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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore “the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate loading surface” recited in claim 11 the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1: “the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate receiving surface”
Claim 11: “the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate loading surface”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 currently depends on claim 1, but this would make claim 17 a verbatim copy claim of claim 9. To examiner’s best understanding, this appears to be a typographical error and examiner will therefore be interpreting claim 17 to depend on claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 11 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.
Claim 3 recites “the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate receiving surface” but Applicant’s specification fails to support this limitation. Examiner notes that all of Applicant’s drawings show the substrate receiving surface (704) extending laterally beyond the membrane support (716).
Claim 11 recites “the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate loading surface” but Applicant’s specification fails to support this limitation. Examiner notes that all of Applicant’s drawings show the substrate loading surface (704) extending laterally beyond the membrane support (716).
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 10-16 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 10 recites “the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate loading surface, and wherein the second flexible membrane extends below the first flexible membrane and defines a third chamber between the inner surface of the second flexible membrane and an outer surface of the first flexible membrane, and wherein the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate receiving surface”. It is unclear to examiner whether “a substrate loading surface” and “a substrate receiving surface” are the same surface or different surfaces. For the sake of compact prosecution and for use in this office action, examiner is interpreting “the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate loading surface, and wherein the second flexible membrane extends below the first flexible membrane and defines a third chamber between the inner surface of the second flexible membrane and an outer surface of the first flexible membrane, and wherein the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate receiving surface” to be --the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate loading surface, and wherein the second flexible membrane extends below the first flexible membrane and defines a third chamber between the inner surface of the second flexible membrane and an outer surface of the first flexible membrane--.
Claims 11-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao.
Regarding claim 1, Zuniga discloses a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4 elements 102 and 104, excluding element 130, 0046) for attachment to a drive shaft (0027);
a membrane assembly (Fig. 4 element 112 and 130, 0029) secured to the housing (Fig. 4), the membrane assembly positioned beneath and vertically movable relative to the housing (Fig. 4, 0029, where the “flexible membrane 140” is capable of moving vertically relative to the housing when the pressurizable chambers (172-190) are pressurized or de-pressurized), wherein the membrane assembly includes a membrane support (Fig. 4 element 130) and a flexible membrane (Fig. 4 element 140) secured to and suspended from the membrane support (Fig. 4), wherein a volume between the housing and the membrane assembly above the membrane support provides a pressurizable first chamber (Fig. 4 element 108, 0028) with the membrane support movable as a unitary body relative to the housing (Fig. 4, 0046, where the membrane support being able to be removed as a single piece means the membrane support is a unitary body and when the membrane support is removed, the membrane support is moving relative to the housing), and wherein the flexible membrane defines a pressurizable second chamber (Fig. 4 any one of elements 172-190) below the membrane support (Fig. 4) and has a bottom surface (Fig. 4 element 144) that provides a substrate receiving surface (Fig. 4 element 144, where the substrate receiving surface is a subset of the bottom surface which encompasses the entirety of the bottom surface).
Zuniga fails to disclose a sensor in the housing configured to measure a distance from the sensor to the membrane support of the membrane assembly.
Liao is also concerned with a carrier head of a CMP system and teaches a sensor (Fig. 1 element 102) in the housing configured to measure a distance from the sensor to the membrane support (Fig. 1 examiner considers the top surface of the membrane (204) to be the membrane support that supports the membrane elements below the top surface; 0026). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Zuniga with the sensor of Liao to measure the distance between the sensor and the membrane support as taught by Liao because Liao teaches that the distance measurement can be used to set a reference point of proper distance and that when the measured distance is off from the reference point, a controller can change the pressure in the pressurizable chambers (e.g. air bags) to get the distance back to the reference point, which improves surface flatness of the wafer after polishing (0035-0036).
Regarding claim 2, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the flexible membrane defines a plurality of pressurizable second chambers (Zuniga, Fig. 4 elements 172-190) below the membrane support (Zuniga, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate receiving surface (Zuniga, see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the housing comprises an upper carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 102) that is vertically fixed relative to the drive shaft (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0027) and a lower carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 104, excluding element 130) that is vertically movable relative to the upper carrier body (Zuniga, 0028), and wherein the membrane support is mechanically coupled to the lower carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0047).
Regarding claim 8, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the housing comprises a single assembly (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 102) that is vertically fixed relative to the drive shaft (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0027). Examiner notes that if Applicant is intending to claim that the housing consists of a monolithic component, this has not been claimed and examiner finds that this would not be supported by Applicant’s drawings.
Regarding claim 9, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a target on the membrane support below the sensor (Liao, see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
522
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao, and in further view of Govzman et al. (US6517415), hereinafter Govzman.
Regarding claim 4, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose a flexure that connects the membrane support to the housing, wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing.
Govzman is also concerned with a carrier head and teaches a flexure (Fig. 4 element 116) connecting the membrane support to the housing (Fig. 4; the flexure (116) connects the membrane support (280 and 250) to the housing (104); 7:25-28), wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing ( Fig. 4, where the flexure is connected to the membrane assembly (112) which includes elements 114 and 118 and the force from the flexure would keep the membrane assembly (112) centered within the housing). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Zuniga with the flexure connecting the membrane support to the housing, wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing as taught by Govzman to allow for additional fine-tuning of the pressure thus improving the flatness of the substrate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao, and in further view of Butterfield et al. (US7374644), hereinafter Butterfield.
Regarding claim 7, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 5, as described above, but fails to disclose the sensor is mounted on the upper carrier body, and a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the sensor on the upper carrier body since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for this arrangement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange the sensor on the upper carrier body because mounting the sensor on the upper carrier body allows for accurate measurement of the distance changes. As the distance changes from wear of the retaining ring, the membrane assembly will move upward toward the upper body, but the upper body will remain stationary. This allows for accurate measurement of distance changes.
Zuniga, as modified, fails to disclose a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. Butterfield is also concerned with a CMP system and teaches a window (Fig. 7F element 702) to allow a sensor to see a target. Incorporating the window from Butterfield in the lower carrier body of Zuniga, as modified, yields a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. It 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 to modify the lower carrier body of Zuniga, as modified, to incorporate the window taught by Butterfield because Butterfield teaches that the window allows a sensor to sense a metric indicative of polishing performance (24:56-60).
Claims 10-11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao, and in further view of Zuniga et al. (US6722965), hereinafter Zuniga’.
Regarding claim 10, Zuniga discloses a carrier head for chemical mechanical polishing, comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4 elements 102 and 104, excluding element 130, 0046) for attachment to a drive shaft (0027);
a membrane assembly (Fig. 4 element 112 and 130, 0029) secured to the housing (Fig. 4), the membrane assembly positioned beneath and vertically movable relative to the housing (Fig. 4, 0029, where the “flexible membrane 140” is capable of moving vertically relative to the housing when the pressurizable chambers (172-190) are pressurized or de-pressurized), wherein the membrane assembly includes a membrane support (Fig. 4 element 130) and a flexible membrane (Fig. 4 element 140) secured to and suspended from the membrane support (Fig. 4), wherein a volume between the housing and the membrane assembly above the membrane support provides a pressurizable first chamber (Fig. 4 element 108, 0028) with the membrane support movable as a unitary body relative to the housing (Fig. 4, 0046, where the membrane support being able to be removed as a single piece means the membrane support is a unitary body and when the membrane support is removed, the membrane support is moving relative to the housing), and wherein the flexible membrane extends below the membrane support and defines a plurality of pressurizable second chambers (Fig. 4 elements 172-190) between an inner surface of the flexible membrane and a lower surface of the membrane support (see annotated Fig. 4’ below) and has a bottom surface (Fig. 4 element 144) that provides a substrate loading surface (Fig. 4 element 144, where the substrate loading surface is a subset of the bottom surface which encompasses the entirety of the bottom surface).
Zuniga fails to disclose that the flexible membrane comprises a first flexible membrane secured to and suspended from the membrane support and a second flexible membrane secured to and suspended from the membrane support, wherein first flexible membrane extends below the membrane support and defines a plurality of pressurizable second chambers between an inner surface of the first flexible membrane and a lower surface of the membrane support, wherein the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate loading surface, and wherein the second flexible membrane extends below the first flexible membrane and defines a third chamber between the inner surface of the second flexible membrane and an outer surface of the first flexible membrane; and a sensor in the housing configured to measure a distance from the sensor to the membrane support of the membrane assembly.
Zuniga’ is also concerned with a carrier head of a CMP system and teaches a first flexible membrane (Fig. 2 element 122) secured to and suspended from the membrane support (Fig. 2, where the bottom surface of element 102 corresponds to a membrane support) and a second flexible membrane (Fig. 2 element 124) secured to and suspended from the membrane support (Fig. 2), wherein first flexible membrane extends below the membrane support (Fig. 2) and defines a plurality of pressurizable second chambers (Fig. 2, elements 130 and 132) between an inner surface of the first flexible membrane and a lower surface of the membrane support (see annotated Fig. 2 below), wherein the second flexible membrane has a bottom surface that provides a substrate loading surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below, 6:7-8), and wherein the second flexible membrane extends below the first flexible membrane (Fig. 2) and defines a third chamber (Fig. 2 element 136) between the inner surface of the second flexible membrane and an outer surface of the first flexible membrane (see annotated Fig. 2 below). Pursuant of MPEP2143.02, it 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 to modify the carrier head of Zuniga to make the single flexible membrane be a first and second flexible membrane, as taught by Zuniga’, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one membrane system for another that is known in the art for holding and applying pressure to a substrate and would produce the predictable results of holding and applying pressure to a substrate. Examiner also finds that paragraph 0029 of Zuniga specifically states “Other carrier head configurations can be used to form the chambers, such as a carrier head with additional membranes or bladders between the membrane 140 and the base assembly 104. A description of a such membrane configurations may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,722,965, filed Jun. 10, 2001, and in U.S. Pat. No. 6,183,354, filed May 21, 1997, which are incorporated herein by reference” which examiner finds supports examiner’s finding that the substitution would yield predictable results.
Zuniga, as modified, fails to disclose a sensor in the housing configured to measure a distance from the sensor to the membrane support of the membrane assembly.
Liao is also concerned with a carrier head of a CMP system and teaches a sensor (Fig. 1 element 102) in the housing configured to measure a distance from the sensor to the membrane support (Fig. 1 examiner considers the top surface of the membrane (204) to be the membrane support that supports the membrane elements below the top surface; 0026). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Zuniga, as modified, with the sensor of Liao to measure the distance between the sensor and the membrane support as taught by Liao because Liao teaches that the distance measurement can be used to set a reference point of proper distance and that when the measured distance is off from the reference point, a controller can change the pressure in the pressurizable chambers (e.g. air bags) to get the distance back to the reference point, which improves surface flatness of the wafer after polishing (0035-0036).
PNG
media_image3.png
427
1100
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
702
1011
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the membrane support laterally spans an entirety of the substrate receiving surface (Zuniga, see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the housing comprises an upper carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 102) that is vertically fixed relative to the drive shaft (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0027) and a lower carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 104, excluding element 130) that is vertically movable relative to the upper carrier body (Zuniga, 0028), and wherein the membrane support is mechanically coupled to the lower carrier body (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0047).
Regarding claim 16, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses the housing comprises a single assembly (Zuniga, Fig. 4 element 102) that is vertically fixed relative to the drive shaft (Zuniga, Fig. 4, 0027). Examiner notes that if Applicant is intending to claim that the housing consists of a monolithic component, this has not been claimed and examiner finds that this would not be supported by Applicant’s drawings.
Regarding claim 17, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further discloses a target on the membrane support below the sensor (Liao, see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao, in further view of Zuniga et al. (US6722965), hereinafter Zuniga’, and in further view of Govzman et al. (US6517415), hereinafter Govzman.
Regarding claim 12, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose a flexure that connects the membrane support to the housing, wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing.
Govzman is also concerned with a carrier head and teaches a flexure (Fig. 4 element 116) connecting the membrane support to the housing (Fig. 4; the flexure (116) connects the membrane support (280 and 250) to the housing (104); 7:25-28), wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing ( Fig. 4, where the flexure is connected to the membrane assembly (112) which includes elements 114 and 118 and the force from the flexure would keep the membrane assembly (112) centered within the housing). It 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 to modify the carrier head of Zuniga with the flexure connecting the membrane support to the housing, wherein the flexure is sufficiently stiff to center the membrane assembly within the housing as taught by Govzman to allow for additional fine-tuning of the pressure thus improving the flatness of the substrate.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuniga et al. (US20070082589), hereinafter Zuniga, in view of Liao et al. (US20120264354), hereinafter Liao, in further view of Zuniga et al. (US6722965), hereinafter Zuniga’, and in further view of Butterfield et al. (US7374644), hereinafter Butterfield.
Regarding claim 15, Zuniga, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to disclose the sensor is mounted on the upper carrier body, and a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. Pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the sensor on the upper carrier body since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification fails to provide any criticality for this arrangement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to arrange the sensor on the upper carrier body because mounting the sensor on the upper carrier body allows for accurate measurement of the distance changes. As the distance changes from wear of the retaining ring, the membrane assembly will move upward toward the upper body, but the upper body will remain stationary. This allows for accurate measurement of distance changes.
Zuniga, as modified, fails to disclose a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. Butterfield is also concerned with a CMP system and teaches a window (Fig. 7F element 702) to allow a sensor to see a target. Incorporating the window from Butterfield in the lower carrier body of Zuniga, as modified, yields a window extends through the lower carrier body between the target and the sensor. It 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 to modify the lower carrier body of Zuniga, as modified, to incorporate the window taught by Butterfield because Butterfield teaches that the window allows a sensor to sense a metric indicative of polishing performance (24:56-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 6 and 14, the closest arts of record, Zuniga et al. (US20070082589) and Liao et al. (US2012026435), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features: “the sensor is mounted on the lower carrier body”. If the sensor were to be attached to the lower carrier body it would be unable to determine a change in distance between the top surface of the membrane support and the sensor because the membrane support is directly attached to the lower carrier body and any vertical movement in the membrane support would cause the lower carrier body to move vertically the same distance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights