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 / Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/01/2024. Claims 7 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0308823) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0101498), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe and Yamaguchi, respectively.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Watanabe discloses a polishing apparatus [Watanabe, fig 1], comprising:
a polishing structure having a polishing surface [Watanabe, fig 1, polishing pad 2 has polishing surface 2a], the polishing structure comprising a scrolling polishing table configured to move in translation along a circular path [Watanabe, fig 1, 5 rotates about central axis and driven by motor 21];
a polishing head [Watanabe, fig 2, 7] configured to press a substrate against the polishing surface [Watanabe, fig 2, 7 presses W against 2a], the polishing head [Watanabe, fig 2, 7] comprising a plurality of pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 2, 47 and 54] spread over an entire actuator holding surface of the polishing head [Watanabe, figs 2 and 3, showing the placement of 47 and 54 over the actuator holding surface of 7] and configured to independently press a specific portion of the substrate [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0062], the plurality of pressing actuators being connected to a plurality of control lines [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0062, power lines 51]; and
a head rotation mechanism configured to rotate the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range [Watanabe, pages 2-3, pp 0042, 20 and per pp 0043, 20 is capable of the having the rotation be controlled by a rotary encoder and the controller 10],
wherein the predetermined rotation angle is determined to be an angle at which the plurality of control lines do not break due to twisting of the plurality of control lines [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0043 teaching that there is a rotary encoder to detect the rotation angle and a detection value of the rotation angle of the polishing head which is then sent to the controller 10, such that the rotation angle is known and predetermined, further, the rotation does not cause 51 to break since the lines 51 cause the actuators to work].
Watanabe may not explicitly disclose the head rotation mechanism configured to rotate reciprocatingly the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range.
Yamaguchi teaches a polishing apparatus [Yamaguchi, page 8, pp 0135, 300A], comprising:
a polishing head configured to press a substrate against the polishing surface [Yamaguchi, page 8, pp 0135, 500 which presses a pad 502 against a surface to be polished], and
a head rotation mechanism configured to rotate reciprocatingly the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range [Yamaguchi, page 8, pp 0135 teaching the head may rotate reciprocatingly back and forth in a reciprocating motion or an angle motion, where the head rotation mechanism is functionally equivalent to the claimed invention because the prior art device, 500, performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the head rotation mechanism of Watanabe to be able to rotate reciprocatingly as taught by Yamaguchi, such that the head rotation mechanism has a predetermined rotation angle as specified by the rotary encoder and controller to control the angle rotation of the polishing head because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the reciprocating motion of the polishing head as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Watanabe, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the reciprocating motion of the polishing head as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Watanabe because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the rotation mechanism with the rotary encoder and controller of Watanabe combined with the reciprocating motion of the polishing head of Yamaguchi. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the polishing head rotation mechanism of Watanabe using the rotary encoder and controller to rotate the polishing head in accordance with the reciprocating motion as taught by Yamaguchi to polish the substrate as desired by both Watanabe and Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2) as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pressing actuators comprise a plurality of airbags configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate, and wherein the airbags are connected to a plurality of fluid supply lines.
Watanabe in a second embodiment (fig 8) teaches the pressing actuators comprise a plurality of airbags configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate [Watanabe, fig 8, C1-C4], and wherein the airbags are connected to a plurality of fluid supply lines [Watanabe, fig 8, F1-F4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the device of Watanabe to use the airbags of the second embodiment of Watanabe instead of the pressing actuators of the first embodiment of Watanabe because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substation of airbag actuators of Watanabe in the second embodiment (fig 8) for the piezoelectric actuators of Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2), each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate embodiments. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of both embodiments being able to control the local pressure on the wafer during polishing [Watanabe, page 1, pp 0017 and page 9, pp 0108].
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pressing actuators comprise a plurality of piezoelectric elements configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate [Watanabe, page 4, pp 0059, 47 are piezoelectric elements], and wherein the piezoelectric elements are connected to a plurality of control lines for controlling operations of the piezoelectric elements [Watanabe, fig 2, are connected to lines 52].
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Watanabe as modified in the first embodiment (fig 2) further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pressing actuators comprise: a plurality of piezoelectric elements configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate [Watanabe, fig 2, 47] and being connected to a plurality of control lines [Watanabe, fig 2, 51].
Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2) as modified does not explicitly discloses the pressing actuators comprise: a plurality of airbags configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate and connected to a plurality of fluid supply lines; and the plurality of piezoelectric elements configured to apply the pressing force to the substrate and being connected to the plurality of control lines (emphasis added).
Watanabe in a second embodiment (fig 8) teaches wherein the pressing actuators comprise: a plurality of airbags configured to apply a pressing force to the substrate [Watanabe, fig 8, C-C4] and connected to a plurality of fluid supply lines [Watanabe, fig 8, F1-F4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have further modified the device of Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2) to have added and combined with the device of Watanabe in the second embodiment (fig 8) so that the pressing actuators include both the airbag type and piezoelectric type as required by the claim because the embodiments are explicitly described as being combinable [Watanabe, page 10, pp 0109].
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the polishing apparatus comprises a control box accommodating various devices configured to control operations of the pressing actuators [Watanabe, figs 1-2, 10 and lines to 24, 16 and 20], and wherein the control box is configured to rotate together with the polishing head [Watanabe, fig 1, the control lines from 10 move with the apparatus on 16].
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the polishing apparatus comprises a control device [Watanabe, fig 1, 10] configured to control an operation of each of the pressing actuators [Watanabe, page 4, pp 0059] based on a film thickness profile of a surface to be polished of the substrate [Watanabe, page 4, 0056], and wherein the control device is configured to identify a specific portion of the substrate based on a comparison result between a current film thickness profile and a target film thickness profile [Watanabe, page 4, pp 0057], and determine a target pressing actuator corresponding to the specific portion of the substrate [Watanabe, page 6, pp 0076].
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Watanabe discloses a polishing method, comprising:
operating a polishing structure [Watanabe, fig 1] comprising a scrolling polishing table configured to move in translation along a circular path [Watanabe, fig 1, 5 rotates about central axis and driven by motor 21];
operating a plurality of pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 2, 47 and 57] spread over an entire actuator holding surface of the polishing head [Watanabe, figs 2 and 3, showing the placement of 47 and 54 over the actuator holding surface of 7], and configured to independently press a specific portion of the substrate [Watanabe, page 5, pp’s 0062-0065], to press the specific portion of the substrate against a polishing surface of the polishing structure [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0065], the plurality of pressing actuators being connected to a plurality of control lines [Watanabe, page 5, pp 0062, power lines 51]; and
rotating the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range [Watanabe, pages 2-3, pp’s 0042 and 0049, 16],
wherein the predetermined rotation angle is determined to be an angle at which the plurality of control lines do not break due to twisting of the plurality of control lines [Watanabe, page 3, pp 0043 teaching that there is a rotary encoder to detect the rotation angle and a detection value of the rotation angle of the polishing head which is then sent to the controller 10, such that the rotation angle is known and predetermined, further, the rotation does not cause 51 to break since the lines 51 cause the actuators to work].
Watanabe may not explicitly disclose rotating reciprocatingly the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range.
Yamaguchi teaches a polishing method, comprising:
operating a polishing structure comprising a polishing head [Yamaguchi, page 8, pp 0135, 500]; and
rotating reciprocatingly the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range [Yamaguchi, page 8, pp 0135 teaching the head may rotate reciprocatingly back and forth in a reciprocating motion or an angle motion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the head rotation mechanism of Watanabe to be able to rotate reciprocatingly as taught by Yamaguchi, such that the head rotation mechanism has a predetermined rotation angle as specified by the rotary encoder and controller to control the angle rotation of the polishing head because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the reciprocating motion of the polishing head as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Watanabe, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the reciprocating motion of the polishing head as taught by Yamaguchi in the system of Watanabe because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the rotation mechanism with the rotary encoder and controller of Watanabe combined with the reciprocating motion of the polishing head of Yamaguchi. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of the polishing head rotation mechanism of Watanabe using the rotary encoder and controller to rotate the polishing head in accordance with the reciprocating motion as taught by Yamaguchi to polish the substrate as desired by both Watanabe and Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Watanabe as modified in the first embodiment (fig 2) as modified further discloses the polishing method according to claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing method comprising operating a plurality of airbags through a plurality of fluid supply lines connected to the airbags as the pressing actuators.
Watanabe in a second embodiment (fig 8) teaches wherein the polishing method comprising operating a plurality of airbags [Watanabe, fig 8, C1-C4] through a plurality of fluid supply lines connected to the airbags as the pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 8, F1-F4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Watanabe to use the airbags of the second embodiment of Watanabe instead of the pressing actuators of the first embodiment of Watanabe because per MPEP 2143(I)(B) the substitution of elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. Where in the instant case, that is the substation of airbag actuators of Watanabe in the second embodiment (fig 8) for the piezoelectric actuators of Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2), each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate embodiments. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In the substitution each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of both embodiments being able to control the local pressure on the wafer during polishing [Watanabe, page 1, pp 0017 and page 9, pp 0108].
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing method according to claim 10, wherein the polishing method comprising operating a plurality of piezoelectric elements [Watanabe, page 4, pp 0059, 47 are piezoelectric elements] through a plurality of control lines connected to the piezoelectric elements as the pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 2, are connected to lines 52 and 51].
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Watanabe as modified in the first embodiment (fig 2) further discloses the polishing method according to claim 10, wherein the polishing method comprising: operating a plurality of piezoelectric elements [Watanabe, fig 2, 47] through a plurality of control lines connected to the piezoelectric elements as the pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 2, 51].
Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2) as modified does not explicitly discloses the polishing method comprising: operating a plurality of airbags through a plurality of fluid supply lines connected to the airbags as the pressing actuators; and operating the plurality of piezoelectric elements through the plurality of control lines connected to the piezoelectric elements as the pressing actuators (emphasis added).
Watanabe in a second embodiment (fig 8) teaches wherein the polishing method comprising: operating a plurality of airbags [Watanabe, fig 8, C-C4] through a plurality of fluid supply lines connected to the airbags as the pressing actuators [Watanabe, fig 8, F1-F4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Watanabe in the first embodiment (fig 2) to have added and combined with the device of Watanabe in the second embodiment (fig 8) so that the pressing actuators include both the airbag type and piezoelectric type within the method as required by the claim because the embodiments are explicitly described as being combinable [Watanabe, page 10, pp 0109].
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing method according to claim 10, wherein the polishing method comprises identifying a specific portion of the substrate based on a comparison result between a current film thickness profile and a target film thickness profile [Watanabe, page 4, pp 0057], and determining a target pressing actuator corresponding to the specific portion [Watanabe, page 6, pp 0076].
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0308823) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0101498), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tien (US PGPUB No. 2020/0361053), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, Yamaguchi, and Tien, respectively.
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which the polishing structure is the polishing table [Watanabe, fig 1, 5], the polishing apparatus comprises a liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a liquid onto the polishing surface [Watanabe, fig 1, 8].
Watanabe as modified does not explicitly disclose the liquid supply nozzle configured to supply the liquid onto the polishing surface through a flow hole formed in the polishing table.
Tien teaches a polishing apparatus [Tien, fig 3B], comprising:
a polishing structure having a polishing surface [Tien, fig 3B, 120 and top surface of 120], the polishing structure comprising a scrolling polishing table configured to move in translation along a circular path [Tien, page 1, pp 0017];
a polishing head configured to press a substrate against the polishing surface [Tien, fig 3B, 130];
wherein in a case in which the polishing structure is the polishing table, the polishing apparatus comprises a liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a liquid onto the polishing surface through a flow hole formed in the polishing table [Tien, fig 3B, 146 supplies fluid through holes 114 and 142 and page 3, pp 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied the slurry through a nozzle in the polishing table as taught by Tien in the system of Watanabe as modified because this configuration allows for pressure between the wafer and the pad can be locally controlled and that the slurry can also be locally controlled according to the device requirements [Tien, page 5, pp 0046, summarized].
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing method according to claim 10, wherein in a case in which the polishing structure is the polishing table [Watanabe, fig 1, 5], the polishing method comprising supplying a liquid from a liquid supply nozzle onto the polishing surface [Watanabe, fig 1, 8].
Watanabe as modified does not explicitly disclose the polishing method comprising supplying the liquid from the liquid supply nozzle onto the polishing surface through a flow hole formed in the polishing table.
Tien teaches a polishing apparatus [Tien, fig 3B], comprising:
a polishing structure having a polishing surface [Tien, fig 3B, 120 and top surface of 120], the polishing structure comprising a scrolling polishing table configured to move in translation along a circular path [Tien, page 1, pp 0017];
a polishing head configured to press a substrate against the polishing surface [Tien, fig 3B, 130];
wherein in a case in which the polishing structure is the polishing table, the polishing apparatus comprises a liquid supply nozzle configured to supply a liquid onto the polishing surface through a flow hole formed in the polishing table [Tien, fig 3B, 146 supplies fluid through holes 114 and 142 and page 3, pp 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied the slurry through a nozzle in the polishing table as taught by Tien in the method of Watanabe because this configuration allows for pressure between the wafer and the pad can be locally controlled and that the slurry can also be locally controlled according to the device requirements [Tien, page 5, pp 0046, summarized].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US PGPUB No. 2021/0308823) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0101498), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hong et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0068934), hereinafter referred to as Watanabe, Yamaguchi, and Hong respectively.
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Watanabe as modified further discloses the polishing apparatus according to claim 1, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the head rotation mechanism comprises: a motor; a motor pulley connected to the motor; a gear formed on an outer circumferential surface of the polishing head; and a timing belt stretched between the motor pulley and the gear.
Hong teaches a polishing apparatus, comprising:
a polishing structure [Hong, fig 2, 34] having a polishing surface [Hong, top surface of 34], the polishing structure comprising a scrolling polishing table configured to move in translation along a circular path [Hong, fig 2, 34 rotates];
a polishing head configured to press a substrate against the polishing surface [Hong, fig 3, 40]; and
a head rotation mechanism configured to rotate the polishing head within a predetermined rotation angle range [Hong, fig 3, 40], wherein the head rotation mechanism comprises: a motor [Hong, fig 3, 90]; a motor pulley connected to the motor [Hong, fig 3, 92]; a gear formed on an outer circumferential surface of the polishing head [Hong, fig 3, 55 is formed on the outer surface of 40, where 55 meets the definition of a gear in that the belt drives 55 in a gear relationship]; and a timing belt stretched between the motor pulley and the gear [Hong, fig 3, 94].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the head rotation mechanism components of Hong within the head rotation mechanism as taught by Watanabe as modified because this allows for the sealing of the drive and prevents process errors causable by pollution material generated by abrasion of respective mechanical seal parts of a drive rotary union and driven rotary union, the pollution material being effluent to a polishing pad, and thereby increases production yield [Hong, page 1, pp 0012, summarized].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued starting on page 7 that the prior art does not teach the amended limitation of a predetermined rotation angle that does not break the plurality of control lines in a reciprocatingly rotation head and that one of ordinary skill in the art already solved the problem of preventing breakage and would therefore be un-motivated to restrict the rotation of the head to a reciprocating rotation.
Respectfully the Office disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the reciprocating motion is only for not breaking the control lines, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Further, because the prior art of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0101498) teaches that the various polishing motions of strictly rotational motion and reciprocating motion can be used within a polishing apparatus. There are other possible advantages to having a reciprocating motion than to just not break the lines, as the applicant is motivated to find the same solution. The reciprocating motion can be useful for the type of polishing desired by the user or for the type of polishing pad, and because the prior art Yamaguchi shows, there are predictable results in that polishing using a reciprocating motion also polishes the wafer, as desired by Watanabe and would therefore have been obvious as shown in the above rejections.
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 ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights