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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, please amend “for each of the polishing region” to read “for each of the plurality of polishing regions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a control device configured to control an operation of the polishing head in claim 1. Specification: [0022].
a setting unit configured to divide… in claim 2, noted as a subcomponent of the control device described in [0022].
Claim limitation a cross-sectional measurement device configured to measure a cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion of the substrate in claims 10 and 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. When seeking the structure for the recited generic placeholder, Examiner was unable to determine a correlating structure. The specification describes the cross-sectional measurement device in [0072-0073], and shows a structure in Figure 15, but does not explicitly say what the structure is, i.e. a camera for example. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 1, the combination of the following limitations render the scope of the claimed invention indefinite: “…a torque detection unit configured to monitor in a real time a rotational torque value of the holding stage when the periphery of the substrate is polished; a storage unit configured to store the rotational torque value of the holding stage as a set torque value when the bare wafer is polished; … wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value”.
The above recitations create indefiniteness issues as it is unclear what the difference is, and thus what is being stored, between the rotational torque value and the set torque value. The rotational torque value is seemingly the value measured in situ, which would fluctuate depending on the removal status of the film from the wafer, but is also a predetermined value at which the controller determines/knows the film has been removed. The claim scope conflict arises when attempting to ascertain what value is actually being stored. For example, A) the rotational torque value can be monitored in situ and brought to a set torque value (which is predetermined/stored), and when the rotational torque value/set torque value is stabilized, it is determined that the film has been removed. Alternatively, B) the in situ rotational torque values are continuously measured and stored until the rotational torque value reaches the predetermined and also stored set torque value, at which point the two values are the same, and then it is determined that the film has been removed. When seeking clarification on the value(s) being stored, Examiner reflected upon the specification.
Paragraphs [0006-0007] repeat the same or similar language to the claims.
Paragraph [0035] describes the following: the storage unit 1a stores the rotational torque value when polishing the bare wafer B as a set torque value of the holding stage 4. In this embodiment, the rotational torque value is a value when the edge portion of the bare wafer is polished…the rotational torque value may also be called a set edge torque value. The set torque value is a reference value for determining the removal of the film F.
Paragraph [0070] describes the following: The set torque value is a value for determining the removal of film F, and is a value when the rotational torque value is stable for a predetermined processing time. In other words, the set torque value corresponds to a value when the amount of change in the rotational torque value becomes smaller than a predetermined fluctuation range.
Paragraph [0076] describes the following: The program includes a command to monitor in a real time the rotational torque value of the holding stage 4 when polishing the periphery of the wafer W, to compare the rotational torque value with the set torque value of the holding stage 4…and to determine the removal of the film when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value…
Upon consideration of the above paragraphs, the rotational torque value is seemingly the same as the set torque value, which is a predetermined and stored reference value. However, the rotational torque value is also seemingly an in situ measured value, which would obviously change throughout the polishing process. In one scenario the value is static and stored, and the other scenario the value is dynamically changing. Furthermore, the rotational torque value and set torque value are one and the same only when the rotational torque value reaches/stabilizes at the set stored value, i.e. previous values of the rotational torque prior to thus do not equal the set torque value. It is unclear what is being imparted by the claimed invention.
Independent claim 11 is also rejected herein for the same reasons as stated above, as claim 11 also recites the same subject matter regarding stabilization.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-13, 17-20 each recite “the substrate”. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11 also recite “the bare wafer”. Applicant is using the two terms interchangeably, and thus the antecedent bases of the claims are unclear. Please amend the claims to recite consistent claim language.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “a set edge torque value”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a set torque value”. Claim 2 also narrows the scope of the claim by reciting “wherein the periphery of the substrate comprises an edge portion”; it is thus unclear if the set edge torque value of claim 2 further narrows the set torque value of claim 1, or if (and how) the set edge torque value of claim 2 is differentiated from the set torque value of claim 1. In essence, claim 2 narrows the periphery of claim 1 to an edge without also narrowing the corresponding torque value associated with the narrowed location.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, claims 5 and 15 recite “polish other polishing region excluding the polishing region…”. Firstly, please amend the claim to reflect proper grammar, i.e. polishing region(s) or a second polishing regions of the polishing regions. Secondly, please amend the claim to reflect that the polishing regions being limited are those which were established in claims 3/13, as it is unclear within the context of claims 5/15 if the polishing regions are those recited in claims 3/13 or additional to those of claims 3/13.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the setting unit”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 3 establishes antecedent basis for a setting unit, however claim 6 depends from claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, please amend “the direction” to reflect “the parallel direction” for clarification purposes.
Regarding claim 9, similar to the issues pointed out in the rejection of claim 2 above, recites “a set bevel torque value”. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites “a set torque value”. Claim 9 also narrows the scope of the claim by reciting “wherein the periphery of the substrate comprises a bevel portion”; it is thus unclear if the set bevel torque value of claim 9 further narrows the set torque value of claim 1, or if (and how) the set bevel torque value of claim 9 is differentiated from the set torque value of claim 1. In essence, claim 9 narrows the periphery of claim 1 to a bevel without also narrowing the corresponding set torque value associated with the narrowed location.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate based on the correlation” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite. It is unclear what relationship is being established between the removal of film and the cross-sectional shape/set bevel torque value correlation, i.e. how the determination unit is configured to perform the claimed action with the claimed correlation.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18, recitation of “the polishing head” does not have antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “cross sectional measurement device” in claims 10 and 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. When seeking the structure for the recited generic placeholder, Examiner was unable to determine a correlating structure. The specification describes the cross-sectional measurement device in [0072-0073], and shows a structure in Figure 15, but does not explicitly say what the structure is, i.e. a camera for example. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 11-20 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claims 1, as drafted, recites at least one step or instruction for polishing a substrate and determining a removal of the film on a substrate, which constitutes a certain method of observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. Independent claim 11 recites abstract limitations, including “monitoring a rotational torque value”, “comparing the rotational torque value with a set torque value”, and “determining a removal of the film”. These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of the holding stage, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the recited steps in the context of the claims encompass a user mentally or manually performing the step of determining a removal of the film. Accordingly, independent claim 11 recites and abstract idea.
Dependent claims 12-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent claim 11, and respective dependent claims 12-19, is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Independent claim 11 recites a method including “rotating the substrate by a holding stage”, which is recited in both the preamble of the claim. The additional element of a holding stage to rotate a substrate is recited as a high level and is merely a tool to perform rotation, and generally links the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional element(s) of the independent claim 11, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 12, 13, 15, and 19 further narrow further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 14, 16-18, and 20 introduce the additional element of “movement…of the polishing head”, “moving the polishing head”, and “a cross-sectional measurement device”. Similar to independent claim 11, the recitations of moving a polishing head serve to generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The above-identified additional element does not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g. rotating the holding stage, moving the polishing head) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Alternatively, these additional elements, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
Independent claim 11 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, independent claim 11 recites a method including “polishing method for polishing a periphery of a substrate on which a film is formed on a bare wafer while rotating the substrate by a holding stage”, which is recited in the preamble of the claim.
The additional element of a holding stage to rotate a substrate is recited as a high level and is merely a tool to perform rotation, and generally links the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the additional element(s) of the independent claim 11, when considered both individually and in combination, is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 12, 13, 15, and 19 further narrow further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 14, 16-18, and 20 introduce the additional element of “movement…of the polishing head”, “moving the polishing head”, and “a cross-sectional measurement device”. Similar to independent claim 11, the recitations of moving a polishing head serve to generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The above-identified additional element does not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g. rotating the holding stage, moving the polishing head) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Alternatively, these additional elements, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, are nothing more than merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20070238393) in view of Kitajima (US 7101252).
Regarding claim 1, Shin (US 20070238393) discloses a polishing apparatus (se Abstract) comprising:
a holding stage configured to rotate a substrate on which a film is formed on a bare wafer (please refer to at least Figure 5; [0027]: vacuum chuck rotates while supporting a substrate 100; [0059]: substrate 100 that includes multiple layers of material including, for example, a film layer, may be comprised of different materials; see also [0039]: vacuum chuck 508 coupled to a driver 510);
a polishing head configured to polish a periphery of the substrate (see polishing head 504, [0039-0041], edge 104 of the substrate 100); and
a control device configured to control an operation of the polishing head (see controller 1308; see [0010], [0031], [0052], [0055], [0059-0059]),
wherein the control device comprises:
a torque detection unit configured to monitor in a real time a rotational torque value of the holding stage when the periphery of the substrate is polished ([0058]: a sensor (not shown) within the driver 1402 may be employed to generate a signal indicative of the torque of the platform (e.g., vacuum chuck) holding the substrate 100 as it is rotated by the driver 1402 and/or the energy being exerted by the driver 1402 to rotate the substrate 100 via the platform; see also [0059], [0061], and [0009]);
a storage unit (see [0055] disclosing a programmed computer and a real time processor; see also [0058] regarding a software driven computer, programmed processor, wherein [0059] discloses the information on the signal line is used to monitor polishing; see also [0031] regarding the controller receiving the feedback signals including torque being exerted, and wherein the reduction in torque may correspond with material removal, as well as [0061-0062] disclosing a preset endpoint is determined by using the feedback signals to determine whether a preset endpoint for edge polishing has been reached, wherein [0007-0009] discloses that an amount of torque adapted to obtain a preset polishing level is determined, i.e. a set torque value is compared with the in situ torque being monitored); and-
a determination unit configured to determine a removal of the film ([0059] the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100),
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film based on the rotational torque value ([0059]: the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100; see also [0031], [0062]).
Shin describes that the apparatus includes a programmed or software driven computer and/or a real-time processor, and that the controller receives feedback signals including torque to determine whether a preset endpoint material removal has occurred (see [0031], [0007-0009], [0055], [0058-0059], and [0061-0062]). The torque value is continuously monitored and used to compare/determine if the preset endpoint has been reached, and the controller alters the operation based on the proximity of the signals to the preset endpoint (see [0062). However, Shin does not explicitly teach computer and/or processor is configured to store the rotational torque value of the holding stage as a set torque value when the bare wafer is polished, nor that the determination is made when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kitajima (US 7101252) teaches of a polishing method and apparatus which is configured to remove a film layer from a substrate, wherein torque measurements of the element configured to hold the wafer substrate are measured (see Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 4), and wherein there is a storage unit configured to store the rotational torque value of the holding stage as a set torque value when the bare wafer is polished (Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7: the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; see also Col. 12, lines 13-23 regarding the central processing unit (CPU) 42), and that the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value (Col. 5, lines 26-44: see first through fourth steps, wherein the third step comprises starting to expose the nitride film as the oxide film layer is removed, and the fourth step comprises complete removal of the oxide film and complete exposure of the nitride film, and wherein the monitoring includes measuring of the torque of the mechanism which rotates the substrate holder; see stabilization of the torque value or constant torque value disclosed in Col. 6, lines 44-67; see also Col. 10, lines 43-65 regarding the torque measuring device; see also Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Both Shin and Kitajima employ similar apparatuses in the context of wafer polishing devices which utilize torque readings from the wafer holding devices in order to evaluate polishing end points. While the data being monitored by Shin and Kitajima is similar, Kitajima goes further into the monitoring process by recording the measured torque values and taking into consideration whether the readings are stabilized, i.e. accurate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kitajima into the invention of Shin. One would be motivated to do so because the process described by Kitajima gives consideration to anomalies which may occur, and in order to improve the accuracy of endpoint detection, thereby increasing the yield and reliability of the device (Col. 7, lines 14-19 and 44-52; Col. 8, lines 20-44; Col. 18, lines 25-51).
Regarding claim 2, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the periphery of the substrate comprises an edge portion located radially inwardly of the substrate from an outermost peripheral surface of the substrate (Shin: see Figure 1, edge 104 comprising outer edge 110, bevels 112, 114, see also [0026] regarding regions 108, 108’),
wherein the storage unit is configured to store a set edge torque value when the edge portion of the bare wafer is polished, and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film at the edge portion of the substrate when the rotational torque value at the time of polishing the edge portion of the substrate is stabilized at the set edge torque value (wherein Shin discloses performing the polishing of the outer edge 110 as well as at least one of the bevels 112, 114, see [0026-0027]; see also [0059]: the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100; see also [0031], [0062]; wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention, see at least Kitajima: Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7 the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored, as well as in Col. 6, lines 44-67 teaching of the stabilization of the torque, which is the operation carried out by the device of Shin; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 3, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the control device comprises a setting unit configured to divide the edge portion of the substrate into a plurality of polishing regions along a radial direction of the substrate and to set a polishing condition for each of the polishing region (Shin: an operator/controller can control how far beyond the bevels 112, 114 and into the exclusion regions 108/108’ the polishing film is made to contact the substrate, and wherein the inflatable bladder within the polishing head may be inflated or deflated under the direction of a programmed controller, see [0050]; wherein [0026] discloses that the invention is configured to clean and/or polish the outer edge110 and at least one bevel 112, 114, and wherein all or part of the exclusion regions 108, 108’ may be cleaned or polished as well; wherein there are at least two polishing regions existing along a radial direction, and wherein each polishing region can be polished or cleaned, or excluded from polishing, i.e. a different or the same polishing condition for each respective region).
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the control device is configured to move the polishing head in a vertical direction with respect to the substrate (Shin: see Figures 10A-10C), and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film in the vertical direction when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value (wherein the film is disposed on the surface of the substrate and thus exists/is removed from the substrate in the vertical direction, and wherein the combination statement as applied above teaches that the device of modified Shin determines removal of the film when the torque is stabilized at the set torque value, see Shin: [0026-0028], [0059], [0031], [0062]; see also Kitajima Col. 14, lime 60-Col. 15, line 7; see also Col. 6, lines 44-67, Col. 17, lines 1-14, Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 8, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the control device is configured to move the polishing head in a direction parallel to the substrate, and wherein the control device is configured to move the polishing head in the direction after the determination unit determines the removal of the film in the vertical direction (Shin: see at least [0028] regarding the ability of the polishing head to translate in multiple directions to be disposed in different positions and different orientations so as to polish different portions of the wafer, specifically describing that the head may be disposed normal, aligned, or angled relative to the edge 104, and may be angularly translated about a tangential axis of the substrate and/or circumferentially, and wherein the polishing head may be moved or oscillated around or along the edge 104; see also Figures 5, 10A-10C; see also [0031]; see also [0039] regarding the actuator 506; see also [0041], [0043], [0052]; please see the combination statements as applied above regarding the completion and movement of the polishing heads, wherein the combination statement below teaches the specific movement direction; [0061]: the position of the polishing head can be adjusted based on signals used to monitor the polishing progress, see also [0058-0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the periphery of the substrate comprises a bevel portion being the outermost peripheral surface of the substrate (Shin: see Figure 1, edge 104 comprising outer edge 110, bevels 112, 114, see also [0026] regarding regions 108, 108’),
wherein the storage unit is configured to store a set bevel torque value when polishing the bevel portion of the bare wafer, and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate when the rotational torque value when polishing the bevel portion of the substrate is stabilized at the set bevel torque value (wherein Shin discloses performing the polishing of the outer edge 110 as well as at least one of the bevels 112, 114, see [0026-0027]; see also [0059]: the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100; see also [0031], [0062]; wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention, see at least Kitajima: Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7 the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored, as well as in Col. 6, lines 44-67 teaching of the stabilization of the torque, which is the operation carried out by the device of Shin; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 11, Shin discloses a method for polishing a periphery of a substrate on which a film is formed on a bare wafer while rotating the substrate by a holding stage (see abstract as well as [0027], [0059], [0039]), comprising:
monitoring a rotational torque value of the holding stage in a real time when polishing the periphery of the substrate ([0058]: a sensor (not shown) within the driver 1402 may be employed to generate a signal indicative of the torque of the platform (e.g., vacuum chuck) holding the substrate 100 as it is rotated by the driver 1402 and/or the energy being exerted by the driver 1402 to rotate the substrate 100 via the platform; see also [0059], [0061], and [0009]);
determining a removal of the film based on the rotational torque value ([0059] the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100).
Shin describes that the apparatus includes a programmed or software driven computer and/or a real-time processor, and that the controller receives feedback signals including torque to determine whether a preset endpoint material removal has occurred (see [0031], [0007-0009], [0055], [0058-0059], and [0061-0062]). The torque value is continuously monitored and used to compare/determine if the preset endpoint has been reached, and the controller alters the operation based on the proximity of the signals to the preset endpoint (see [0062). However, Shin does not explicitly teach comparing the rotational torque value with a set torque value of the holding stage when polishing the bare wafer, nor that the determination is made when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kitajima (US 7101252) teaches of a polishing method and apparatus which is configured to remove a film layer from a substrate, wherein torque measurements of the element configured to hold the wafer substrate are measured (see Col. 3, line 64-Col. 4, line 4), and comparing the rotational torque value with a set torque value of the holding stage when polishing the bare wafer (Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7: the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; see also Col. 12, lines 13-23 regarding the central processing unit (CPU) 42), and that the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value (Col. 5, lines 26-44: see first through fourth steps, wherein the third step comprises starting to expose the nitride film as the oxide film layer is removed, and the fourth step comprises complete removal of the oxide film and complete exposure of the nitride film, and wherein the monitoring includes measuring of the torque of the mechanism which rotates the substrate holder; see stabilization of the torque value or constant torque value disclosed in Col. 6, lines 44-67; see also Col. 10, lines 43-65 regarding the torque measuring device; see also Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Both Shin and Kitajima employ similar apparatuses in the context of wafer polishing devices which utilize torque readings from the wafer holding devices in order to evaluate polishing end points. While the data being monitored by Shin and Kitajima is similar, Kitajima goes further into the monitoring process by recording the measured torque values and taking into consideration whether the readings are stabilized, i.e. accurate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kitajima into the invention of Shin. One would be motivated to do so because the process described by Kitajima gives consideration to anomalies which may occur, and in order to improve the accuracy of endpoint detection, thereby increasing the yield and reliability of the device (Col. 7, lines 14-19 and 44-52; Col. 8, lines 20-44; Col. 18, lines 25-51).
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches comparing a set edge torque value when polishing an edge portion located radially inward of the substrate from an outermost peripheral surface of the substrate, the edge portion being included in the periphery of the substrate, with the rotational torque value when polishing the edge portion of the substrate, and determining the removal of the film on the edge portion of the substrate when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set edge torque value (Shin: see Figure 1, edge 104 comprising outer edge 110, bevels 112, 114, see also [0026] regarding regions 108, 108’; wherein Shin discloses performing the polishing of the outer edge 110 as well as at least one of the bevels 112, 114, see [0026-0027]; see also [0059]: the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100; see also [0031], [0062]; wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention, see at least Kitajima: Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7 the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored, as well as in Col. 6, lines 44-67 teaching of the stabilization of the torque, which is the operation carried out by the device of Shin; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches dividing the edge portion of the substrate into a plurality of polishing regions along a radial direction of the substrate; and setting a polishing condition for each of the polishing regions (Shin: an operator/controller can control how far beyond the bevels 112, 114 and into the exclusion regions 108/108’ the polishing film is made to contact the substrate, and wherein the inflatable bladder within the polishing head may be inflated or deflated under the direction of a programmed controller, see [0050]; wherein [0026] discloses that the invention is configured to clean and/or polish the outer edge110 and at least one bevel 112, 114, and wherein all or part of the exclusion regions 108, 108’ may be cleaned or polished as well; wherein there are at least two polishing regions existing along a radial direction, and wherein each polishing region can be polished or cleaned, or excluded from polishing, i.e. a different or the same polishing condition for each respective region).
Regarding claim 17, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches moving the polishing head in a vertical direction with respect to the substrate (Shin: see Figures 10A-10C); and determining the removal of the film in the vertical direction when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set torque value (wherein the film is disposed on the surface of the substrate and thus exists/is removed from the substrate in the vertical direction, and wherein the combination statement as applied above teaches that the device of modified Shin determines removal of the film when the torque is stabilized at the set torque value, see Shin: [0026-0028], [0059], [0031], [0062]; see also Kitajima Col. 14, lime 60-Col. 15, line 7; see also Col. 6, lines 44-67, Col. 17, lines 1-14, Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 18, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches comprising moving the polishing head in a direction parallel to the substrate after determining the removal of the film in the vertical direction (Shin: see at least [0028] regarding the ability of the polishing head to translate in multiple directions to be disposed in different positions and different orientations so as to polish different portions of the wafer, specifically describing that the head may be disposed normal, aligned, or angled relative to the edge 104, and may be angularly translated about a tangential axis of the substrate and/or circumferentially, and wherein the polishing head may be moved or oscillated around or along the edge 104; see also Figures 5, 10A-10C; see also [0031]; see also [0039] regarding the actuator 506; see also [0041], [0043], [0052]; please see the combination statements as applied above regarding the completion and movement of the polishing heads, wherein the combination statement below teaches the specific movement direction; [0061]: the position of the polishing head can be adjusted based on signals used to monitor the polishing progress, see also [0058-0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches comparing a set bevel torque value when polishing a bevel portion, which is the outermost peripheral surface of the substrate, the bevel portion being included in the periphery the substrate, with the rotational torque value when polishing the bevel portion of the substrate; and determining the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate when the rotational torque value is stabilized at the set bevel torque value (Shin: see Figure 1, edge 104 comprising outer edge 110, bevels 112, 114, see also [0026] regarding regions 108, 108’; wherein Shin discloses performing the polishing of the outer edge 110 as well as at least one of the bevels 112, 114, see [0026-0027]; see also [0059]: the controller 1308 may determine that the change in current indicated on the signal line 1406 means that a layer of material has been removed from (e.g., polished off of) the edge 104 of the substrate 100; see also [0031], [0062]; wherein the combination as applied above teaches the claimed invention, see at least Kitajima: Col. 14, line 60-Col. 15, line 7 the measured torque at every point in time that is determined by the operation processor 42 is stored, as well as in Col. 6, lines 44-67 teaching of the stabilization of the torque, which is the operation carried out by the device of Shin; see also Col. 17, lines 1-14 regarding predetermined reference values; see also Figures 9, 10 , 12-14; see also Col. 11, lines 29-33; Col. 10, line 66-Col. 11, line 12; see also Col. 14, lines 60-65, Col. 15 lines 1-18).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20070238393) in view of Kitajima (US 7101252), and in further view of Nakanishi (US 20110256811).
Regarding claim 4, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Shin describes that the signals communicated to the controller are used to make determinations and adjustments to the process, modified Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the setting unit is configured to set at least a movement speed of the polishing head between the polishing regions as the polishing condition.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Nakanishi (US 20110256811) teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to set at least a movement speed of the polishing head between the polishing regions as the polishing condition ([0058-0059]: control section 42 controls the movement speed of the linear actuator 33 which displaced the polishing head; see also [0055]: the polishing head 2 is movable in the radial direction and the movement speed of the linear actuator 33, which constitutes a movement mechanism for moving the polishing head, is controllable; see also [0031]: the controller controls the polishing head in a manner such that the polishing head moves toward the peripheral end of the substrate at a first movement speed and at a second movement speed; see also [0019-0024], [0070-0075], Figure 6A).
Both Shin and Nakanishi incorporate polishing heads in the context of devices configured to act on surfaces of a wafer to produce a desirable wafer product without film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability to alter the movement speed of the polishing head, as taught by Nakanishi, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to do so because this modification further prevents insufficient or uneven polishing at particular location on a wafer/substrate, making it possible to obtain a good polishing profile (see [0019-0024]). This also enables polishing of relatively thin portions of a substrate, thus avoiding damage to the substrate while still accomplishing film layer removal (see [0070-0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches wherein the setting unit is configured to change a parameter based on a difference between the rotational torque value and the set edge torque value (Shin [0062]: The controller 1308 may use the feedback signals provided by the driver 1402 to determine whether a preset endpoint for edge polishing has been reached (e.g., a desired edge profile) and/or a difference between a current state of the edge 104 and the preset endpoint. For example, if the endpoint has been reached or the current state of the edge 104 is close to the endpoint (e.g., as measured in an amount of material that has been removed from the edge 104), then the controller 1308 may transmit signals to the driver 1402 to reduce the rotation speed of the substrate 100 so as to, in the former case, prevent further removal of material from the edge 104 or, in the latter case, to decrease the rate at which material is removed from the edge 104. Similarly, the controller 1308 may use feedback signals provided by the actuator 1408 to determine whether the preset endpoint has been reached or is close to being reached. The controller 1308 may transmit signals to the actuator 1408 to reduce an amount of force applied to the pad 206 and/or polishing film 204 to halt or slow removal of further material from the edge 104 in the event of such a determination; see also [0058], [0060-0061], [0008], [0043]).
However, while modified Shin contemplates altering variables (pressure of polishing head, rotation speed of the substrate, bladder inflation, etc.) within the apparatus in order obtain a desired endpoint, and also describes that the position of the polishing head can be adjusted based on signals used to monitor the polishing progress ([0061]), modified Shin does not explicitly teach the parameter is a movement speed, i.e. the setting unit is configured to change a movement speed of the polishing head based on the difference in torques.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Nakanishi teaches changing a movement speed of the polishing head in order to for the in situ parameters to meet a desired rate ([0058-0059]: control section 42 controls the movement speed of the linear actuator 33 which displaced the polishing head; see also [0055]: the polishing head 2 is movable in the radial direction and the movement speed of the linear actuator 33, which constitutes a movement mechanism for moving the polishing head, is controllable; see also [0031]: the controller controls the polishing head in a manner such that the polishing head moves toward the peripheral end of the substrate at a first movement speed and at a second movement speed; see also [0019-0024], [0070-0075], Figure 6A).
Both Shin and Nakanishi incorporate polishing heads in the context of devices configured to act on surfaces of a wafer to produce a desirable wafer product without film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability to alter the movement speed of the polishing head, as taught by Nakanishi, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to do so because this modification further prevents insufficient or uneven polishing at particular location on a wafer/substrate, making it possible to obtain a good polishing profile (see [0019-0024]). This also enables polishing of relatively thin portions of a substrate, thus avoiding damage to the substrate while still accomplishing film layer removal (see [0070-0075]).
Regarding claim 14, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Shin describes that the signals communicated to the controller are used to make determinations and adjustments to the process, modified Shin does not explicitly teach comprising setting at least a movement speed of the polishing head between the polishing regions as the polishing condition.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Nakanishi (US 20110256811) teaches setting at least a movement speed of the polishing head between the polishing regions as the polishing condition ([0058-0059]: control section 42 controls the movement speed of the linear actuator 33 which displaced the polishing head; see also [0055]: the polishing head 2 is movable in the radial direction and the movement speed of the linear actuator 33, which constitutes a movement mechanism for moving the polishing head, is controllable; see also [0031]: the controller controls the polishing head in a manner such that the polishing head moves toward the peripheral end of the substrate at a first movement speed and at a second movement speed; see also [0019-0024], [0070-0075], Figure 6A).
Both Shin and Nakanishi incorporate polishing heads in the context of devices configured to act on surfaces of a wafer to produce a desirable wafer product without film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability to alter the movement speed of the polishing head, as taught by Nakanishi, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to do so because this modification further prevents insufficient or uneven polishing at particular location on a wafer/substrate, making it possible to obtain a good polishing profile (see [0019-0024]). This also enables polishing of relatively thin portions of a substrate, thus avoiding damage to the substrate while still accomplishing film layer removal (see [0070-0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Shin further teaches comprising changing a parameter of the polishing head based on a difference between the rotational torque value and the set edge torque value.
Shin [0062]: The controller 1308 may use the feedback signals provided by the driver 1402 to determine whether a preset endpoint for edge polishing has been reached (e.g., a desired edge profile) and/or a difference between a current state of the edge 104 and the preset endpoint. For example, if the endpoint has been reached or the current state of the edge 104 is close to the endpoint (e.g., as measured in an amount of material that has been removed from the edge 104), then the controller 1308 may transmit signals to the driver 1402 to reduce the rotation speed of the substrate 100 so as to, in the former case, prevent further removal of material from the edge 104 or, in the latter case, to decrease the rate at which material is removed from the edge 104. Similarly, the controller 1308 may use feedback signals provided by the actuator 1408 to determine whether the preset endpoint has been reached or is close to being reached. The controller 1308 may transmit signals to the actuator 1408 to reduce an amount of force applied to the pad 206 and/or polishing film 204 to halt or slow removal of further material from the edge 104 in the event of such a determination; see also [0058], [0060-0061], [0008], [0043]).
However, while modified Shin contemplates altering variables (pressure of polishing head, rotation speed of the substrate, bladder inflation, etc.) within the apparatus in order obtain a desired endpoint, and also describes that the position of the polishing head can be adjusted based on signals used to monitor the polishing progress ([0061]), modified Shin does not explicitly teach the parameter is a movement speed, i.e. changing a movement speed of the polishing head based on the difference in torques.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Nakanishi teaches changing a movement speed of the polishing head in order to for the in situ parameters to meet a desired rate ([0058-0059]: control section 42 controls the movement speed of the linear actuator 33 which displaced the polishing head; see also [0055]: the polishing head 2 is movable in the radial direction and the movement speed of the linear actuator 33, which constitutes a movement mechanism for moving the polishing head, is controllable; see also [0031]: the controller controls the polishing head in a manner such that the polishing head moves toward the peripheral end of the substrate at a first movement speed and at a second movement speed; see also [0019-0024], [0070-0075], Figure 6A).
Both Shin and Nakanishi incorporate polishing heads in the context of devices configured to act on surfaces of a wafer to produce a desirable wafer product without film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the ability to alter the movement speed of the polishing head, as taught by Nakanishi, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to do so because this modification further prevents insufficient or uneven polishing at particular location on a wafer/substrate, making it possible to obtain a good polishing profile (see [0019-0024]). This also enables polishing of relatively thin portions of a substrate, thus avoiding damage to the substrate while still accomplishing film layer removal (see [0070-0075]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20070238393) in view of Kitajima (US 7101252), and in further view of Shigeta (US 20060019417).
Regarding claim 5, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Shin describes that the signals communicated to the controller are used to make determinations and adjustments to the process, modified Shin does not explicitly teach wherein when the determination unit determines the removal of the film in at least one of the polishing regions, the control device is configured to control the operation of the polishing head to polish other polishing region excluding the polishing region where the removal of the film has been determined.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Shigeta (US 20060019417) teaches wherein when the determination unit determines the removal of the film in at least one of the polishing regions, the control device is configured to control the operation of the polishing head to polish other polishing region excluding the polishing region where the removal of the film has been determined (see [0029]: substrate 31, including a film 32, end surface 33, upper sloping surface 34, and lower sloping surface 35; wherein end surface 33 is first polished to remove the film layer, see [0031-0033], wherein [0033] specifically points out polishing surfaces other than end surface 33, i.e. surfaces 34, 35 are polished afterwards, see [0033-0034]; see also Figures 2A, 2B, and 4; see also [0011], [0014-0015, [0036-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sequential surface processing as taught by Shigeta into the invention of Shin. One would be motivated to do so because the first polishing step in a particular area provides insight to the status of the substrate workpiece and wear/usage of the polishing tool, thereby allowing the controller to proceed with film removal in an informed manner, which decreases the chances of over-polishing or uneven finishes (see [0014-0015], [0050], [0061]).
Regarding claim 15, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. While modified Shin describes that the signals communicated to the controller are used to make determinations and adjustments to the process, modified Shin does not explicitly teach comprising polishing other polishing region excluding the polishing region where the removal of the film is determined when determining the removal of the film in at least one of the polishing regions.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Shigeta (US 20060019417) teaches polishing other polishing region excluding the polishing region where the removal of the film is determined when determining the removal of the film in at least one of the polishing regions (see [0029]: substrate 31, including a film 32, end surface 33, upper sloping surface 34, and lower sloping surface 35; wherein end surface 33 is first polished to remove the film layer, see [0031-0033], wherein [0033] specifically points out polishing surfaces other than end surface 33, i.e. surfaces 34, 35 are polished afterwards, see [0033-0034]; see also Figures 2A, 2B, and 4; see also [0011], [0014-0015, [0036-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the sequential surface processing as taught by Shigeta into the invention of Shin. One would be motivated to do so because the first polishing step in a particular area provides insight to the status of the substrate workpiece and wear/usage of the polishing tool, thereby allowing the controller to proceed with film removal in an informed manner, which decreases the chances of over-polishing or uneven finishes (see [0014-0015], [0050], [0061]).
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20070238393) in view of Kitajima (US 7101252), and in further view of Hiroo (US 20130344773).
Regarding claim 10, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing apparatus comprises a cross-sectional measurement device configured to measure a cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion of the substrate, wherein the storage unit is configured to store a correlation between the cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion measured by the cross-sectional measurement device and the set bevel torque value, and wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate based on the correlation.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Hiroo teaches wherein the polishing apparatus comprises a cross-sectional measurement device configured to measure a cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion of the substrate (see optical sensor 40, see also [0010-0015], [0019], [0057]),
wherein the storage unit is configured to store a correlation between the cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion measured by the cross-sectional measurement device and the set bevel torque value ([0010]: a sensor configured to obtain a signal containing thickness information, see also monitoring of the torque current value of the table motor; see also the historical data and storage described in [0011-0012]; see also [0015-0016], [0020], [0038]), and
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate based on the correlation ([0059]: the polishing end point detection recipe for the optical sensor 40 is adjusted such that the distinctive point of the polishing index value appears when the film thickness of the wafer reaches the target film thickness as a result of polishing of the wafer, [0061-0062], [0067-0069]; see also [0042-0043], [0048], [0057-0058], [0066-0068], Figures 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the thickness sensing and torque determination, as taught by Hiroo, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to so do because the combination of the optical sensor signal information and torque value monitoring decreases the possibility of excessive polishing and improves the accuracy of the polishing end point detection (see [0020], [0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Shin in view of Kitajima teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Shin does not explicitly teach comprising determining the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate based on a correlation between a cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion measured by a cross-sectional measurement device configured to measure the cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion of the substrate and the set bevel torque value.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Hiroo teaches determining the removal of the film on the bevel portion of the substrate based on a correlation between a cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion measured by a cross-sectional measurement device configured to measure the cross-sectional shape of the bevel portion of the substrate and the set bevel torque value (see optical sensor 40, a sensor configured to obtain a signal containing thickness information, see also monitoring of the torque current value of the table motor; see also the historical data and storage described in [0011-0012]; see also [0010-0016], [0020], [0038], [0019-0020], [0057]; see also [0059]: the polishing end point detection recipe for the optical sensor 40 is adjusted such that the distinctive point of the polishing index value appears when the film thickness of the wafer reaches the target film thickness as a result of polishing of the wafer, [0061-0062], [0067-0069]; see also [0042-0043], [0048], [0057-0058], [0066-0068], Figures 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the thickness sensing and torque determination, as taught by Hiroo, into the invention of modified Shin. One would be motivated to so do because the combination of the optical sensor signal information and torque value monitoring decreases the possibility of excessive polishing and improves the accuracy of the polishing end point detection (see [0020], [0069]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi (US 6602110), see Abstract.
Kramer (US 7198542), see Col. 12, lines 20-67.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights