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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “PCDn” and “Rn”. The claim is not clear on what does the “n” stands for.
Claims 5-7 are rejected as indefinite because the claims are method claims without setting forth any steps involved in the process. MPEP 2173.05(q) - Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 6-7 recite the limitation "the imaginary line of distribution of the trajectory densities “. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Applicant claims an approximate curve along the imaginary line of distribution of the trajectory densities and a maximum value of the approximate curve. Applicant has omitted any method steps, and it is unclear how the convex curve and/or maximum value are created.
The recitation of “the dressing work [using an identical dresser can be executed for 30 minutes or more]” in claims 8 and 10, is unclear as if the Applicant is claiming two pads or just stating the use of the pad. Is the 30 minutes use, a step of the method claim, or does the pad only need to be capable of being use for that time frame? For these reasons, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita US 2004/0072510 in view of Kimoto JP 2001315060 A and Sung US 2017/0232576 A1
Re claims 1-2, Kinoshita teaches a dresser [figs. 10-11] for a polishing pad surface, the dresser comprising:
a dressing surface 11 having a circular shape with a diameter DCD and facing the pad surface, and pellets 12 arranged on the dressing surface 11, wherein the pellets are arranged in circumferential regions with a diameter PCDn, in which the circumferential regions share a center of the dressing surface; and an area ratio of the pellets arranged in each circumferential region, this area ratio is close to Type 2 in the table.
Kinoshita does teach not explicitly teach the area ratio is 0 between 0 and 20 % of the diameter DCD or that the area ratio is Type 1.
However, Kimoto teaches teach multiple area ratios at different radius percentages [Fig. 7a-7c). Sung teaches multiple area ratios at different radius percentages [fig. 1], and that the arrangement is a result effective variable to achieve optimal design flexibility [“[t]he plurality of abrasive segments 12x can be radially distributed about a face of the pad conditioner substrate 20, and can include a substantially uniform spacing between each segment. Also, a longitudinal axis of each of the plurality of abrasive segments can be aligned along a radius of the pad conditioner substrate. The abrasive segments 12e of the embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 2A can be arranged across the face of the pad conditioner substrate 20 in alternating or varying alignments: as shown, the tapering portion of the segments can be aligned toward or away from a center of the pad conditioner substrate in alternating stages…The abrasive segments arranged about the face of the conditioner substrate can each be substantially the same in size, shape, abrasive composition, height relative to one another, etc. In other embodiments, the size, shape, abrasive composition, height relative to one another, etc., can be purposefully varied, to achieve optimal design flexibility for any particular application…a higher density of abrasive segments across the face of the pad conditioner substrate can in some cases, provide a more desirable abrasive interface between the pad conditioner substrate and the CMP pad. In other applications, a lower density of abrasive segments may be beneficial. In either case, the present invention provides a great deal of design flexibility to obtain the optimal abrading profile”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the area ratio in Kinoshita to Type 1, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Re claims 3-5, Kinoshita teaches all limitation (as seen above for claim 1) but a variation in trajectory density of the pellets passing through an imaginary line in a radial direction from the center of the pad surface becomes equal to or less than 1500. As discussed above, Kimoto and Sung teach the density of pellets is a result effective variable. Kinoshita further teaches performing mechanical flattening [“it is necessary to achieve both a polishing rate and defect-free polishing. By introducing the chemical slurry, chemical and mechanical flattening is performed, which gives a higher polishing removal rate and defect-freeness to the semiconductor surface.”]. Sung teaches flattening of the conditioner is a result effective variable to reduce unevenness, and have a flatter polishing pad. [“[t]he semiconductor industry currently spends in excess of one billion U.S. Dollars each year manufacturing silicon wafers that must exhibit very flat and smooth surfaces. Known techniques to manufacture smooth and even-surfaced silicon wafers are plentiful. The most common of these involves the process known as Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP)…The present invention generally provides pad conditioners and associated methods that can be utilized in conditioning (e.g., smoothing, polishing, dressing) or otherwise affecting a CMP pad to remove material from the CMP pad in order to provide a finished, smooth and/or flat surface to the pad. Pad conditioners of the present invention can be advantageously utilized, for example, in dressing CMP pads that are used in polishing, finishing or otherwise affecting silicon wafers”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the variation trajectory density in Kinoshita to less than 1500, in order to yield the predictable result of a more even/flat polishing pad, and since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Re claims 6-7, the combination of Kinoshita teaches the invention of claim 5. With regards to the limitations wherein an approximate curve along the imaginary line of distribution of the trajectory densities is convex, and wherein a maximum value of an approximate curve along the imaginary line of distribution of the trajectory densities exists near a center of the imaginary line, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, it is unclear what are the steps in this method claims, and how the convex curve and/or maximum value is created at all. As best understood, since the prior art teaches the dressing method of claim 5, the limitations of claims 6-7 would be inherent and/or obvious to the dressing method in the combination of the prior art.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita US 2004/0072510 in view of Kimoto JP 2001315060 A and Sung US 2017/0232576 A1 and in further view of JP 5511266 B2 (JP266).
Re claims 8, 10, Kinoshita, Kimoto, and Sung teach a polishing method and a method for manufacturing a workpiece, the methods comprising:
a step of preparing the dresser according to claim 1 (see above);
a dressing step of pressing a dressing surface of the dresser against the pad surface and rotating the dresser and/or the pad [fig. 8 of Kinoshita]; and the dressing work using an identical dresser can be executed for 30 minutes or more [capable of dressing for 30 minutes].
Kinoshita, Kimoto, and Sung does not teach wherein the pad is an LHA polishing pad.
JP266 teaches wherein the pad is an LHA polishing pad.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an LHA polishing pad in Kinoshita, as suggested and taught by JP266, in order to yield the predictable result of using the polishing pad with grains that are loose and can roll or rotate.
Re claims 9, 11, Kinoshita further teaches the dresser 102 [fig. 8] is co-rotated with respect to the pad 102.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights