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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 06/05/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to PCT/JP2017/032306 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 09/07/2017, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP 608.01(p) I B: For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date and MPEP 1893.03(b): An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that an international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - ...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State. The specification amendment filed on 06/05/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to PCT/JP2017/032306.
Claim Objections
Claims 48-54, 56, 57, 60-67, 69, 70, and 73 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 48 and 61, the terms may be amended as “[[the]]a film thickness distribution” in lines 3-4, “[[the]]a measurement result” in line 4, “[[the]]a size” in line 7, “[[the]]a relation” in line 8, “[[the]]an estimated average film thickness” in line 10, “[[an]]the attribute” in line 12, “[[a]]the polishing recipe” in line 14, “[[a]]the polisher” in line 15, and “[[the]]an entire polishing” in line 18.
In claims 49 and 62, the term may be amended as “[[the]]an outline” in line 2.
In claims 50 and 63, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a precision” in line 2.
In claims 51 and 64, the term may be amended as “[[a]]the substrate” in line 2.
In claims 52 and 65, the term may be amended as “[[a]]the substrate” in line 2.
In claims 53 and 66, the term may be amended as “[[the ]]simulation results” in line 5.
In claims 54 and 67, the phrase may be amended as “… based on the results” in line 2 and the term may be amended as “[[the]]a simulator” in line 3.
In claims 56 and 69, the term may be amended as “[[a]]the substrate” in line 3, and the phrase may be amended as “a substrate estimate,[[,]] and …” in line 5.
In claims 57 and 70, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a simulator” in line 2.
In claim 60, the preamble may be amended as “The method according to …” in line 1.
In claim 73, the preamble may be amended as “The non-transitory memory .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 61-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 61, the preamble recites “A non-transitory memory storing instructions for performing steps for controlling a polisher …” However, specification of the instant application does not disclose the recited non-transitory memory storing instructions. Therefore, the preamble lacks the written description.
Claims 62-73 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
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 48-60 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 48-60 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 48 recites at least one step or instruction for “setting a local polishing region …; selecting a polishing head …; generating a polishing recipe … and determining a polishing recipe for polishing the local polishing region”, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG of an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (e.g., pg. 6 of the originally filed disclosure describing training to diagnose a process excursion), which can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, each of Claim 48 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 48 recites
A method for controlling a polisher that locally polishes a substrate, the method comprising: (additional element; field of use)
measuring a film thickness of the substrate and estimating the film thickness distribution of the substrate based on the measurement result; (additional element; field of use/data gathering; insignificant extra-solution activity);
setting a local polishing region on the substrate based on the film thickness distribution; (mental process, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
selecting a polishing head based on the size of the local polishing region; (mental process, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
storing a recipe generating model that defines the relation between an input node and an output node, input nodes including (i) an attribute of the local polishing region that includes the estimated average film thickness thereof and (ii) a head type, and the output node comprises a recipe for a polishing process; (additional element; field of use/data gathering; insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. MPEP 2106.05(d)II);
generating a polishing recipe that puts an attribute of the local polishing region and the selected polishing head into the input node of the recipe generating model (mental process, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and
determining a polishing recipe for polishing the local polishing region; (mental process, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and
transmitting data of the polishing recipe to a polisher that performs local polishing (additional element; receiving or transmitting data over a network),
wherein the method controls local polishing to be performed on an entirely polished substrate (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process; insignificant extra-solution activity), and
wherein the recipe generating model has a condition of the entire polishing as an input node (additional element; insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data gathering).
Further, dependent Claims 49-60 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.
Claim 49 recites “the input node comprises a plurality of input nodes that are the outline of the local polishing region” (field of use/data gathering).
Claim 50 recites “the local polishing region is set depending on whether the precision or throughput of substrate processing is given priority” (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool).
Claim 51 recites “the film thickness distribution is also estimated based on an etching pattern of a substrate to be polished” (mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG; field of use/data gathering).
Claim 52 recites “simulating the film thickness distribution of a substrate and throughput to be achieved by local polishing according to the polishing recipe and determining whether the polishing recipe is to be adopted or not based on a simulation result” (mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG; field of use/data gathering).
Claim 53 recites “a plurality of recipe generating models of different types are stored, wherein a plurality of polishing recipes using different recipe generating models are determined, and wherein a single polishing recipe is determined based on the simulation results of the plurality of polishing recipes determined by using different recipe generating models” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 54 recites “performing learning on the recipe generating model based on results of simulations performed on a plurality of local polishing regions by the simulator” (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 55 recites “performing learning on the recipe generating model based on a result of local polishing actually performed according to the polishing recipe” (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 56 recites “storing a previously generated polishing recipe and data on the film thickness distribution of a substrate polished by using the polishing recipe; and reading from an actual result data storage a predetermined number of polishing recipes approximate to the film thickness distribution of a substrate estimate, and wherein the simulating determines a single polishing recipe based on simulation results of a plurality of polishing recipes” (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C); insignificant extra-solution activity of storing data).
Claim 57 recites “outputting the simulation result obtained by the simulator” (field of use/data gathering).
Claim 58 recites “the simulating uses a simulation model” (mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG; field of use/data gathering).
Claim 59 recites “the simulating performs learning based on a result of local polishing actually performed according to the polishing recipe” (mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/using the computer as a tool to perform a mental process MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Claim 60 recites “receiving data on local polishing transmitted from a plurality of polishers connected to the data receiver via a network” (additional element; receiving or transmitting data over a network).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 48 (and their respective dependent Claims 49-60) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 48), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and are mere data gathering steps to perform the judicial exception. More specifically, the additional elements of: a polisher, a polishing head, a recipe generating model are generically recited components that do 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. The machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(b) II.) and its use contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(b) III.)
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., measuring apparatus, storing apparatus, recipe generating apparatus, data transmitting apparatus). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 48 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 48 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 48-60 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of:
A method for controlling a polisher that locally polishes a substrate (field of use)
storing a recipe generating model that defines the relation between an input node and an output node (field of use);
transmitting data of the polishing recipe to a polisher (receiving or transmitting data over a network)
the limitations amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
measuring a film thickness of the substrate and estimating the film thickness distribution of the substrate based on the measurement result (field of use);
the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 48-60 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claims 48-60 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 48-60 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 48 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements remain an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, applying the judicial exception with generic computer components, and insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 48-60 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 48-60 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 48-60 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 61-73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “non-transitory memory storing instructions” is merely a computer program, i.e. software, signal, or data per se.
Therefore, claims are rejected as covering non-statutory subject matter. Additionally, as discussed in 112(a) rejection, the preamble has no written description in the specification.
Claims 62-73 being dependent from claim 61 are rejected for the same reason above.
Examiner further notes if claim 61 passes step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test for products and processes, it would be abstracts and it would have similar analysis as above without the additional elements that are not recited.
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.
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.
Claims 48-50, 60-63, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui et al. (US 9102033, cited on 06/05/2024 IDS, hereinafter Hui), in view of Takahashi (JP H10264011A, cited on 06/05/2024 IDS), Hirabayashi et al. (JP H1190816A, cited on 06/05/2024 IDS, hereinafter Hirabayashi), and Motoshima et al. (US 2015/0224621, hereinafter Motoshima).
Regarding claim 48, Hui discloses a method for controlling a polisher that locally polishes a substrate (abstract, a method for controlling a multi-head chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process), the method comprising:
measuring a film thickness of the substrate and estimating the film thickness distribution of the substrate based on the measurement result (col. 5:47-49, a metrology tool measures thickness of a wafer at various locations to determines a surface thickness profile of the wafer. The tool measures the thickness of the wafer at the various location, not an entire location, thus, the profile is obtained by estimation);
setting a local polishing region on the substrate based on the film thickness distribution (col. 6:13-19, a system determines an operation mode and a CMP polishing recipe by evaluating surface profiles of the wafers. Because the surface profile includes the film thickness distribution, the recipe would include a local polishing region to polish);
storing a recipe generating model that defines the relation between an input node and an output node, input nodes including (i) an attribute of the local polishing region that includes the estimated average film thickness thereof, and the output node comprises a recipe for a polishing process (col. 4:62-5:5, 5:64-6:19, a database 108 stores measurement data related to each wafer’s pre- and post-polishing characteristics, and various CMP models associated with the measurement data, thus the CMP recipes are stored. The system provides a target thickness and evaluates the surface profile, thus it includes the estimated film thickness as an input node. The system measures the pre-CMP thickness and post-CMP thickness and uses the data to generate CMP models, thus it generates a recipe for the polishing process as an output node);
generating a polishing recipe that puts an attribute of the local polishing region and determining a polishing recipe for polishing the local polishing region (col. 6:13-16, the evaluated surface profile can be used as the input node to determine the operation mode and the CMP recipe); and
transmitting data of the polishing recipe to a polisher that performs local polishing (col. 6:19-27, the system includes a computer hardware and controls a process tool 104 and various other process tools. Thus, it sends the CMP recipes to a polisher for polishing), but does not disclose selecting a polishing head based on the size of the local polishing region, defines a head type as the input node, and puts the selected polishing head into the input node of the recipe generating model.
Takahashi teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, selecting a polishing head based on the size of the local polishing region (Takahashi English translation, p. 5:10-12, a polishing head is selected in accordance with a size of a polishing pad. Thus, it teaches the polishing head can be chosen based on a size of a polishing site), defines a head type as the input node, and puts the selected polishing head into the input node of the recipe generating model (Takahashi English translation, p. 10:8-17, polishing conditions include a selection of polishing head out of a plurality of polishing heads in advance. Thus, by combining with Hui, the selection of the polishing head is utilized as an input to a polishing recipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method to provide the selection of the polish head as taught by Takahashi. Polishing with an appropriate polishing head avoids risk of polishing unnecessary portion (Takahashi English translation, p. 9:16-21)
Hui as modified by Takahashi does not disclose the recipe generating model has a condition of the entire polishing as an input node.
Hirabayashi teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the recipe generating model has a condition of the entire polishing as an input node (Hirabayashi English translation, p. 7:28-8:3, a film thickness distribution is calculated and provided as an input to a control unit 80. Thus, Hirabayashi teaches using a polishing profile for a subsequent polishing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi to provide the entire polishing condition as the input node as taught by Hirabayashi so that a portion where polishing is insufficient is intensively polished (Hirabayashi English translation, p. 7:33-8:1).
Hui as modified by Takahashi and Hirabayashi does not disclose the method controls local polishing to be performed on an entirely polished substrate.
Motoshima teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the method controls local polishing to be performed on an entirely polished substrate (¶ 0146 and 0152, after a main polishing, a finish polishing is performed. After the main polishing step, a thickness measuring instrument detects a state of a film thickness. It can detect presence of polishing abnormality, and then the finish polishing step is performed. By combining with Hirabayashi, the finish polishing step can polish the local region where polishing is insufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi and Hirabayashi to provide the local polishing after the entire polishing as taught by Motoshima in order to make sure a substrate is polished completely.
Regarding claim 61, Hui discloses a non-transitory memory storing instructions for performing steps for controlling a polisher that locally polishes a substrate (abstract and col. 6:19-34, a computer including a processor and a memory is utilized for controlling a multi-head CMP process. The memory stores a computer program for execution wherein the program is equivalent to the recited instructions), the steps comprising:
measuring a film thickness of the substrate and estimating the film thickness distribution of the substrate based on the measurement result (col. 5:47-49, a metrology tool measures thickness of a wafer at various locations to determines a surface thickness profile of the wafer. The tool measures the thickness of the wafer at the various location, not an entire location, thus, the profile is obtained by estimation);
setting a local polishing region on the substrate based on the film thickness distribution (col. 6:13-19, a system determines an operation mode and a CMP polishing recipe by evaluating surface profiles of the wafers. Because the surface profile includes the film thickness distribution, the recipe would include a local polishing region to polish);
storing a recipe generating model that defines the relation between an input node and an output node, input nodes including (i) an attribute of the local polishing region that includes the estimated average film thickness thereof, and the output node comprises a recipe for a polishing process (col. 4:62-5:5, 5:64-6:19, a database 108 stores measurement data related to each wafer’s pre- and post-polishing characteristics, and various CMP models associated with the measurement data, thus the CMP recipes are stored. The system provides a target thickness and evaluates the surface profile, thus it includes the estimated film thickness as an input node. The system measures the pre-CMP thickness and post-CMP thickness and uses the data to generate CMP models, thus it generates a recipe for the polishing process as an output node);
generating a polishing recipe that puts an attribute of the local polishing region and determining a polishing recipe for polishing the local polishing region (col. 6:13-16, the evaluated surface profile can be used as the input node to determine the operation mode and the CMP recipe); and
transmitting data of the polishing recipe to a polisher that performs local polishing (col. 6:19-27, the system includes a computer hardware and controls a process tool 104 and various other process tools. Thus, it sends the CMP recipes to a polisher for polishing), but does not disclose selecting a polishing head based on the size of the local polishing region, defines a head type as the input node, and puts the selected polishing head into the input node of the recipe generating model.
Takahashi teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, selecting a polishing head based on the size of the local polishing region (Takahashi English translation, p. 5:10-12, a polishing head is selected in accordance with a size of a polishing pad. Thus, it teaches the polishing head can be chosen based on a size of a polishing site), defines a head type as the input node, and puts the selected polishing head into the input node of the recipe generating model (Takahashi English translation, p. 10:8-17, polishing conditions include a selection of polishing head out of a plurality of polishing heads in advance. Thus, by combining with Hui, the selection of the polishing head is utilized as an input to a polishing recipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method to provide the selection of the polish head as taught by Takahashi. Polishing with an appropriate polishing head avoids risk of polishing unnecessary portion (Takahashi English translation, p. 9:16-21)
Hui as modified by Takahashi does not disclose the recipe generating model has a condition of the entire polishing as an input node.
Hirabayashi teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the recipe generating model has a condition of the entire polishing as an input node (Hirabayashi English translation, p. 7:28-8:3, a film thickness distribution is calculated and provided as an input to a control unit 80. Thus, Hirabayashi teaches using a polishing profile for a subsequent polishing).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi to provide the entire polishing condition as the input node as taught by Hirabayashi so that a portion where polishing is insufficient is intensively polished (Hirabayashi English translation, p. 7:33-8:1).
Hui as modified by Takahashi and Hirabayashi does not disclose the method controls local polishing to be performed on an entirely polished substrate.
Motoshima teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the method controls local polishing to be performed on an entirely polished substrate (¶ 0146 and 0152, after a main polishing, a finish polishing is performed. After the main polishing step, a thickness measuring instrument detects a state of a film thickness. It can detect presence of polishing abnormality, and then the finish polishing step is performed. By combining with Hirabayashi, the finish polishing step can polish the local region where polishing is insufficient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi and Hirabayashi to provide the local polishing after the entire polishing as taught by Motoshima in order to make sure a substrate is polished completely.
Regarding claims 49 and 62, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 48 (as to claim 49) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 61 (as to claim 62), wherein the input node comprises a plurality of input nodes that are the outline of the local polishing region (Hui col. 4:62-5:5, 5:64-6:19, the database 108 stores measurement data related to each wafer’s pre- and post-polishing characteristics and various CMP models associated with the measurement data, and the system uses the data to generate CMP models; Hirabayashi English translation, p. 7:28-8:3, a film thickness distribution is calculated and provided as an input to a control unit 80 to polish the portion where polishing is insufficient. Because there can be multiple portions to be polished, the system can provide the multiple input nodes regarding the local polishing regions to be polished).
Regarding claims 50 and 63, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 48 (as to claim 50) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 61 (as to claim 63), wherein the local polishing region is set depending on whether the precision or throughput of substrate processing is given priority (Hui col. 17:39-55, a control system can implement polishing based on model-based actions and rule-based overrides to polish a zone. Therefore, Hui teaches the local polishing region can be set based on the rules to give priority).
Regarding claims 60 and 73, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima teaches the substrate processing control system as in the rejection of claim 48 (as to claim 60) and the non-transitory memory processing control system as in the rejection of claim 61 (as to claim 73), (the steps) further comprising receiving data on local polishing transmitted from a plurality of polishers connected to the data receiver via a network (Hui col. 5:17-25 and 6:1-4, the system 100 includes a network 102 the enables various entities to communicate with one another so that optimization or adjustment made to the process tool 104 via the network 102. Therefore, Hui teaches the polishers are connected via a network).
Claims 51 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima, as applied to claims 48 and 61 above respectively, and in further view of Morisawa et al. (US 2005/0245169, cited on 06/05/2024 IDS, hereinafter Morisawa).
Regarding claims 51 and 64, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 48 (as to claim 51) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 61 (as to claim 64), but does not disclose the film thickness distribution is also estimated based on an etching pattern of a substrate to be polished.
Morisawa teaches, in an CMP field of endeavor, the film thickness distribution is also estimated based on an etching pattern of a substrate to be polished (¶ 0083, a polishing process model considers a parameter of a surface step height formed through various processes including metal etching. Therefore, polishing condition includes a film thickness affected by the etching pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima to consider the film thickness distribution based on the etching pattern as taught by Morisawa in order to estimate the film thickness distribution more accurately and provide more accurate polishing.
Claims 52-59 and 65-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui in view of Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima, as applied to claims 48 and 61 above respectively, and in further view of Ushio et al. (JP 2002343753A, cited on 06/05/2024 IDS, hereinafter Ushio).
Regarding claims 52 and 65, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 48 (as to claim 52) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 61 (as to claim 65), but does not disclose simulating the film thickness distribution of a substrate and throughput to be achieved by local polishing according to the polishing recipe and determining whether the polishing recipe is to be adopted or not based on a simulation result.
Ushio teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, simulating the film thickness distribution of a substrate and throughput to be achieved by local polishing according to the polishing recipe and determining whether the polishing recipe is to be adopted or not based on a simulation result (Ushio English translation, p. 6:5-27, in a CMP, a simulation method simulates a film thickness distribution in order to determine a target machining amount distribution. A determination step determines whether assumed control parameter is good. If it is determined to be not good in a determination step, a control program changes assumption regarding the process. Therefore, Ushio teaches simulation of the film thickness distribution and determination based on the simulation result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, and Motoshima to provide the film thickness distribution simulation as taught by Ushio. Providing the simulation would allow the polishing process to be further optimized and determine when it is appropriate to use the polishing recipe or use a different recipe that may produce better polishing results.
Regarding claims 53 and 66, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 52 (as to claim 53) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 65 (as to claim 66), wherein a plurality of recipe generating models of different types are stored (Hui col. 5:64-6:1, the database 108 stores various CMP models associated with the measurement data), wherein a plurality of polishing recipes using different recipe generating models are determined (Hui col. 5:64-6:16, the system determines an operation mode and a CMP polishing recipe for the CMP process tool out of the various CMP models), and
wherein a single polishing recipe is determined based on the simulation results of the plurality of polishing recipes determined by using different recipe generating models (Ushio English translation, p. 27:4-16, an arithmetic processing section 20 considers calculation of the polishing amount for all partial regions on the surface of the wafer based on the simulation and determines the polishing amount. Therefore, Ushio teaches determining the polishing recipe based on the simulation result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the polishing recipe based on the simulation results as taught by Ushio in order to allow the models to be simulated and be compared for determining which recipe is the best to use.
Regarding claims 54 and 67, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 53 (as to claim 54) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 66 (as to claim 67), (the steps) further comprising: performing learning on the recipe generating model based on results of simulations performed on a plurality of local polishing regions by the simulator (Ushio English translation, p. 6:5-27, 14:35-15:20, 28:12-19, the simulation method simulates a film thickness distribution in order to determine a target machining amount distribution. The accuracy of prediction can be improved in order to optimize the polishing condition. Therefore, Ushio teaches the improvement of the simulation results, which can be considered as the learning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the learning of the recipe generating model based on the simulation results as taught by Ushio. It would allow the results of the simulations to be used to further optimize the recipe generating models to produce better results and provide enhanced polishing in future polishing operations.
Regarding claims 55 and 68, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 53 (as to claim 55) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 66 (as to claim 68), (the steps) further comprising: performing learning on the recipe generating model based on a result of local polishing actually performed according to the polishing recipe (Ushio English translation, p. 15:36-16:5, the processing system as a whole process and control the polishing parameters, and as a result the efficiency of the processing steps can be improved. The input of the measurement and control parameters is performed automatically. Thus, Ushio teaches the polishing process improves based on the results of the actually polishing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the learning of the recipe generating model based on the actual polishing performance as taught by Ushio. It would allow the actual results of the polishing to be used for further optimizing the polishing models and provide enhanced polishing in future polishing operations.
Regarding claims 56 and 69, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 52 (as to claim 56) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 65 (as to claim 69), (the steps) further comprising:
storing a previously generated polishing recipe and data on the film thickness distribution of a substrate polished by using the polishing recipe (Hui col. 5:63-6:7, the database 108 stores measurement data related to the wafer’s post-polishing characteristics. Optimization and other adjustments are made based on the measurement data stored in the database 108. Therefore, the Hui’s system stores the previously generated polishing recipe); and
reading from an actual result data storage a predetermined number of polishing recipes approximate to the film thickness distribution of a substrate estimate (Hui, col. 17:22-65, the system can polish at least two wafers according to the CMP recipe, and measures the post-CMP characteristics in order to modify the CMP model. The system also compares the post-CMP surface profiles, therefore, by combining with Ushio, the post-CMP profile can be compared with the simulated estimate), and
wherein the simulating determines a single polishing recipe based on simulation results of a plurality of polishing recipes (Ushio English translation, p. 3:19-21, 27:4-16, an arithmetic processing section 20 considers calculation of the polishing amount for all partial regions on the surface of the wafer based on the simulation and determines the polishing amount. The various simulations related to the polishing are provided. Therefore, a single polishing recipe can be determined out of various simulations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the polishing recipe based on simulations as taught by Ushio. It would allow the simulator to simulate results based on many polishing recipes to determine which recipe is ideal and would produce the best actual polishing results.
Regarding claims 57 and 70, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 52 (as to claim 57) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 65 (as to claim 70), (the steps) further comprising: outputting the simulation result obtained by the simulator (Specification of the instant application discloses the simulation result obtained from a simulator is outputted on a display (¶ 0119). Ushio English translation, p. 29:24-30, 31:20-22, the simulation result can be obtained and the operator can create a control parameter for controlling the polishing apparatus using the simulation apparatus. The arithmetic processing section controls a display section 22 to display an input guidance so that an operator can input parameters. Therefore, the display section is considered to display the simulation result).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the outputting the simulation result as taught by Ushio so that a user may see the result and determine if there are any other control parameters that may be adjusted for increased accuracy of polishing.
Regarding claims 58 and 71, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 52 (as to claim 58) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 65 (as to claim 71), wherein the simulating uses a simulation model (Ushio English translation, p. 3:29-34, 5:8-12, the simulation utilizes the Preston’s equation and a simulation program, thus the simulation uses a simulation model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the simulation model as taught by Ushio. It would allow the simulator to perform its intended function of simulating the recipe generating model for optimizing polishing operations.
Regarding claims 59 and 72, Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 58 (as to claim 59) and the non-transitory memory as in the rejection of claim 71 (as to claim 72), wherein the simulating performs learning based on a result of local polishing actually performed according to the polishing recipe (Ushio English translation, p. 15:36-16:5, 28:12-19, the processing system as a whole process and control the polishing parameters, and as a result the efficiency of the processing steps can be improved. The accuracy of the prediction/simulation is also improved. Thus, Ushio teaches the polishing simulation improves based on the results of the actually polishing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polisher control method of Hui as modified by Takahashi, Hirabayashi, Motoshima, and Ushio to provide the learning of the simulation based on the actual polishing performance as taught by Ushio. It would allow the actual results of the polishing to be used for further optimizing the polishing models and provide enhanced polishing in future polishing operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benvegnu (US 2013/0288572) teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions for execution by a processor of a polishing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights