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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/20/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “temperatures sensor” should read “[[temperatures]] temperature sensor” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Elkhatib et al. (US PGPUB 20170361419), hereinafter Elkhatib, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj.
Regarding claim 1, Maury teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method (fig. 5), comprising:
holding a wafer (wafer 18, fig. 5) in a carrier (fig. 5) over a polishing pad (pad 14, see annotated fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
413
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
dispensing the first slurry into the carrier by using a first nozzle disposed within the carrier (fig. 5, fluid supply tube 30).
Maury does not explicitly teach
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles;
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle;
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
dispensing a second slurry;
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Hashii teaches a wafer polishing apparatus and method, which includes
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles (Hashii teaches using two abrasive slurries, wherein the first and second abrasive slurries include abrasive particles [0043]);
dispensing a second slurry (Hashii teaches using a first polishing slurry with larger particles in the first half of the polishing procedure and then using a second polishing slurry with smaller particles in the second half of the polishing procedure [0051]);
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad (fig. 4, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maury to incorporate the teachings of Hashii to provide a first slurry and a second slurry each including abrasive particles, wherein the carrier and the polishing pad are rotated during processing. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the two slurry teaching of Hashii into the method of Maury, wherein the pad and carrier of Maury are rotated during polishing. Incorporating the two slurry teaching of Hashii would promote quality of the workpiece by providing two slurries each directed towards different polishing results (as taught by Hashii) and would also promote increased surface finish of the workpiece. Rotating the carrier and pad of Maury during processing would allow the device to function as intended and polish the workpiece as intended.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle;
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Elkhatib teaches a system and method for delivering slurry for Chemical Mechanical Polishing including
heating a first slurry to a first temperature (Elkhatib teaches the slurry is heated to a target temperature [0018] which may include a range from 55-60 degrees C [0022]);
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle (thermal sensor 207, [0026], the term “adjacent” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the sensor 207 is adjacent, with respect to the flow of the slurry, to the first nozzle);
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result ([0027], wherein the comparison result is if the slurry needs to be heated or not, wherein the target temperature includes a range from 55-60 degrees C [0022]);
polishing the workpiece in response to the comparison result (Elkhatib teaches the CMP slurry is preconditioned to a target temperature before being applied to the surface of the wafer in order to enhance the efficiency of the CMP process [0018]. Overall, Elkhatib teaches the workpiece is polished in response to and after the comparison result).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Elkhatib to provide
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle;
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result;
polishing the workpiece in response to the comparison result.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the temperature monitoring teachings of Elkhatib into the process of Maury, as modified, wherein the slurry is heated to a desired temperature of 55-60 degrees C via a heating system, wherein the heating system includes a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature, wherein the detected temperature is compared to a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result and the workpiece is polished in response to the comparison result. Doing so would enhance the efficiency of the CMP process [0018 of Elkhatib]. Additionally, doing so would allow a CMP slurry to operate within a temperature range that optimizes its efficiency but without incurring the additional costs of process time or slurry waste [0005 of Elkhatib].
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, Maury, as modified, does not teach the explicit starting and halting operations of the rotating.
However, Bajaj teaches a CMP apparatus and method which includes a controller 138 which controls the rotation of the pad and rotation of the substrate holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Bajaj to provide starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Bajaj to selectively control the rotating of the carrier head and polishing pad. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and selectively polish the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result (Maury, as modified, teaches the slurry is heated to the desired temperature before polishing. Therefore, the rotation is in response to the slurry being heated to the desired temperature); halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad; halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad (Maury, as modified, teaches the controller selectively controls the rotating. The claim limitations are relatively broad because they do not require the halting to be related to any other steps of the method. Maury, as modified, teaches halting of the carrier of the polishing pad by selectively controlling the rotation).
Regarding claim 2, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein dispensing the second slurry comprises dispensing the second slurry into the carrier by using a second nozzle disposed within the carrier (fig. 5 of Maury, wherein two nozzles 30 are present, wherein one of the nozzles is interpreted as the first nozzle and one of the nozzles is interpreted as the second nozzle).
Regarding claim 5, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are arranged symmetric with respect to a central axis of the carrier (fig. 5 of Maury, wherein two nozzles 30 are present, wherein one of the nozzles is interpreted as the first nozzle and one of the nozzles is interpreted as the second nozzle).
Regarding claim 9, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the first temperature in a range from about 10°C to about 80°C (see above rejection of claim 1, wherein the first temperature includes heating the slurry to a range of 55-60 degrees C, which is the target temperature).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Elkhatib et al. (US PGPUB 20170361419), hereinafter Elkhatib, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Fukushima et al. (US PGPUB 20120058709), hereinafter Fukushima.
Regarding claim 3, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the second nozzle is at a position higher than a position of the temperatures sensor.
However, Fukushima teaches a polishing apparatus and method, wherein the thermometer 12 is located at the bottom surface of the carrier 43 (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fukushima to provide wherein the thermometer of Maury, as modified, is located at the bottom surface of the carrier of Maury. Doing so would provide a known location of the thermometer to allow the sensor to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would protect the sensor from damage caused by external forces and elements.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the second nozzle (nozzle 30 of fig. 5 of Maury) is at a position higher than a position of the temperatures sensor (wherein the temperature sensor was modified to be located on the bottom surface of the carrier of Maury).
Regarding claim 4, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle is greater than a distance between the first nozzle and the temperature sensor.
However, Fukushima teaches a polishing apparatus and method, wherein the thermometer 12 is located at the bottom surface of the carrier 43 (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fukushima to provide wherein the thermometer of Maury, as modified, is located at the bottom surface of the carrier of Maury. Doing so would provide a known location of the thermometer to allow the sensor to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would protect the sensor from damage caused by external forces and elements.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein a distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle (as seen in fig. 5 of Maury, distance between nozzles 30) is greater than a distance between the first nozzle and the temperature sensor (wherein the temperature sensor was modified to be located on the bottom surface of the carrier of Maury).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Elkhatib et al. (US PGPUB 20170361419), hereinafter Elkhatib, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj, as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Boggs et al. (US Patent 6325696), hereinafter Boggs.
Regarding claim 6, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach detecting a pressure in the carrier using a pressure sensor, wherein the first nozzle is between the temperature sensor and the pressure sensor.
However, Boggs teaches a piezo-actuated CMP carrier, wherein a plurality of actuators 41,42 sense pressure variations, wherein a controller 56 reads pressure variations across the wafer, as sensed by all of the actuators and compensates for pressure variations (fig. 7, col. 5, lines 4-16), wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier 26 (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boggs to provide a plurality of actuators for sensing pressure variations, wherein a controller reads the pressure variations and compensates for the pressure variations, wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier. Doing so would promote even polishing of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches detecting a pressure in the carrier using a pressure sensor (actuators as incorporated from Boggs), wherein the first nozzle (nozzle 30 of fig. 5 of Maury) is between the temperature sensor (wherein the temperature sensor is located upstream of the nozzle outlet) and the pressure sensor (wherein the pressure sensor was incorporated to be at the bottom surface of the carrier, thereby providing the orientation of the first nozzle being between the temperature sensor and the pressure sensor).
Regarding claim 8, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein a distance between the first nozzle and the second nozzle (fig. 5 of Maury, distance between nozzles 30) is greater than a distance between the first nozzle and the pressure sensor (wherein the pressure sensor was incorporated to be located at the bottom surface of the carrier 16 of Maury).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Elkhatib et al. (US PGPUB 20170361419), hereinafter Elkhatib, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj, and further in view of Boggs et al. (US Patent 6325696), hereinafter Boggs, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nishiguchi et al. (US Patent 5113622), hereinafter Nishiguchi.
Regarding claim 7, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 6. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature sensor is closer to the first nozzle than the pressure sensor is.
However, Nishiguchi teaches a wafer grinding apparatus, wherein an outlet thermometer is arranged in the outlet pipe communicating with the outlet port of the fluid (col. 3, lines 34-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Nishiguchi to provide wherein the thermometer of Maury, as modified, is located in the outlet pipe at the outlet port of the fluid (of Maury). Doing so would promote accuracy of the measurements of the temperature of the slurry immediately before it is dispensed.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the temperature sensor is closer to the first nozzle (wherein the temperature sensor was modified to be located in the outlet pipe at the outlet port) than the pressure sensor is (wherein the incorporated pressure sensor is at the bottom surface of the carrier).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Obeng et al. (US Patent 6048256), hereinafter Obeng, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj, and yet further in view of Deshpande et al. (US Patent 9067295), hereinafter Deshpande, and yet further in view of Boggs et al. (US Patent 6325696), hereinafter Boggs.
Regarding claim 10, Maury teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method (fig. 5), comprising:
holding a wafer (wafer 18, fig. 5) in a carrier (fig. 5) over a polishing pad (pad 14), wherein the carrier comprises a carrier head (fig. 5),
dispensing a first slurry into the carrier by using a nozzle disposed within the carrier (fig. 5, fluid supply tube 30).
Maury does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles;
detecting a first slurry concentration of the first slurry using a slurry concentration sensor disposed on the backing film;
comparing the first slurry concentration and a predetermined slurry concentration to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
dispensing a second slurry;
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Hashii teaches a wafer polishing apparatus and method, which includes
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles (Hashii teaches using two abrasive slurries, wherein the first and second abrasive slurries include abrasive particles [0043]);
dispensing a second slurry (Hashii teaches using a first polishing slurry with larger particles in the first half of the polishing procedure and then using a second polishing slurry with smaller particles in the second half of the polishing procedure [0051]);
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad (fig. 4, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maury to incorporate the teachings of Hashii to provide a first slurry and a second slurry each including abrasive particles, wherein the carrier and the polishing pad are rotated during processing. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the two slurry teaching of Hashii into the method of Maury, wherein the pad and carrier of Maury are rotated during polishing. Incorporating the two slurry teaching of Hashii would promote quality of the workpiece by providing two slurries each directed towards different polishing results (as taught by Hashii) and would also promote increased surface finish of the workpiece. Rotating the carrier and pad of Maury during processing would allow the device to function as intended and polish the workpiece as intended.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
detecting a first slurry concentration of the first slurry using a slurry concentration sensor disposed on the backing film;
comparing the first slurry concentration and a predetermined slurry concentration to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Obeng teaches an apparatus and method for continuous delivery and conditioning of a polishing slurry, including
detecting a first slurry concentration of the first slurry using a slurry concentration sensor (col. 4, lines 15-20);
comparing the first slurry concentration and a predetermined slurry concentration to obtain a comparison result (col. 4, lines 31-35);
adjusting the parameters in response to the comparison result (col. 4, lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Obeng to provide
detecting a first slurry concentration of the first slurry using a slurry concentration sensor;
comparing the first slurry concentration and a predetermined slurry concentration to obtain a comparison result;
adjusting the parameters in response to the comparison result.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the concentration monitoring teachings of Obeng into the process of Maury, as modified, wherein the slurry is monitored and adjusted and the parameters are adjusted in response to the monitoring and comparing. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and tools. Additionally, doing so would promote quality and surface finish of the workpiece.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
a slurry concentration sensor disposed on the backing film
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result,
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, Maury, as modified, does not teach the explicit starting and halting operations of the rotating.
However, Bajaj teaches a CMP apparatus and method which includes a controller 138 which controls the rotation of the pad and rotation of the substrate holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Bajaj to provide starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Bajaj to selectively control the rotating of the carrier head and polishing pad. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and selectively polish the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result (Maury, as modified, teaches the slurry is adjusted to the correct balance before polishing. Therefore, the rotation is in response to the slurry being adjusted to the desired balance);
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad; halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad (Maury, as modified, teaches the controller selectively controls the rotating. The claim limitations are relatively broad because they do not require the halting to be related to any other steps of the method. Maury, as modified, teaches halting of the carrier of the polishing pad by selectively controlling the rotation).
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
a slurry concentration sensor disposed on the backing film.
However, Deshpande teaches a CMP apparatus and method, including
a backing film under the carrier head (flexible membrane 144, fig. 1), wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane (flexible membrane 144).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande to provide a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include a flexible backing film on the carrier head of Maury, as modified. Doing so would promote securing the workpiece while also preventing damage to the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would prevent slippage of the workpiece during processing.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
the slurry concentration sensor disposed on the backing film.
However, Boggs teaches a Piezo-actuated CMP carrier, wherein sensors 41-42 (fig. 7) are disposed on the backing film 20 (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boggs to provide wherein the slurry concentration sensor is disposed on the backing film. Specifically, it would have been obvious locate the slurry concentration sensor on the backing film of the carrier head. Doing so would allow the slurry to be monitored at the place of function, thereby promoting quality and accuracy of the slurry recipe. Additionally, through promoting quality and accuracy of the slurry, the quality of the workpiece would also be promoted.
Regarding claim 11, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the slurry concentration sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer (See above rejection of claim 10, wherein the slurry concentration sensor was located on the backing film. The term “adjacent” does not require any specific spatial or structural relationship. Therefore, the sensor is “adjacent” to a sidewall of the wafer).
Regarding claim 12, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein a distance between the slurry concentration sensor and the polishing pad is greater than a distance between the wafer and the polishing pad (See above rejection of claim 10, wherein the slurry concentration sensor was located on the backing film, wherein the backing film is located above the wafer. Therefore, the distance between the sensor and the pad is greater than the distance between the wafer and the pad).
Regarding claims 13-14, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach detecting a pressure in the carrier using a pressure sensor disposed on the backing film, wherein the pressure sensor and the polishing pad has a distance greater than a distance between the polishing pad and the wafer.
However, Boggs additionally teaches wherein a plurality of actuators 41,42 sense pressure variations, wherein a controller 56 reads pressure variations across the wafer, as sensed by all of the actuators and compensates for pressure variations (fig. 7, col. 5, lines 4-16), wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier 26 on the backing film (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Boggs to provide a plurality of actuators for sensing pressure variations, wherein a controller reads the pressure variations and compensates for the pressure variations, wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier on the backing film. Doing so would promote even polishing of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches
detecting a pressure in the carrier using a pressure sensor (actuators as incorporated from Boggs) disposed on the backing film (as incorporated from Boggs), wherein the pressure sensor and the polishing pad has a distance greater than a distance between the polishing pad and the wafer (Because the pressure sensors are located on the backing film, the pressure sensors and the polishing pad has a distance greater than a distance between the pad and the wafer).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Deshpande et al. (US Patent 9067295), hereinafter Deshpande, and yet further in view of Boggs et al. (US Patent 6325696), hereinafter Boggs, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj.
Regarding claim 15, Maury teaches a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method (fig. 5), comprising:
holding a wafer (wafer 18, fig. 5) in a carrier (fig. 5) over a polishing pad (pad 14), wherein the carrier comprises a carrier head (fig. 5);
dispensing a first slurry into the carrier by using a nozzle disposed within the carrier (fig. 5, fluid supply tube 30).
Maury does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles;
detecting a first pressure of the first slurry using a pressure sensor disposed on the backing film, wherein the wafer is laterally spaced apart from the pressure sensor;
comparing the first pressure and a predetermined pressure to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
dispensing a second slurry;
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Hashii teaches a wafer polishing apparatus and method, which includes
the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles (Hashii teaches using two abrasive slurries, wherein the first and second abrasive slurries include abrasive particles [0043]);
dispensing a second slurry (Hashii teaches using a first polishing slurry with larger particles in the first half of the polishing procedure and then using a second polishing slurry with smaller particles in the second half of the polishing procedure [0051]);
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad (fig. 4, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maury to incorporate the teachings of Hashii to provide a first slurry and a second slurry each including abrasive particles, wherein the carrier and the polishing pad are rotated during processing. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the two slurry teaching of Hashii into the method of Maury, wherein the pad and carrier of Maury are rotated during polishing. Incorporating the two slurry teaching of Hashii would promote quality of the workpiece by providing two slurries each directed towards different polishing results (as taught by Hashii) and would also promote increased surface finish of the workpiece. Rotating the carrier and pad of Maury during processing would allow the device to function as intended and polish the workpiece as intended.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane;
detecting a first pressure of the first slurry using a pressure sensor disposed on the backing film, wherein the wafer is laterally spaced apart from the pressure sensor;
comparing the first pressure and a predetermined pressure to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Deshpande teaches a CMP apparatus and method, including
a backing film under the carrier head (flexible membrane 144, fig. 1), wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane (flexible membrane 144).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande to provide a backing film under the carrier head, wherein the backing film is a flexible membrane. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include a flexible backing film on the carrier head of Maury, as modified. Doing so would promote securing the workpiece while also preventing damage to the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would prevent slippage of the workpiece during processing.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
detecting a first pressure of the first slurry using a pressure sensor disposed on the backing film, wherein the wafer is laterally spaced apart from the pressure sensor;
comparing the first pressure and a predetermined pressure to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Boggs teaches a piezo-actuated CMP carrier, wherein a plurality of actuators 41,42 sense pressure variations, wherein a controller 56 reads pressure variations across the wafer, as sensed by all of the actuators and compensates for pressure variations (fig. 7, col. 5, lines 4-16), wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier 26 on the backing film (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Boggs to provide a plurality of actuators for sensing pressure variations, wherein a controller reads the pressure variations and compensates for the pressure variations, wherein the actuators are located at the bottom surface of the carrier on the backing film. Doing so would promote even polishing of the workpiece. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches
detecting a first pressure of the first slurry using a pressure sensor disposed on the backing film (actuators as incorporated from Boggs), wherein the wafer is laterally spaced apart from the pressure sensor (parts of the wafer are laterally spaced apart from the pressure sensors);
comparing the first pressure and a predetermined pressure to obtain a comparison result (sensing pressure variations as taught by Boggs);
adjusting the pressure in response to the comparison result (as taught by Boggs via compensating for pressure variations).
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, Maury, as modified, does not teach the explicit starting and halting operations of the rotating.
However, Bajaj teaches a CMP apparatus and method which includes a controller 138 which controls the rotation of the pad and rotation of the substrate holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Bajaj to provide starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Bajaj to selectively control the rotating of the carrier head and polishing pad. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and selectively polish the workpiece.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result (Maury, as modified, teaches the pressure is compensated for pressure variations. Therefore, the rotation is in response to the pressure being compensated); halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad; halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad (Maury, as modified, teaches the controller selectively controls the rotating. The claim limitations are relatively broad because they do not require the halting to be related to any other steps of the method. Maury, as modified, teaches halting of the carrier of the polishing pad by selectively controlling the rotation).
Regarding claim 16, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the pressure sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer (the pressure sensor is disposed on the backing film (see above rejection of claim 15). The term “adjacent” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the pressure sensor is “adjacent” to a sidewall of the wafer).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maury et al. (US Patent 6110012), hereinafter Maury, in view of Hashii et al. (US PGPUB 20060264157), hereinafter Hashii, and further in view of Deshpande et al. (US Patent 9067295), hereinafter Deshpande, and yet further in view of Boggs et al. (US Patent 6325696), hereinafter Boggs, and yet further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Obeng et al. (US Patent 6048256), hereinafter Obeng.
Regarding claim 17, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach detecting a concentration of the first slurry in the carrier using a slurry concentration sensor disposed in the carrier, wherein the slurry concentration sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer.
However, Obeng teaches an apparatus and method for continuous delivery and conditioning of a polishing slurry, including
detecting a concentration of the first slurry in the carrier using a slurry concentration sensor (col. 4, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Obeng to provide detecting a first slurry concentration of the first slurry using a slurry concentration sensor; comparing the first slurry concentration and a predetermined slurry concentration to obtain a comparison result; adjusting the parameters in response to the comparison result.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the concentration monitoring teachings of Obeng into the process of Maury, as modified, wherein the slurry is monitored and adjusted and the parameters are adjusted in response to the monitoring and comparing. Doing so would prevent damage to the workpiece and tools. Additionally, doing so would promote quality and surface finish of the workpiece.
Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach
The slurry concentration sensor disposed in the carrier, wherein the slurry concentration sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer.
However, Boggs additionally teaches locating the sensors 41-42 in the carrier on the backing film (fig. 7), wherein the sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer (fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Boggs to provide the slurry concentration sensor disposed in the carrier, wherein the slurry concentration sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer. Specifically, it would have been obvious to locate the slurry concentration sensor in the carrier on the backing film, wherein the slurry concentration sensor is adjacent to a sidewall of the wafer. Doing so would allow the slurry to be monitored at the place of function, thereby promoting quality and accuracy of the slurry recipe. Additionally, through promoting quality and accuracy of the slurry, the quality of the workpiece would also be promoted.
Regarding claim 18, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Additionally, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the slurry concentration sensor and the pressure sensor are substantially level with each other (see above combinations, wherein both the slurry concentration sensor and the pressure sensor are located on the backing film, thereby being substantially level with each other).
Regarding claim 19, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the slurry concentration sensor and the pressure sensor are arranged symmetric with respect to a central axis of the carrier.
However, Maury additionally teaches the carrier head is symmetric throughout multiple embodiments (figs. 3-5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Maury to provide wherein the slurry concentration sensor and the pressure sensor are arranged symmetric with respect to a central axis of the carrier. Specifically, it would have been obvious to locate the slurry concentration sensor (as previously incorporated) and the pressure sensor (as previously incorporated) to be arranged symmetric with respect to a central axis of the carrier. Doing so would prevent an uneven balance of weight on the carrier head, which promotes uniform and equal rotation, which promotes quality and consistency of processing of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 20, Maury, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Maury, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the nozzle is below the pressure sensor.
However, Maury additionally teaches multiple embodiments wherein the nozzle is below the top surface of the workpiece 18 (figs. 3 and 4, wherein the nozzles 28 are below the top surface of the workpiece).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Maury, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Maury to provide wherein the nozzles are below the top surface of the workpiece. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the nozzles of Maury to be below the top surface of the workpiece. Doing so would prevent clogging of the slurry delivery in the carrier head by releasing the slurry closer to its final destination. Additionally, doing so would promote proper delivery of the slurry to the desired location on the polishing pad, thereby promoting the quality of the workpiece processing.
In summary, Maury, as modified, teaches wherein the nozzle is below the pressure sensor (the pressure sensor was incorporated to be located on the backing film and the nozzle is located to be below the top surface of the workpiece. Therefore, the nozzle is below the pressure sensor).
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12017322 in view of Elkhatib et al. (US PGPUB 20170361419), hereinafter Elkhatib, and further in view of Bajaj et al. (US PGPUB 20170297163), hereinafter Bajaj.
Instant Application 18/669,102
US Patent 12017322
A chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method, comprising:
1. A chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) method, comprising:
holding a wafer in a carrier over a polishing pad;
holding a wafer in a carrier over a polishing pad;
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
dispensing the first slurry into the carrier by using a first nozzle disposed within the carrier, the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles;
dispensing the first slurry into the carrier by using a nozzle disposed within the carrier and below the wafer, the first slurry comprising a plurality of first abrasive particles,
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle;
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed below the nozzle;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
rotating the carrier, the polishing pad or a combination thereof;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
3. The CMP method of claim 1, further comprising: halting the rotation of the carrier, the polishing pad or the combination thereof prior to dispensing the second slurry.
dispensing a second slurry;
halting the dispensing of the first slurry; and dispensing a second slurry into the carrier after halting the dispensing of the first slurry,
Claims 1 and 3 of US Patent 12017322 does not explicitly teach
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result;
starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Elkhatib teaches a system and method for delivering slurry for Chemical Mechanical Polishing including
heating a first slurry to a first temperature (Elkhatib teaches the slurry is heated to a target temperature [0018] which may include a range from 55-60 degrees C [0022]);
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle (thermal sensor 207, [0026], the term “adjacent” does not require any specific structural or spatial relationship. Therefore, the sensor 207 is adjacent, with respect to the flow of the slurry, to the first nozzle);
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result ([0027], wherein the comparison result is if the slurry needs to be heated or not, wherein the target temperature includes a range from 55-60 degrees C [0022]);
polishing the workpiece in response to the comparison result (Elkhatib teaches the CMP slurry is preconditioned to a target temperature before being applied to the surface of the wafer in order to enhance the efficiency of the CMP process [0018]. Overall, Elkhatib teaches the workpiece is polished in response to and after the comparison result).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claims 1 and 3 of US Patent 12017322 to incorporate the teachings of Elkhatib to provide
heating a first slurry to a first temperature;
detecting the first temperature of the first slurry using a temperature sensor disposed adjacent to the first nozzle;
comparing the first temperature and a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result;
polishing the workpiece in response to the comparison result.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the temperature monitoring teachings of Elkhatib into the process, wherein the slurry is heated to a desired temperature of 55-60 degrees C via a heating system, wherein the heating system includes a temperature sensor for detecting the temperature, wherein the detected temperature is compared to a predetermined temperature to obtain a comparison result and the workpiece is polished in response to the comparison result. Doing so would enhance the efficiency of the CMP process [0018 of Elkhatib]. Additionally, doing so would allow a CMP slurry to operate within a temperature range that optimizes its efficiency but without incurring the additional costs of process time or slurry waste [0005 of Elkhatib].
Claims 1 and 3 of US Patent 12017322, as modified, does not explicitly teach
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
However, Bajaj teaches a CMP apparatus and method which includes a controller 138 which controls the rotation of the pad and rotation of the substrate holder [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified claims 1 and 3 of US Patent 12017322 to incorporate the teachings of Bajaj to provide starting to rotate the carrier and the polishing pad in response to the comparison result;
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad;
rotating the carrier and the polishing pad; and
halting the rotating of the carrier and the polishing pad.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Bajaj to selectively control the rotating of the carrier head and polishing pad. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and selectively polish the workpiece.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US PGPUB 20030203708) teaches a carrier head with a film and conduits similar to the claimed invention
Drill (US Patent 6347979) teaches a slurry dispensing carrier ring similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights