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
1. The previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 have been examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2024 and 9/23/2025 were 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 statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 8, “further comprising a station cup wherein a de-foaming agent is injected to reduce the polishing foam to a liquid”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, “a substrate” should read “[[a]] the substrate” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1, line 10, “a polishing foam” should read “[[a]] the polishing foam” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 3, “a polishing foam” should read “[[a]] the polishing foam” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, “a polishing liquid” should read “[[a]] the polishing liquid” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, “a surfactant” should read “[[a]] the surfactant” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 6, “a foam” should read “[[a]] the foam” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 11, “a polishing foam” should read “[[a]] the polishing foam” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9, line 13, “a polishing pad” should read “[[a]] the polishing pad” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, “a polishing foam” should read “[[a]] the polishing foam” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 15, line 2, “a substrate” should read “[[a]] the substrate” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, “a polishing liquid” should read “[[a]] the polishing liquid” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, “a surfactant” should read “[[a]] the surfactant” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 17, “a gas” should read “[[a]] the gas” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 18, “a polishing liquid” should read “[[a]] the polishing liquid” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 18, “a surfactant” should read “[[a]] the surfactant” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 19, “a polishing mixture” should read “[[a]] the polishing mixture” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 19, “a gas” should read “[[a]] the gas” to avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the language recites “wherein the polishing liquid supply line delivers a polishing mixture of a polishing liquid and a surfactant before mixing with the gas”. Specifically, the language of claim 12 appears to require wherein the polishing liquid supply line includes the polishing liquid and the surfactant. However, independent claim 9 requires a separate surfactant supply line. It is not precisely clear how the surfactant can be mixed with the polishing liquid in the polishing liquid supply line while also being in a separate surfactant supply line. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language of claim 12 will be interpreted as requiring the polishing liquid supply line requiring a mixture of polishing liquid and surfactant, wherein the surfactant line is included as part of the polishing liquid supply line.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 1-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (US PGPUB 20080227297), hereinafter Matsui, in view of Watanabe (JP 2002273651) and further in view of Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20210402553), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Matsui teaches a polishing apparatus (fig. 5), comprising:
a platen (fig. 5, table 11);
a polishing pad having a polishing surface and disposed on the platen (fig. 5, pad 12);
a carrier head configured to press a substrate onto the polishing surface (fig. 5, head 13 with substrate 14);
a spray bar assembly (see annotated fig. 5 below) configured to dispense a polishing foam onto the polishing surface (fig. 5, [0050]); and
PNG
media_image1.png
552
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
place a substrate on the polishing surface using the carrier head (fig. 5);
create a polishing foam (bubble generator 16) using a polishing liquid (second chemical liquid nozzle 20 [0050]) and a surfactant (from tank 15, [0022-0023]), using the spray bar assembly (fig. 5);
use the spray bar assembly to dispense the polishing foam onto the polishing pad (fig. 5 at slurry 22); and
rotate the polishing pad using the platen to polish the substrate (fig. 5, [0020]).
Matsui does not explicitly teach the polishing foam is creating using a gas; wherein a controller is coupled to the polishing apparatus for controlling the apparatus.
Specifically, Matsui does not teach how the polishing foam is created and only teaches a generic bubble generator 16.
However, Watanabe teaches a polishing method and polishing device which includes a foaming device 7, wherein an abrasive supply pipe 10 supplies an abrasive agent to the foaming device 7 (fig. 1), a compressed air supply pipe 11 supplies compressed air to the foaming device 7, and supply pipe 12 outputs a foamy abrasive supply (paragraph 0010 of the attached translation). Watanabe teaches wherein the compressed air includes a nitrogen gas (paragraph 0011 of the attached translation). Overall, Watanabe teaches creating a foamy abrasive agent via foaming an abrasive agent supply from pipe 10 with a compressed gas from pipe 11.
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 Matsui to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe to provide the polishing foam is creating using a gas. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the bubble generator of Matsui creates the foam by mixing the agent from tank 15 (of Matsui) with compressed air including nitrogen (as taught by Watanabe) from a respective gas line in the bubble generator 16 of Matsui. Doing so provides a known method of creating the polishing foam, wherein Matsui does not provide explicit details. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and create a polishing foam.
Matsui, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein a controller is coupled to the polishing apparatus for controlling the apparatus.
However, Wu teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein the CMP includes a controller 200 to control operation of various components [0041] and process parameters [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 Matsui, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a controller is coupled to the polishing apparatus for controlling the apparatus. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Wu into the apparatus of Matsui, as modified, to control the process and apparatus of Matsui, as modified. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the process and the workpiece by providing the controller to control the process and parameters.
Regarding claim 2, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the spray bar assembly further comprises a polishing liquid supply line (fig. 5 of Matsui, line 20, [0035]) and a foam sprayer nozzle assembly (nozzle which outputs agent 22 in fig. 5 of Matsui) coupled to the polishing liquid supply line (fig. 5 of Matsui), wherein the foam sprayer nozzle assembly comprises:
a nozzle body (nozzle body which outputs agent 22 in fig. 5 of Matsui);
a surfactant supply line (line from tank 15, fig. 5 of Matsui, [0022-0023]) coupled to the nozzle body (fig. 5 of Matsui); and
a gas supply line coupled to the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the bubble generator 16 of Matsui was modified to receive a gas supply line (as taught by Watanabe).
Regarding claim 3, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing liquid, the surfactant, and the gas are configured to produce a polishing foam when mixed in an inner volume of the nozzle body (paragraph 0050 of Matsui, wherein Matsui was modified to incorporate the compressed gas line of Watanabe. See above rejection of claim 1 for more details).
Regarding claim 4, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 2. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the gas supply line delivers nitrogen gas (N2) to an inner volume of the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the gas (including nitrogen) supply line of Watanabe was incorporated).
Regarding claim 5, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the spray bar assembly further comprises a polishing mixture supply line (line from tank 15 of Matsui, fig. 5) and a foam sprayer nozzle assembly (nozzle assembly that outputs agent 22 in fig. 5 of Matsui) coupled to the polishing mixture supply line (fig. 5 of Matsui), wherein the foam sprayer nozzle assembly comprises:
a nozzle body (fig. 5 of Matsui); and
a gas supply line coupled to the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the bubble generator 16 of Matsui was modified to receive a gas supply line (as taught by Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing mixture supply line delivers a polishing mixture including a polishing liquid and a surfactant (Matsui teaches the agent from tank 15 includes a polishing liquid (“as long as the electrolyte is dissolved in the first chemical liquid” [0027], wherein the first chemical liquid is reinterpreted as the polishing liquid) and a surfactant (wherein paragraph 0023 teaches the surfactant is used as the electrolyte)) configured to create a foam when mixed with the gas delivered by the gas supply line in an inner volume of the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 1, wherein the gas supply line of Watanabe was incorporated into the bubble generator 16 of Matsui to create a foam (fig. 5 of Matsui)).
Regarding claim 7, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 5. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the gas supply line delivers nitrogen gas (N2) to an inner volume of the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the gas (including nitrogen) supply line of Watanabe was incorporated).
Regarding claim 9, Matsui teaches a spray bar assembly (fig. 5), comprising:
a dispense arm (see annotated fig. 5 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
552
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a polishing liquid supply line (fig. 5 of Matsui, line 20, [0035]) routed along the dispense arm (fig. 5);
a surfactant supply line (line from tank 15, fig. 5 of Matsui, [0022-0023]);
a foam sprayer nozzle assembly (nozzle which outputs agent 22 in fig. 5 of Matsui) comprising a nozzle body (fig. 5) and coupled to the polishing liquid supply line (fig. 5) and the surfactant supply line (fig. 5), the foam sprayer nozzle assembly configured to dispense a polishing foam on a polishing pad [0050]; and
create a polishing foam (bubble generator 16) using a polishing liquid (second chemical liquid nozzle 20 [0050]) and a surfactant (from tank 15, [0022-0023]), using the foam sprayer nozzle assembly (fig. 5); and
dispense, using the dispense arm, the polishing foam onto a polishing pad (fig. 5 at slurry 22).
Matsui does not explicitly teach
a gas supply line;
creating the polishing foam using the gas;
a controller coupled to the spray bar assembly for controlling the apparatus.
Specifically, Matsui does not teach how the polishing foam is created and only teaches a generic bubble generator 16.
However, Watanabe teaches a polishing method and polishing device which includes a foaming device 7, wherein an abrasive supply pipe 10 supplies an abrasive agent to the foaming device 7 (fig. 1), a compressed air supply pipe 11 supplies compressed air to the foaming device 7, and supply pipe 12 outputs a foamy abrasive supply (paragraph 0010 of the attached translation). Watanabe teaches wherein the compressed air includes a nitrogen gas (paragraph 0011 of the attached translation). Overall, Watanabe teaches creating a foamy abrasive agent via foaming an abrasive agent supply from pipe 10 with a compressed gas from pipe 11.
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 Matsui to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe to provide the polishing foam is creating using a gas from a gas supply line. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the bubble generator of Matsui creates the foam by mixing the agent from tank 15 (of Matsui) with compressed air including nitrogen (as taught by Watanabe) from a respective gas supply line in the bubble generator 16 of Matsui. Doing so provides a known method of creating the polishing foam, wherein Matsui does not provide explicit details. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and create a polishing foam.
Matsui, as modified, does not explicitly teach
a controller coupled to the spray bar assembly for controlling the apparatus.
However, Wu teaches a CMP apparatus, wherein the CMP includes a controller 200 to control operation of various components [0041] and process parameters [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 Matsui, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide a controller is coupled to the polishing apparatus for controlling the apparatus. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the controller of Wu into the apparatus of Matsui, as modified, to control the process and apparatus of Matsui, as modified. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote quality of the process and the workpiece by providing the controller to control the process and parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing liquid, the surfactant, and the gas are configured to produce a polishing foam when mixed in an inner volume of the nozzle body (paragraph 0050 of Matsui, wherein Matsui was modified to incorporate the compressed gas line of Watanabe. See above rejection of claim 9 for more details).
Regarding claim 11, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the gas supply line delivers nitrogen gas (N2) to an inner volume of the nozzle body (see above rejection of claim 9 for more details, wherein the gas (including nitrogen) supply line of Watanabe was incorporated).
Regarding claim 12, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing liquid supply line delivers a polishing mixture of a polishing liquid and a surfactant (Matsui teaches the agent from tank 15 includes a polishing liquid (“as long as the electrolyte is dissolved in the first chemical liquid” [0027], wherein the first chemical liquid is reinterpreted as the polishing liquid) and a surfactant (wherein paragraph 0023 teaches the surfactant is used as the electrolyte)) before mixing with the gas and before entering an inner volume of the nozzle body (as incorporated from Watanabe, the gas is mixed in at bubble generator 16 of Matsui, wherein the tank 15 provides the mixture of polishing liquid and surfactant before mixing with the gas and before entering an inner volume of the nozzle body. As best understood by the examiner, in light of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing foam comprises bubbles of the gas with bubble walls having the polishing liquid and the surfactant (Matsui teaches the agent from tank 15 includes a polishing liquid (“as long as the electrolyte is dissolved in the first chemical liquid” [0027], wherein the first chemical liquid is reinterpreted as the polishing liquid) and a surfactant (wherein paragraph 0023 teaches the surfactant is used as the electrolyte). Matsui teaches the bubbles have bubble walls having the polishing liquid and the surfactant (fig. 2 of Matsui, [0030]). That is, the bubble walls are partially made up of the first chemical liquid and the surfactant (as seen in fig. 2 of Matsui)).
Regarding claim 14, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches the bubble walls further comprising abrasive particles (fig. 3 of Matsui, wherein Matsui, as modified, teaches at least some bubbles 24 have bubble walls that further comprise abrasive particles 32).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (US PGPUB 20080227297), hereinafter Matsui, in view of Watanabe (JP 2002273651) and further in view of Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20210402553), hereinafter Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2019025575), hereinafter Nakamura and further in view of Kitamura (US PGPUB 20150045264).
Regarding claim 8, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Matsui, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising a station cup wherein a de-foaming agent is injected to reduce the polishing foam to a liquid.
However, Nakamura teaches a work polishing device and method, wherein a workpiece is polished via a lower surface plate 32 and an upper surface plate 36 (fig. 1). Nakamura also teaches slurry is supplied via a slurry supply pipe 78 (fig. 1, [0018 of attached translation). The device also includes a collection gutter 80 (fig. 1) for collecting the slurry that has flowed down form the lower turn table 32 (paragraph 0019 of attached translation).
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 Matsui, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura to provide a station cup. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the collection gutter of Nakamura into the device of Matsui, as modified. Doing so would promote cleanliness by collecting the slurry which flows from the polishing operation. Additionally, doing so would allow the slurry to be recycled and reused.
Matsui, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a de-foaming agent is injected to reduce the polishing foam to a liquid.
However, Kitamura teaches a silicon wafer processing solution and processing method, wherein the processing fluid can be injected with an antifoaming agent [0034], wherein the antifoaming agent is used for keeping the processing fluid from spilling out of the processing chamber [0036].
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 Matsui, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Kitamura to provide wherein a de-foaming agent is injected to reduce the polishing foam to a liquid. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include an antifoaming agent in the processing fluid as it is collected in the previously incorporated collection gutter to reduce the polishing foam to a liquid. Doing so would prevent the processing fluid from spilling out [0036 of Kitamura] which promotes cleanliness and prevents safety hazards.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (US PGPUB 20080227297), hereinafter Matsui, in view of Watanabe (JP 2002273651).
Regarding claim 15, Matsui teaches a method of polishing a substrate (fig. 5), comprising:
placing a substrate (substrate 14) on a polishing pad (pad 12) of a polishing apparatus (fig. 5);
creating a polishing foam (bubble generator 16) using a polishing liquid (second chemical liquid nozzle 20 [0050]) and a surfactant (from tank 15, [0022-0023]);
dispensing the polishing foam onto the polishing pad (fig. 5 at slurry 22); and
rotating the polishing pad to polish the substrate (fig. 5, [0020]).
Matsui does not explicitly teach the polishing foam is creating using a gas.
Specifically, Matsui does not teach how the polishing foam is created and only teaches a generic bubble generator 16.
However, Watanabe teaches a polishing method and polishing device which includes a foaming device 7, wherein an abrasive supply pipe 10 supplies an abrasive agent to the foaming device 7 (fig. 1), a compressed air supply pipe 11 supplies compressed air to the foaming device 7, and supply pipe 12 outputs a foamy abrasive supply (paragraph 0010 of the attached translation). Watanabe teaches wherein the compressed air includes a nitrogen gas (paragraph 0011 of the attached translation). Overall, Watanabe teaches creating a foamy abrasive agent via foaming an abrasive agent supply from pipe 10 with a compressed gas from pipe 11.
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 Matsui to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe to provide the polishing foam is creating using a gas. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the bubble generator of Matsui creates the foam by mixing the agent from tank 15 (of Matsui) with compressed air including nitrogen (as taught by Watanabe) from a respective gas line in the bubble generator 16 of Matsui. Doing so provides a known method of creating the polishing foam, wherein Matsui does not provide explicit details. Additionally, doing so would allow the device to function as intended and create a polishing foam.
Regarding claim 16, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches
wherein the polishing foam is created using a foam sprayer nozzle assembly comprising a nozzle body (nozzle body which outputs agent 22 in fig. 5 of Matsui), a polishing liquid supply line (line 20 of fig. 5 of Matsui), a surfactant supply line (line from tank 15 of Matsui), and a gas supply line (as incorporated from Watanabe).
Regarding claim 17, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein a polishing liquid from the polishing liquid supply line (line 20 of Matsui fig. 5), a surfactant from the surfactant supply line (line from tank 15 of Matsui), and a gas from the gas supply line (as incorporated from Watanabe, see above rejection of claim 15 for more details) mix in an inner volume of the nozzle body to create the polishing foam (fig. 5, [0050] of Matsui).
Regarding claim 18, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the polishing foam is created using a foam sprayer nozzle assembly comprising a nozzle body (nozzle body which outputs agent 22 in fig. 5), a polishing mixture supply line configured to deliver a polishing mixture having a polishing liquid and a surfactant (Matsui teaches the agent from tank 15 is supplied via a line (fig. 5) and includes a polishing liquid (“as long as the electrolyte is dissolved in the first chemical liquid” [0027], wherein the first chemical liquid is reinterpreted as the polishing liquid) and a surfactant (wherein paragraph 0023 teaches the surfactant is used as the electrolyte)), and a gas supply line (as incorporated from Watanabe, see above rejection of claim 15 for more details).
Regarding claim 19, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein a polishing mixture of the polishing mixture supply line and a gas of the gas supply line mix in an inner volume of the nozzle body to create the polishing foam (fig. 5 of Matsui, via bubble generator 16 of Matsui, as modified by Watanabe’s gas line).
Regarding claim 20, Matsui, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Matsui, as modified, teaches wherein the gas is nitrogen gas (N2) (see above rejection of claim 15 for more details, wherein the gas (including nitrogen) supply line of Watanabe was incorporated).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (US PGPUB 20070295610) teaches a wafer processing apparatus which utilizes an electrolyte similar to the claimed invention
Jia et al. (US PGPUB 20070181442) teaches a foam removal process 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