and planarizing the filler layer until the non-planar surface is exposed. A conductive filler layer can be deposited on a patterned insulative layer to fill the trenches or holes in the insulative layer.
Loading ([0004]) the wafer onto a chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) head,
[0004] Chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) is one accepted method of planarization. This planarization method includes mounting the substrate on a carrier or polishing head of a CMP apparatus.
wherein a lateral surface of the wafer is surrounded by a retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) when the wafer is loaded onto the CMP head,
[0005] The substrate is typically retained below the carrier head by a retaining ring.
wherein the retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) is a blend of a Lewis acid polymer and Lewis base polymer ([0047]); and
at least partially removing the layer by performing a CMP process on the wafer while the wafer is loaded onto the CMP head ([0003]).
In regards to claim 19, Khanna as modified discloses
the method of claim 18, wherein the layer is a dielectric material ([0003]) formed in a trench to isolate two gate electrodes formed on the wafer.
[0003]…In addition, planarization may be needed to planarize a dielectric layer at the substrate surface for photolithography.
In regards to claim 21, Khanna as modified discloses
the method of claim 18, wherein the molar ratio of the Lewis acid polymer to the Lewis base polymer of the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is between 0.4 and 0.6 (0.5 at taught by Li).
In regards to claim 22, Khanna as modified discloses
the method of claim 18, wherein the retaining ring (retainer ring outer ring 102, fig. 2; [0020]) is anti-electrostatic (per applicant’s specification, a retaining ring with a combination of lewis polymer acids and bases will have anti-electrostatic properties. As such, Khanna as modified teaches a retaining ring that meets these qualifications).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanna, Li, in further view of Tseng et al. (US Patent No. 6835125).
In regards to claim 17, Khanna discloses
the device of claim 11, but fails to disclose the retaining ring (retaining ring 100, fig. 1) includes “a metal core surrounded by the blend of the Lewis base polymer and the Lewis acid polymer.”
Tseng, which also discloses a CMP carrier head with retaining ring made of polymers teaches an inner core made of metal:
Col. 4 lines 60-65: The inner core 184 of the retaining ring 110 is formed of a rigid material, such as a metal, e.g., stainless steel, molybdenum, or aluminum, or a ceramic, e.g., alumina, or other exemplary materials.
Khanna and Tseng are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cmp apparatuses and methods with polymers in retaining rings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khanna and provided a metal core within the retaining, to improve the polishing process, as the inclusion of the metal core shows “another benefit of the increased rigidity of the retaining ring of the present invention is that it may reduce the sensitivity of the polishing process to pad compressibility…a relatively flexible retaining ring which can deflect into the pad may make the polishing process extremely sensitive to the elastic properties of the pad material. However, the increased rigidity provided by the rigid upper portion decreases the deflection of the retaining ring, thereby reducing pad deformation, sensitivity to pad compressibility, and the edge effect (col. 5 lines 20-42).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanna, Li, and in further view of Hsu (US PG Pub No. 20170341201).
In regards to claim 20, Khanna discloses
the method of claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose the CMP process includes a first stage and a second stage having a lower removal rate than a removal rate of the first stage.
Hsu, which also teaches a cmp apparatus and method, discloses two processes with differing removal rates:
[0032] The CMP process may be a one-step CMP process (e.g., where a single polishing pad 206 is used) or a multi-step CMP process. For example, the polishing pad 206 may be used during a bulk CMP process. In such embodiments, the wafer 200 may be removed from the polishing pad 206 and may be transferred to a buffing polishing pad (not illustrated).
[0033] In an embodiment the second polishing pad may be a soft buffing pad which may planarize the wafer 200 at a slower and more controlled rate than the first polishing pad 206 while also buffing and eliminating defects and scratches that may have been caused by the bulk CMP process. In an embodiment the second polishing pad may be rotated relative to the wafer 200 while the buffing slurry is dispensed on the second polishing pad. The buffing CMP process may be continued until desired materials have been removed from the surface of the wafer 200. In some embodiments, a timed or optical end-point detection may be used to determine when to stop the polishing on the wafer 200.
Khanna and Hsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cmp apparatuses and methods with polymers in retaining rings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified Khanna in view of Hsu, and provide two stages of polishing with differing removal rates, in order to provide a efficient process (faster bulk polishing), while also ensuring quality wafers by removing small scratches and defects using a lower (buffing) polishing step.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
