DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakahara (JP2022026349A), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 1, Nakahara discloses A chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising:
a platen (Fig. 2 element 2);
a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) pad (Fig. 2 element 6) on an upper surface of the platen (Fig. 2, where the surface of the platen which directly contacts the CMP pad corresponds to an upper surface of the platen), the CMP pad comprising an installation hole (Fig. 2, where element 2a and the space which element 6a occupies corresponds to an installation hole);
a polishing head (Fig. 2 element 3) on the platen (Fig. 2), the polishing head being configured to bring a wafer W (Fig. 2 element W) into contact with the CMP pad (Fig. 3, 0027);
a slurry supply unit (0026, where “nozzle” corresponds to a slurry supply unit) configured to supply slurry to the CMP pad (0026); and
a sensor module (Fig. 2 elements 6a, 10, 14, and 9) in the installation hole of the CMP pad (Fig. 2, where at least element 6a is in the installation hole),
wherein the sensor module includes:
a window (Fig. 2 element 6a) at an upper end of the installation hole (Fig. 2, where the general end associated with element 6a corresponds to an upper end of the installation hole);
a housing (Fig. 2 element 11) disposed below the window (Fig. 2), the housing comprising an inclined internal surface (Fig. 5, where either the rightmost or leftmost sides of element 13 corresponds to an inclined internal surface); and
a sensor (Fig. 2 element 9) below the housing (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a filler (0026, where the filler (i.e. “CMP slurry”) is a subset of the slurry which encompasses the entirety of the filler) configured to fill an internal area of the housing (Fig. 5 element 13 corresponds to an internal area of the housing, 0049)
Regarding claim 4, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses an internal area of the housing narrows from an upper end portion to a lower end portion (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the sensor is connected to a controller (Fig. 1 element 7, 0035), and
wherein the controller is configured to control an operation of the platen and the polishing head based on a signal from the sensor (0045).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (JP2022026349A), attached as a PDF, in view of David et al. (US20070224915), hereinafter David.
Regarding claim 5, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the window comprises a poreless polymer material.
David is also concerned with a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus and teaches a window (Fig. 1 element 36, 0034, where “a solid window” is being used) comprises a poreless polymer material (0035, where “polyurethane” corresponds to a poreless polymer material). Pursuant of MPEP 2144.06-II, it has been held obvious to substitute equivalents for the same purpose. Nakahara discloses the invention except that the poreless material is urethane (i.e. a monomer) instead of a poreless polymer material. David shows that a poreless polymer material is an equivalent structure known in the art (i.e. both materials allows for light transmittance). Therefore, because these two poreless material types were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute a poreless polymer material for a poreless monomer material.
Regarding claim 6, Nakahara, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further discloses the window comprises a polyurethane (David, 0035) or polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (JP2022026349A), attached as a PDF, as evidenced by Gallagher found at https://web.archive.org/web/20201129162309/https://gallaghercorp.com/talking-about-polyurethane/, hereinafter Gallagher.
Regarding claim 8, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the housing comprises silicon or no pore polyurethane material. However, it 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 to modify the CMP of Nakahara to make the housing out of no pore polyurethane because polyurethane is well known in the art of abrasives to be abrasive, cut, and tear resistant, as evidenced by Gallagher (see page 1), which would extend the expected lifespan of the housing.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara (JP2022026349A), attached as a PDF, as evidenced by Xiang et al. (US20240009797), hereinafter Xiang.
Regarding claim 13, Nakahara discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the installation hole has a shape of any one of a quadrangle, a circle, and a sector when viewed from above.
Xiang is also concerned with a window installed in an installation hole of a CMP apparatus and teaches the installation hole (Fig. 1, the space which the window occupies corresponds to an installation hole) has a shape of any one of a quadrangle, a circle, and a sector when viewed from above (0015, where the shape is a circle). Pursuant MPEP 2144.04-IV-B, it 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 to modify the installation hole of Nakahara with regards to a desired shape (in this case, a circle shape) in adapting the installation hole for a particular application, since an installation hole having a circle shape is known in the art, as evidenced by Xiang, and such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant does not provide criticality for the shape of the installation hole in Applicant’s specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 14, the closest art of record, Nakahara (JP2022026349A), provided as a PDF, and Wiswell et al. (US20230009048), hereinafter Wisell, fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim all of the claimed structural features of the sensor module.
Nakahara fails to disclose “a diaphragm below the window”, the housing being located below the diaphragm, and “the sensor being configured to detect an acoustic wave generated during polishing of the wafer”.
Wiswell discloses a window (Fig. 2B element 119) at an upper end of the installation hole (Fig. 2B, where element 164 and the space occupied by element 119 corresponds to an installation hole);
a diaphragm (Fig. 2B element 172) below the window (Fig. 2B);
a housing (Fig. 2B element 163) below the diaphragm (Fig. 2B); and
a sensor (Fig. 2B element 162) in the installation hole (Fig. 2B), the sensor being configured to detect an acoustic wave generated during polishing of the wafer (0034).
Wiswell fails to disclose “the housing having an inclined internal surface; a filler configured to fill an internal area of the housing” and that the sensor is “to be below the filler”.
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not have found it obvious to modify Nakahara with the teachings Wiswell or to modify Wiswell with the teachings of Nakahara without improper hindsight reasoning as Nakahara is concerned with an optical sensor and Wiswell is concerned with an acoustic sensor and one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect success when combining elements of an optical sensor module into an acoustic sensor module and vice versa.
Claims 15-20 are allowed as being dependent on an allowed claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2, 7, and 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 2, 9 and 11, the closest art of record, Nakahara (JP2022026349A), provided as a PDF, fails to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
“the sensor module further includes a diaphragm between the window and the housing” recited in claim 2. Examiner finds that a diaphragm refers to a sheet of material that vibrates when hit by sound waves or vibrates to generate sound waves and as Nakahara uses an optical sensor, examiner finds that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a diaphragm in the CMP of Nakahara without improper hindsight reasoning.
“the filler corresponds to a solid filter” recited in claim 9. Examiner finds that one or ordinary skill in the art would not consider a slurry to be a solid filter and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing make the filler (i.e. slurry) of Nakahara a solid filter without improper hindsight reasoning.
“the sensor is configured to detect acoustic waves generated during polishing of the wafer” as recited in claim 11. Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not have found it obvious to change the optical sensor in Nakahara to be an acoustic sensor as these two sensor types operate entirely differently and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have an expectation of success using an acoustic sensor in Nakahara because the acoustic sensor would not function properly with the other structure of the sensor module.
Claims 7 and 10 would be allowable as being dependent on an allowable claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights