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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 6/7/2024 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
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 7 and 15 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.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitation " the polishing amount of the wafer" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the specification contains numerous informalities that should be reviewed and corrected.
For example:
“weighting unit” throughout where “weighing unit” appears intended;
“a load cell capable of measuring a weight up to 1ug” where “1µg” appears intended (see, for example, Par [0049]);
“second weighting unit 62” where reference numeral 72 appears intended (See, for example, Par [0068]);
“plates 4, 42, and 43” where reference numeral 41 appears intended (See, for example, Par [0065]); and
“control 1 unit” where “control unit” appears intended (See, for example, Par [0016]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilby (US 2011/0015773 A1, hereinafter “Wilby”).
In regards to claim 1, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) a device for measuring a wafer polishing amount (See, for example, steps 112, 114 and 116; and See Par [0041]), the device comprising:
a first weighting unit (30) configured to measure a weight of a loading cassette before/after wafers (“mass measurement for the FOUP 16”, See Par [0066]) are accommodated before polishing (“…if a mass measurement is taken before and after the semiconductor wafers 18 contained in the FOUP 16 are treated, then any change in mass of the semiconductor wafers 18 caused by the treated will be reflected in a change in the FOUP mass measurement.”, See Par [0066]);
a second weighting unit (“obtain second measurement”, Step 114, See Fig. 3; See also Par [0080]) configured to measure a weight of an unloading cassette before/after the wafers are accommodated after the polishing (“The measurement conditions are desirably arranged so that the main difference between the measurements is due to the change in mass of the loaded wafers caused by the treatment”, See Par [0080]); and
a control unit (42) configured to calculate a polishing amount of one sheet of wafer according to the measurement values of the first and second weighting units (“compare first and second measurements”, Step 116, See Fig. 3; and See also Par [0081]).
In regards to claim 9, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) a method for measuring a polishing amount of a wafer (See, for example, steps 112, 114 and 116; and See Par [0041]), the method comprising:
a first step of measuring a weight (30) of a loading cassette before/after wafers (“mass measurement for the FOUP 16”, See Par [0066]) are accommodated before polishing (“…if a mass measurement is taken before and after the semiconductor wafers 18 contained in the FOUP 16 are treated, then any change in mass of the semiconductor wafers 18 caused by the treated will be reflected in a change in the FOUP mass measurement.”, See Par [0066]);
a second step of measuring a weight (“obtain second measurement”, Step 114, See Fig. 3; See also Par [0080]) of an unloading cassette before/after (See Steps 112 and 114, Fig. 3) the wafer are accommodated after the polishing (“The measurement conditions are desirably arranged so that the main difference between the measurements is due to the change in mass of the loaded wafers caused by the treatment”, See Par [0080]); and
a third step of calculating a polishing amount of one sheet of wafer according to the measurement values in the first and second steps (See, Par [0081]).
In regards to claims 2 and 10, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) that wherein the first weighting unit (first step) (30) is configured as a load cell (“a weighing system where the force of gravity is accurately measured using a force sensor.”, See Par [0027]) that supports the loading cassette.
In regards to claims 3 and 11, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the second weighting unit (second step) is configured as a load cell that supports the unloading cassette (See, Par [0042]’ “obtaining a second group metrology measurement for the plurality of semiconductor wafers after treatment”, See also Par [0047]; “reloading the treated semiconductor wafers into the wafer transporter; obtaining a second metrology measurement for the wafer transporter loaded with the treated semiconductor wafers”, See Par [0051]).
In regards to claims 4 and 12, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) wherein the first weighting unit (the first step) (30) measures weights (first and second measurement values) of the loading cassette before/after one sheet of wafer is accommodated in the loading cassette (See, Par [0051]), and the control unit (the third step) calculates a weight of one sheet of wafer before the polishing according to a variation in the first and second measurement values, which are input from the first weighting unit (“the method moves to block 116, where the first and second measurements are compared to obtain a differential result which can be used as a representative value for the treatment to the wafers.”, See Par [0081]).
In regards to claims 5 and 13, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) that wherein the second weighting unit (the second step) measures weights (third and fourth measurement values) of the unloading cassette before/after one sheet of wafer is accommodated in the unloading cassette (“When the transporter is in a measurement zone the method moves to step 114, where a second measurement of a parameter that is representative of the mass of the FOUP is obtained.”, See Par [0080]), and the control unit (the third step) calculates a weight of one sheet of wafer after the polishing according to a variation in the third and fourth measurement values, which are input from the second weighting unit (“the method moves to block 116, where the first and second measurements are compared to obtain a differential result which can be used as a representative value for the treatment to the wafers.”, See Par [0081]).
In regards to claims 6 and 14, Wilby discloses (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) that wherein the control unit (the third step) (See, for example, 42) includes a calculation part configured to calculate a polishing amount of one sheet of wafer according to the variation in weight of the wafer before/after the polishing (See, Pars [0066]- [0067]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilby in view of Wakabayashi (JP 2017-189831 A, hereinafter “Wakabayashi”).
In regards to claim 7, Wilby discloses all limitations of claim 1 above except that wherein the control unit (the third step) includes a command part (a fourth process of) configured to compare the polishing amount of the wafer with a target polishing amount to generate a control signal for a next polishing process.
Wakabayashi while disclosing a polishing device teaches wherein the control unit (the third step) includes a command part (a fourth process of) configured to compare the polishing amount of the wafer with a target polishing amount to generate a control signal for a next polishing process (“in the second calculation unit 52, a difference between the weight indicating the predetermined polishing amount preset in the control means 60 and the first weight difference is obtained, and the weight of this difference is calculated as the second weight difference. To do. For example, when the weight indicating the predetermined polishing amount preset in the control means 60 … The second weight difference is the weight of the wafer W corresponding to the thickness of the portion that should have been removed by polishing due to wear of the polishing pad 26 but remained.
Next, the control means 60 refers to the correlation data 62 stored in the storage unit 61, sets an addition time according to the second weight difference, and adds it to the initial polishing time.”, See pages 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wilby by Wakabayashi because this would help polish each wafer to the desired target polishing amount notwithstanding equipment/consumable variation.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilby in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Miyoshi et al. (JP 2009-033039 A, hereinafter “Miyoshi”).
In regards to claim 8, Wilby as modified above discloses all limitations of claim 7 except that wherein the command part (in the fourth process) generates control signals for a polishing pressure, a polishing rotation speed, a polishing time, and a slurry supply amount
Miyoshi wherein the command part (in the fourth process) generates control signals for a polishing pressure, a polishing rotation speed, a polishing time, and a slurry supply amount
(“The overall controller 4 analyzes the detection value of the reflected light sensor, calculates the actual concentration of the slurry on the polishing surface, and then detects the sensor detection value for the residual amount of abrasive slurry on the polishing pad surface, as shown in FIG. Based on the temporal change pattern of the polishing rate measured in advance, a signal is sent to the semiconductor holder drive control device 5, the polishing pad drive control device 6, and the slurry concentration adjusting device 7, so that the polishing pressure and the rotation speed of the polishing pad are transmitted. In addition, the rotational speed of the semiconductor holder and the concentration of the slurry to be supplied are each appropriately adjusted (at least one condition) to maintain the polishing speed constant. For example, when the concentration of the slurry is high, the polishing pressure is lowered, the rotation speed of the semiconductor holder 2 and the rotation speed of the polishing pad 1 are lowered, and a constant polishing surface finish and a constant polishing time are always obtained.”, See page 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wilby by Miyoshi because this would help obtain a constant polishing surface finish and maintain the flatness of the polished surface.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights