DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-6 are 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 2, the claim recites “the plurality of piezoelectric layers include piezoelectric particles having different porosities.” It is unclear how the piezoelectric particles can have different porosities, as porosity is formed in the spaces between particles rather than within the particles themselves (see applicant’s specification [0037]). Furthermore, dependent claims 3-4 describe porosities of the piezoelectric layers rather than the particles, raising confusion as to the intended scope of the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the above-quoted phrase will be interpreted as defining the piezoelectric layers including piezoelectric particles, and having different porosities. That is to say, the plurality of layers have different porosities rather than the piezoelectric particles.
Claims 3-6 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiswell (US 2023/0009048, cited by applicant) in view of Tamada (US 2022/0109096).
Regarding claim 1, Wiswell teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing platen (120); a polishing pad (110) disposed on an upper surface of the polishing platen (fig 1); a polishing head (140) disposed on the polishing pad and configured to support a wafer (10) contacting an upper surface of the polishing pad (fig 1), the upper surface of the polishing pad defining a hole (hole containing elements 119 and 163 as shown in fig 2A) on a path through which the polishing head passes on the upper surface of the polishing pad (as shown in fig 2A); an acoustic sensor (162) disposed in the hole of the polishing pad and including a piezoelectric structure and first and second electrodes connected to the piezoelectric structure (as described [0038]); and a processor (190) configured to detect a polishing endpoint based on acoustic signals received from the first and second electrodes of the acoustic sensor (as described [0076]).
Wiswell is silent as to the particular structure of the piezoelectric material and therefore does not teach the piezoelectric structure is porous and formed of piezoelectric particles. Tamada teaches an acoustic sensor comprising a porous piezoelectric structure (including voids 28; fig 5) formed of piezoelectric particles (26; [0048-0049]) and first and second electrodes (16, 14) connected to the piezoelectric structure (fig 5). Tamada is applicable to the problem of sensing acoustic vibrations (Tamada [0044]) and teaches a piezoelectric acoustic sensor as called for by Wiswell (Wiswell [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the acoustic sensor of Tamada (including a the porous structure formed of piezoelectric particles and having first and second electrodes connected to the porous piezoelectric structure) as the acoustic sensor in the polishing apparatus of Wiswell, achieving the predictable result of allowing sensing of acoustic vibrations, and with the structure of Wiswell being particularly advantageous for maintaining effectiveness in a case where the sensor is warped (Tamada [0146]).
Regarding claims 2-4, Wiswell, as modified by Tamada, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Tamada further teaches the porous piezoelectric structure (included in the combination as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) includes a plurality of piezoelectric layers (12U, 12L) stacked in a thickness direction (vertically stacked as shown in fig 5) of the polishing pad (when applied to the pad of Wiswell as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the plurality of piezoelectric layers include piezoelectric particles having different porosities (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation; different layers 12U and 12L have different porosities as described [0138]); wherein the plurality of piezoelectric layers include a first piezoelectric layer (12L) having a first porosity and a second piezoelectric layer (12U) disposed on the first piezoelectric layer (fig 5) and having a second porosity lower than the first porosity ([0158] either of the layers may have the higher porosity); and wherein the plurality of piezoelectric layers include a first piezoelectric layer (12L) having a first porosity and a second piezoelectric layer (12U) disposed on the first piezoelectric layer and having a second porosity higher than the first porosity ([0158] either of the layers may have the higher porosity).
Regarding claim 5, Wiswell, as modified by Tamada, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tamada further teaches the plurality of piezoelectric layers (included in the combination as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above) the plurality of piezoelectric layers include piezoelectric particles of different sizes (as shown in fig 5; both layers have some particles of same and different sizes).
Regarding claim 6, Wiswell, as modified by Tamada, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Tamada further teaches the plurality of piezoelectric layers (included in the combination as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above) the plurality of piezoelectric layers include piezoelectric particles having a same size (as shown in fig 5; both layers have some particles of same and different sizes).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wiswell as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wiswell further teaches the hole is one of a plurality of holes arranged on the path in a radial direction of the upper surface of the polishing pad (plurality of holes shown in fig 3 can be radially arranged as described [0063]), and wherein the acoustic sensor includes a plurality of acoustic sensors respectively disposed in the plurality of holes (described [0063]); and wherein the plurality of holes include a first hole adjacent to a center of the path and a second hole and a third hole respectively adjacent to inner and outer peripheries of the path, and wherein the plurality of acoustic sensors include first to third acoustic sensors respectively disposed in the first to third holes (as described in [0063], three holes for three respective acoustic sensors may be arranged along a radius of the pad, each at different radial distances and therefore corresponding to middle, inner, and outer positions relative to the path of the wafer).
Regarding claim 9, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Tamada further teaches the first acoustic sensor (when the acoustic sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensors of Wiswell as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) includes a first piezoelectric layer having a first porosity (each sensor includes layers 12U and 12L, with layer 12L of the first sensor mapping to the claimed first piezoelectric layer having the first porosity), and wherein the second and third acoustic sensors include second and third piezoelectric layers (layers 12U of each of the second and third acoustic sensors) respectively having second and third porosities greater than the first porosity ([0158]; layers 12U can have higher void volume than first layer 12L, indicating greater porosity).
Regarding claim 10, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Tamada further teaches the first acoustic sensor (when the acoustic sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensors of Wiswell as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) includes a first piezoelectric layer having a first porosity (each sensor includes layers 12U and 12L, with layer 12L of the first sensor mapping to the claimed first piezoelectric layer having the first porosity), and wherein the second and third acoustic sensors include second and third piezoelectric layers (layers 12U of each of the second and third acoustic sensors) respectively having second and third porosities lower than the first porosity ([0158]; layers 12U can have lower void volume than first layer 12L, indicating lower porosity).
Regarding claim 11, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wiswell further teaches the hole is one of a plurality of holes including at least one expansion hole (fig 3; each hole in pad 110 includes a sensor under window 118 as described [0063]; each of these holes is an “expansion hole” as claimed) extending in a radial direction of the upper surface of the polishing pad on the path (as described [0063]; “positioned at different radial distances from the axis of rotation of the platen”), and wherein the acoustic sensor includes a plurality of acoustic sensors arranged in the radial direction in the at least one expansion hole (acoustic sensors in each expansion hole as described [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Tamada further teaches the plurality of acoustic sensors include (when the acoustic sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensors of Wiswell as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) piezoelectric layer having different porosities (as described [0158]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Wiswell further teaches the polishing pad includes a window (119; fig 2A) acoustically coupled to the acoustic sensor ([0049]), and the window has an upper surface being substantially coplanar with the upper surface of the polishing pad within the hole (as shown in fig 2A, top of window 119 is coplanar with upper surface 112a of polishing pad); and wherein the acoustic sensor includes a housing (163) surrounding the porous (porous structure provided by Tamada as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) piezoelectric structure within the hole (fig 2A).
Regarding claims 15-16, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Tamada further teaches the first and second electrodes (when the sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensor 162 of Wiswell as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) are respectively disposed on lower and upper surfaces of the porous piezoelectric structure (electrodes 16 and 14 on lower and upper surfaces as shown in fig 5 of Tamada), and wherein at least the second electrode includes a conductive polymer layer ([0113]); and wherein the first and second electrodes (16, 14) are respectively disposed on two opposing sides of the porous piezoelectric structure (as shown in fig 5 of Tamada).
Regarding claim 17, Wiswell teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing platen (120); a polishing pad (110) disposed on an upper surface of the polishing platen (fig 1); a polishing head (140) disposed on the polishing pad and configured to support a wafer (10) contacting an upper surface of the polishing pad (fig 1), the upper surface of the polishing pad defining a plurality of holes (see hole containing elements 119 and 163 as shown in fig 2A; see fig 3 and [0063] describing plurality of sensors in a plurality of holes) arranged in a radial direction of the polishing pad ([0063]; “positioned at different radial distances from the axis of rotation of the platen”) on a path through which the polishing head passes on the upper surface of the polishing pad (as shown in fig 2A; each sensor measuring acoustic emissions of the wafer as described [0063] and therefore each arranged on a path of the polishing head); a plurality of acoustic sensors (162; fig 2A) disposed in the plurality of holes (plurality described [0063] and shown in fig 3) respectively including a piezoelectric layer and first and second electrodes connected to the piezoelectric structure (as described [0038]); and a processor (190) configured to detect a polishing endpoint based on acoustic signals received from the plurality of acoustic sensors (as described [0076]).
Wiswell is silent as to the particular structure of the piezoelectric material and therefore does not teach the piezoelectric structure of the sensors is porous and formed of piezoelectric particles. Tamada teaches an acoustic sensor comprising a porous piezoelectric structure (including voids 28; fig 5) formed of piezoelectric particles (26; [0048-0049]) and first and second electrodes (16, 14) connected to the piezoelectric structure (fig 5). Tamada is applicable to the problem of sensing acoustic vibrations (Tamada [0044]) and teaches a piezoelectric acoustic sensor as called for by Wiswell (Wiswell [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the acoustic sensor of Tamada (including a the porous structure formed of piezoelectric particles and having first and second electrodes connected to the porous piezoelectric structure) as the acoustic sensors in the polishing apparatus of Wiswell, achieving the predictable result of allowing sensing of acoustic vibrations, and with the structure of Wiswell being particularly advantageous for maintaining effectiveness in a case where the sensor is warped (Tamada [0146]).
Regarding claim 18, Wiswell as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as described above. Wiswell further teaches the plurality of holes include a first hole adjacent to a center of the path and a second hole and a third hole respectively adjacent to inner and outer peripheries of the path, and wherein the plurality of acoustic sensors include first to third acoustic sensors respectively disposed in the first to third holes (as described in [0063], three holes for three respective acoustic sensors may be arranged along a radius of the pad, each at different radial distances and therefore corresponding to middle, inner, and outer positions relative to the path of the wafer). Tamada further teaches the first to third acoustic sensors have (when the acoustic sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensors of Wiswell as described in the rejection of claim 17 above) piezoelectric layers (12L, 12U) having different porosities ([0158]).
Regarding claim 19, Wiswell, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as described above. Tamada further teaches the porous piezoelectric layer of the first acoustic sensor (when the acoustic sensor of Tamada is employed in place of the sensors of Wiswell as detailed in the rejection of claim 17 above) has a first porosity (each sensor includes layers 12U and 12L, with layer 12L of the first sensor mapping to the claimed layer of the first sensor having the first porosity), and wherein the second and third acoustic sensors each have a second and third porosity (porosity in layers 12U of each of the second and third acoustic sensors) greater than the first porosity ([0158]; layers 12U can have higher void volume than first layer 12L, indicating greater porosity).
Regarding claim 20, Wiswell teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing platen (120); a polishing pad (110) disposed on an upper surface of the polishing platen (fig 1); a polishing head (140) disposed on the polishing pad and configured to support a wafer (10) contacting an upper surface of the polishing pad (fig 1), the upper surface of the polishing pad defining a hole (hole containing elements 119 and 163 as shown in fig 2A) disposed on a path through which the polishing head passes on the upper surface of the polishing pad (as shown in fig 2A); an acoustic sensor (162) disposed in the hole of the polishing pad and including a piezoelectric structure and first and second electrodes connected to the piezoelectric structure (as described [0038]); and a processor (190) configured to detect a polishing endpoint based on acoustic signals received from the first and second electrodes of the acoustic sensor (as described [0076]).
Wiswell is silent as to the particular structure of the piezoelectric material and therefore does not teach the piezoelectric structure is porous and formed of a plurality of piezoelectric layers. Tamada teaches an acoustic sensor comprising a porous piezoelectric structure (including voids 28; fig 5) formed of a plurality of piezoelectric layers (12L, 12U; fig 5) stacked in a thickness direction (as shown in fig 5; stacked vertically) and having different porosities ([0158]) and having first and second electrodes (16, 14) connected to the piezoelectric structure (fig 5). Tamada is applicable to the problem of sensing acoustic vibrations (Tamada [0044]) and teaches a piezoelectric acoustic sensor as called for by Wiswell (Wiswell [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the acoustic sensor of Tamada (including a the porous structure formed of piezoelectric layers of different porosity and having first and second electrodes connected to the porous piezoelectric structure) as the acoustic sensor in the polishing apparatus of Wiswell, achieving the predictable result of allowing sensing of acoustic vibrations, and with the structure of Wiswell being particularly advantageous for maintaining effectiveness in a case where the sensor is warped (Tamada [0146]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar chemical mechanical polishing apparatuses and piezoelectric sensors are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights