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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that applicant argues that the examiner has failed to demonstrate the serious search burden if the restriction were not enacted . This is not found persuasive because the declaration of a serious burden is defined by the examiner which notes that there is a difference in how apparatus and method claims are searched and considered. Namely, apparatus claims entail the structure of the apparatus while the method claims entail the process steps and are thus examined in separate classes and subclasses.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lan et al (US 2019/0152020).
Regarding claim 1: Lan et al teaches the polishing apparatus, comprising: a platen 102; a polishing pad 105 coupled to the platen and configured to be rotated by the platen; a first pad conditioner (conditioning disk 116) in contact with a polishing surface 105A of the polishing pad; and a second pad conditioner (conditioning disk 118) in contact with the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 9: Lan et al teaches the polishing apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a wafer holder 104 configured to support a semiconductor wafer in a polishing position relative to the polishing surface of the polishing pad 105 for polishing of the semiconductor wafer.
Regarding claim 10: Lan et al teaches the polishing apparatus of claim 1, comprising: a slurry provider 120 configured to provide a slurry to the polishing surface 105A of the polishing pad 105.
Regarding claim 18: Lan et al teaches the polishing apparatus, comprising: a platen 102; a polishing pad 105 coupled to the platen and configured to be rotated by the platen; a wafer holder configured to support a semiconductor wafer in a polishing position relative to the polishing pad for polishing of the semiconductor wafer; a slurry provider 120 configured to provide a slurry to a polishing surface of the polishing pad for polishing of the semiconductor wafer; a first pad conditioner with condition disk 116 configured to condition a first portion of the polishing surface (side further from the wafer holder 107); and a second pad conditioner with condition disk 118 configured to condition a second portion (side closer to the wafer holder) 107) of the polishing surface, wherein the second portion is different than the first portion. See Fig. 1 of Lan et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
804
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-8, and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al (US 2019/0152020) in view of So (US 2003/0190874).
The teachings of Lan et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach that the conditioner arm (s) oscillated the conditioner. Namely,
Regarding claim 2: The polishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first pad conditioner comprises: a first pad conditioner head in contact with the polishing surface; and a first pad conditioner arm configured to oscillate the first pad conditioner head along a first oscillation path between a first position relative to the polishing surface and a second position relative to the polishing surface; the second pad conditioner comprises: a second pad conditioner head in contact with the polishing surface; and a second pad conditioner arm configured to oscillate the second pad conditioner head along a second oscillation path between a third position relative to the polishing surface and a fourth position relative to the polishing surface; and the first oscillation path is different than the second oscillation path. See [0031] of So et al where the conditioning apparatus of So et al includes an oscillating arm 7 which applies a downward force, a rotating disk housing 12 with an attachable abrasive surface disk 3 to contact a polishing pad 9 on disk holder 5 and a mechanical drive mechanism 16 to rotate the disk and attachable brushes 4, having bristles 14, with an independent downforce apparatus such as, bladder 6. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Lan et al by providing an oscillating arm to the conditioner is that this ensures the conditioners with oscillate relative each other and along the polishing pad surface.
Regarding claim 3: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the specific position and distance between the edge of the polishing surface and the conditioner. Namely, Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 2, wherein: a distance between an edge of the polishing surface and a fifth position of the first pad conditioner head along the first oscillation path is at most about 200 millimeters; and the fifth position of the first pad conditioner head is a closest position along the first oscillation path to the edge of the polishing surface. See [0021] of So et al where it is suggested that when using multiple conditioners it is important to control their positions so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned. The actual distance or position of each conditioner relative each other and/or the polishing surface edge is a matter of design choice and optimization as the specific needs of the polishing pad would dictate the required position and/or distance. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position and dimensions of the conditioners so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned.
Regarding claim 4: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the specific position and distance between the edge of the polishing surface and the conditioner. Namely, Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first pad conditioner comprises a first pad conditioner head in contact with a first portion the polishing surface; and the first portion of the polishing surface at least one of: comprises at least a portion of an edge of the polishing surface; or is separated from the edge by at most about 200 millimeters.
Regarding claim 5: See Fig.1 of Lan et al wherein the second pad conditioner comprises a second pad conditioner head 118 in contact with a second portion (side closer to wafer holder 107) of the polishing surface 105a ; and the first portion (side further from the wafer holder 107) of the polishing surface is different than the second portion of the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 6: The prior art of Lan et al teaches the polishing apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the first pad conditioner head comprises a diamond disk. See Lan et al [0030] where diamond is listed as a material of construction of disk 116.
Regarding claim 7: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the first pad conditioner head comprises at least one of a brush, a hydrophilic pad, a hydrophobic pad, or a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) sponge. The prior art of So et al teaches a composite conditioning tool where the conditioning tool features brushes 4 and conditioning disks 3 see [0027] – [0035]. So et al suggests using conditioners of different types such as brushes and or disks in order to dress the conditioners regardless of its wear and tear including various topography and/or contamination/debris load. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al using conditioners constructed of different materials or types of conditioner.
Regarding claim 8: The polishing apparatus of claim 7, wherein: the second pad conditioner comprises a second pad conditioner head in contact with a second portion of the polishing surface; and the second pad conditioner head comprises a diamond disk. The prior art of So et al teaches a composite conditioning tool where the conditioning tool features brushes 4 and conditioning disks 3 see [0027] – [0035]. See diamond disk 3 is specifically recited in [0031]. So et al suggests using conditioners of different types such as brushes and or disks in order to dress the conditioners regardless of its wear and tear including various topography and/or contamination/debris load. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al using conditioners constructed of different materials or types of conditioner.
Regarding claim 19: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 18, wherein the first portion of the polishing surface at least one of: comprises at least a portion of an edge of the polishing surface; or is separated from the edge by at most about 200 millimeters. See [0021] of So et al where it is suggested that when using multiple conditioners it is important to control their positions so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned. The actual distance or position of each conditioner relative each other and/or the polishing surface edge is a matter of design choice and optimization as the specific needs of the polishing pad would dictate the required position and/or distance. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position and dimensions of the conditioners so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned.
Regarding claim 20: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 19, comprising: a third pad conditioner configured to condition a third portion of the polishing surface, wherein the third portion of the polishing surface at least one comprises at least a second portion of the edge of the polishing surface; or is separated from the edge by at most about 200 millimeters. See [0021] of So et al where it is suggested that when using multiple conditioners it is important to control their positions so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned. The actual distance or position of each conditioner relative each other and/or the polishing surface edge is a matter of design choice and optimization as the specific needs of the polishing pad would dictate the required position and/or distance. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position and dimensions of the conditioners so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and to ensure the conditioners have been amply conditioned. us, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position and dimensions of the conditioners by introducing a oscillating arm.
Regarding claim 21: Lan et al teaches a polishing apparatus, comprising: a platen 102 configured to be rotated in a first rotational direction see [0017] ; a polishing pad 105 disposed on the platen; a first pad conditioner comprising a first pad conditioner head 116, wherein the polishing pad is disposed between the platen and the first pad conditioner; a second pad conditioner comprising a second pad conditioner head 118, wherein the polishing pad is disposed between the platen and the second pad conditioner. See Fig. 1 of Lan et al above.
Lan et al fails to teach that the wafer holder 104 disposed between the first pad conditioner and the second pad conditioner in the first rotational direction.
Recall So et al teaches the importance of controlling the position of the conditioning heads to ensure they do not impede each other’s movement and subsequentially negatively impact the conditioning of the polishing pad. Likewise, with a reasonable expectation of success it would have been obvious to design the location of the conditioning disks relative the wafer holder so that disks are separated by the wafer holder. Ultimately the location of the disks relative the polishing surface of the pad, relative to each other, and relative to each other is a matter of optimization and design choice as the specific needs of the polishing pad would dictate the required position and/or distance. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position of the conditioners so as not to impede movement of the conditioners relative one another and/or relative the wafer holder to ensure the conditioners can be amply conditioned during the CMP process. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Lan with the suggestion of So et al to control the position of the conditioners so the wafer holder is disposed between the first pad conditioner and the second pad conditioner in the first rotational direction as a matter of design choice and optimization
Regarding claim 22: The polishing apparatus of claim 21, comprising: a slurry provider 120 see [0029] of Lan et al) configured to dispense a slurry onto the polishing pad, wherein the slurry provider is disposed between the second pad conditioner and the first pad conditioner in the first rotational direction. See Fig. 1 of Lan et al.
Regarding claim 23: The polishing apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first pad conditioner is configured to rotate the first pad conditioner head in the first rotational direction. See [0021] of Lan et al.
Regarding claim 24: The polishing apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first pad conditioner head comprises a diamond disk. See Lan et al [0030] and [0031].
Regarding claim 25: The prior art of Lan et al fails to teach the polishing apparatus of claim 21, wherein the first pad conditioner comprises a first pad conditioner arm configured to oscillate the first pad conditioner head. See [0031] of So et al where the conditioning apparatus of So et al includes an oscillating arm 7 which applies a downward force, a rotating disk housing 12 with an attachable abrasive surface disk 3 to contact a polishing pad 9 on disk holder 5 and a mechanical drive mechanism 16 to rotate the disk and attachable brushes 4, having bristles 14, with an independent downforce apparatus such as, bladder 6. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Lan et al by providing an oscillating arm to the conditioner is that this ensures the conditioners with oscillate relative each other and along the polishing pad surface.
Regarding claim 26: The polishing apparatus of claim 21, wherein: the first pad conditioner head 116 is of a first conditioner head type due to different surface 136, and the second pad conditioner head 118 is of a second conditioner head type due to different surface 138 different than the first conditioner head type. See Fig. 1 of Lan et al and where the difference in the types of conditioner head type is the different material of construction of the abrasives or different size teeth.
PNG
media_image2.png
441
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al (US 2019/0152020) in view of in view of So (US 2003/0190874) as applied to claims 2-8, and 19-26 above, and in further view of Yasuda et al (US 2020/0269383).
The apparatus resulting from the prior art of Lan et al as modified by So was discussed above.
Regarding claim 27: The apparatus resulting from the prior art of Lan et al as modified by So fails to teach that the polishing apparatus of claim 21, comprising: a sensor configured to measure the thickness of the polishing pad; and a controller configured to change a parameter of the first pad conditioner based upon the thickness of the polishing pad.
The prior art of Yasuda et al teaches a polishing device with conditioners 820 and 850. See [0048] of Yasuda et al where the thickness of the pad 502 is discussed. The thickness could have been determined by thickness monitor 420 (sensor). Yasuda et al also teaches a controller 900 where the parameters of the polishing device to include the on/off status of the conditioners or whether further conditioning is needed to see [0006], [0008]. Note also in Yasuda et al where it is discussed that the position of the conditioner see [0044]. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the prior art of Lan et al as modified by So with the thickness sensor and controller of Yasuda et al is that they enhance the process control of the conditioning of the pad and overall polishing method and apparatus. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus resulting from the prior art of Lan et al as modified by So l with the thickness sensor and controller of Yasuda et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lujan (US 7,094,134) teaches pad conditioner featuring a first conditioner 200a and a second conditioner 200b see Figs. 2 and 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights