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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“An offset mechanism” in claim 1, line 8.
“A tilting structure” in claim 2, line 11.
“A rotational torque transmission mechanism”, in claim in claim 7, page 2, line 1.
“A control device”, in claim 8, line 8
“An offset mechanism” in claim 8, line 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 the following subject matter: “a rotational torque transmission mechanism” in line 1, page 2. The claimed subject matter 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.
Claims 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation “A rotational torque transmission mechanism”, in page 2, line 1. The scope is unclear; it is not precisely known what structure is intended. For purposes of this Office action, the term will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a control device configured to control an operation of the substrate holding device, wherein the control device is configured to:
determine an eccentricity direction and an eccentricity of a carrier based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate; and
operate an offset mechanism to offset the carrier based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity." in lines 8-14. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, which recites the limitation “an offset mechanism” in line 8, the Examiner is unsure if the offset mechanism in claim 8 is the same as the offset mechanism in claim 1. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the substrate processing apparatus, disclosed in claim 8, as having an additional (second) offset mechanism.
Claims 9-11 are rejected accordingly since under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on
claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)(2) as being anticipated by Fukushima (US 20130196573 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima teaches a substrate holding device (fig. 23; para 193), comprising:
an elastic membrane (45; fig. 23; paras. 98 106) and configured to form at least one pressure chamber for pressing a substrate (131; fig. 23; para. 156);
a carrier (43; fig. 23; paras. 105-106) coupled to the elastic membrane (fig. 23, paras. 105-106).
a retaining ring surrounding the carrier (10, 20 and 30; fig. 23; para. 104); and
an offset mechanism (240; fig. 23; para. 193) configured to offset the carrier relative to the retaining ring (fig. 23; paras. 194-195, offsets the carrier relative to a central horizontal axis of the retainer ring).
Regarding claim 2, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the substrate holding device comprises a tilting structure (210; fig. 23; para. 180 and 181) configured to tilt the retaining ring (fig. 23; paras. 180 and 181).
Regarding claim 4, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and further teaches wherein the tilting structure comprises a ball joint (interpreted as 210; fig. 23; 210; fig. 23; para. 180 and 181) coupling the retaining ring (fig. 23; para. 188, 190, and 191) and a head shaft (200; fig. 23; para. 191) .
Regarding claim 7, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the substrate holding device comprises a rotational torque transmission mechanism (as annotated in fig. 23 below; para. 191) configured to transmit a rotational torque acting on the retaining ring to the carrier (The drive flange 200 transmits rotational torque directly into the top ring base 230, which is a part of 10. As seen in annotated fig. 23, the offset mechanism is connected to 230, and the identified torque transmission mechanism is operatively connected to both the carrier 43 and the offset mechanism, thus transmitting the rotational torque to the carrier; para. 179, 182, 183, and 191).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches a substrate processing method, comprising:
pressing a substrate (W; fig. 3; pg. 13, ll. 305-319) held by a substrate holding device (1; fig. 3; pg. 13, ll. 305-319) against a polishing surface (2a; fig. 3; pg. 13, ll. 305-319 of a polishing pad to polish the substrate (fig. 3; pg. 13, ll. 305-319);
determining an eccentricity direction and an eccentricity of a carrier (carrier, 45, is operatively connected to the substrate holding device; figs.7-11; pg. 22, ll. 525-545 pg. 23, ll. 567-571 and pg. 24, ll. 573-584) coupled to an elastic membrane (44; fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327-347) forming at least one pressure chamber (fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327- 347) for pressing the substrate based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate (fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327- 347); and
operating an offset mechanism (61; fig. 21; pg. 23, ll. 574-584) configured to offset the carrier (carrier, 45, is operatively connected to the substrate holding device, therefore both are offset; fig. 21; pg. 23, ll. 574-584) based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity to offset the carrier (Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48, ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”, pg. 11, ll. 255-265 specifies the polishing condition adjustment system includes modifying the position of the head eccentric mechanism, so thus the eccentric mechanism is modified to be eccentrically changed with a given direction to provide polishing means for area T1 and T2, pg. 25, figs.23- 25. Areas T1 and T2 are determined by the operation control unit, pg. 21, ll. 519-522, and feeds the information to the polishing condition adjustment system, pg. 11, ll. 255-265, pg. 32 and 33, ll.795-807).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida discloses the method of claim 12, as described above, and further discloses after starting polishing of the substrate, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a radial direction of the substrate is within a predetermined second target film thickness distribution range (predetermined second target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22 and 23, ll. 545-550; figs. 9 and 10. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, ll. 249-265 and pg. 16, ll.379-398; figs. 9 and 10);
when the current film thickness distribution is within the second target film thickness distribution range, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (the predetermined first target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22and 23, ll. 545-550; figs. 9 and 10. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring simultaneously measuring the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction and radial direction through the film thickness profile as noted in Step 9 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing the eccentric mechanism which pertains to changing polishing conditions in the circumferential direction, pg. 11, 249-265, and pg. 21, ll.508-522 and pg. 609-623; figs. 9 and 10); and
when the current film thickness distribution is not within the second target film thickness distribution range, operate a pressure regulation device to change a pressure of a fluid supplied to a pressure chamber (throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, 249-265 and pg. 16 379-398; fig. 25).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima(US 20130196573 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the tilting structure is arranged in an accommodation recess of the carrier and comprises a spherical bearing mounted on a shaft portion of the retaining ring.
However, an alternative embodiment of Fukushima teaches wherein the tilting structure (111; fig. 9; para. 121) is arranged in an accommodation recess of the carrier (43a; fig. 9; para. 122) and comprises a spherical bearing (further defined as 111; fig. 9; para. 121) mounted on a shaft portion of the retaining ring (101, connected to retaining 30 via intermediate parts; figs. 10A-C; para. 125).
Fukushima is concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the substrate holding device, as taught by one embodiment of Fukushima, to have the tilting structure arranged in an accommodation recess of the carrier and comprise a spherical bearing mounted on a shaft portion of the retaining ring, as taught by an alternate embodiment of Fukushima, as a means to confine in the top ring body, the tiltable wear debris produced from the sliding contact surfaces of the spherical bearing, and does not fall onto the polishing surface (para. 134).
Regarding claim 5, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the offset mechanism comprises a pressing actuator (241; fig. 23; para. 193) supported by the carrier (operatively supported by the carrier; fig. 23; para.193) , and wherein the pressing actuator applies a pressing force to the carrier ( applies a vertical force; fig. 23; para. 193 and 194).
Though, Fukushima does not explicitly disclose wherein the offset mechanism comprises a plurality of pressing actuators supported by the carrier, and wherein each of the pressing actuators applies a pressing force to the carrier. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of pressing actuators supported by the carrier, and wherein each of the pressing actuators applies a pressing force to the carrier, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), in addition to providing a more stable wafer polishing (para. 194).
Regarding claim 6, Fukushima teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the offset mechanism comprises a pressing actuator (241; fig. 23; para. 193) supported by the retaining ring (operatively supported by the retainer ring; fig. 23; para.193) and configured to apply a pressing force to the carrier (applies a vertical force; fig. 23; para. 193 and 194).
Though, Fukushima, does not explicitly disclose wherein the offset mechanism comprises a plurality of pressing actuators supported by the retaining ring and configured to apply a pressing force to the carrier. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of pressing actuators supported by the retaining ring, and wherein each of the pressing actuators applies a pressing force to the carrier, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B) St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), in addition to providing a more stable wafer polishing (para. 194).
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima(US 20130196573 A1) in view of Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1)..
Regarding claim 8, Fukushima discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a substrate holding device according to claim 1;
a polishing table (3; fig. 1; para. 100) configured to support a polishing pad (2; fig.1; para. 100) having a polishing surface (2a; fig. 1; para. 100) against which a substrate (W; fig. 1; para. 102) held by the substrate holding device is pressed (fig.1; paras. 102 and 103).
However, Fukushima does not explicitly disclose a substrate processing apparatus with a control device configured to control an operation of the substrate holding device, wherein the control device is configured to:
determine an eccentricity direction and an eccentricity of a carrier based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate; and
operate an offset mechanism to offset the carrier based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity.
While Fukushima does not explicitly disclose a control device, it does disclose electrically actuated components such as the offset mechanism, which contains a servo motor 241(fig. 23; para. 193). Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1) discloses that it is known in the art to provide a control device (7; fig. 1; pg. 11, ll. 255-270) for a substrate processing apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the substrate processing apparatus of Fukushima with a generic control device, as taught by Yoshida, in order to automate the actuation of the polishing mechanisms, thereby increasing manufacturing efficiency.
Regarding the function of the control device and an offset mechanism, Yoshida teaches a control device (7; fig. 1; pg. 11, ll. 255-270) configured to control the operation of the substrate holding device (fig. 15; pg. 21), wherein the control device is configured to:
determine an eccentricity direction (pg. 22, ll. 525-545 pg. 23, ll. 567-571 and pg. 24, ll. 573-584; figs. 10-14, Yoshida) and an eccentricity of a carrier (pg. 24 and 25) based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate (utilizing the data processing unit, 6; figs. 8 and 12; pg. 11 and 22, Yoshida); and
operate an offset mechanism (61;figs. 21 and 22; pg. 24, ll. 574-586) to offset the carrier based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity (Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48, ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”, pg. 11 ll. 255-265 specifies the polishing condition adjustment system includes modifying the position of the head eccentric mechanism, so thus the eccentric mechanism is modified to be eccentrically changed with a given direction to provide polishing means for area T1 and T2, pg. 25, figs.23- 25. Areas T1 and T2 are determined by the operation control unit, pg. 21, ll. 519-522, and feeds the information to the polishing condition adjustment system, pg. 11 ll. 255-265, pg. 32 and 33, ll.795-807; figs. 10-14, Yoshida).
Both Fukushima and Yoshida are both concerned with the art of a polishing substrate apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to first modify the substrate processing apparatus, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to further include a data processing unit ,a polishing condition adjustment system and eccentric polishing mechanism with relevant components, as taught by Yoshida; Secondly, configure the control device, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to determine an eccentricity direction and an eccentricity of a carrier, with its related method (pgs. 47 and 48, ll. 1148-1185), based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate; and operate an offset mechanism to offset the carrier based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity, as taught by Yoshida, as a means to effectively even the thickness of a wafer in the circumferential direction (Fukushima, pg. 16, ll. 390-398).
Regarding claim 11, Fukushima, in view of Yoshida, teach the limitations of claim 11, and further disclose wherein the control device is configured to:
after starting polishing of the substrate, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a radial direction of the substrate is within a predetermined second target film thickness distribution range (predetermined second target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22 and 23, ll. 545-550. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, 249-265 and pg. 16 379-398; figs. 10-14, Yoshida);
when the current film thickness distribution is within the second target film thickness distribution range, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (the predetermined first target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22 and 23, ll. 545-550. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring simultaneously measuring the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction through the film thickness profile as noted in Step 9 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing the eccentric mechanism which pertains to changing polishing conditions in the circumferential direction, pg. 11, 249-265, and pg. 21, ll.508-522 and pg. 609-623; figs. 10-14, Yoshida); and
when the current film thickness distribution is not within the second target film thickness distribution range, operate a pressure regulation device to change a pressure of a fluid supplied to a pressure chamber (throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, 249-265 and pg. 16 379-398; figs. 10-14, Yoshida).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 20130196573 A1) in view of Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1) and further in view of Trojan (WO 2021025927 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Fukushima, in view of Yoshida teach the limitations of claim 8, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the control device is configured to:
determine whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate; and
when the relative angle has changed, correct the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier.
However, Trojan (WO 2021025927 A1) concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus teaches determine wherein the control device is configured to: whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate (fig. 8; pgs. 2 and 3, ll. 47-57).
With slippage detected, meaning the relative angle is not the same, Fukushima in view of Yoshida teaches correcting the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle (figs. 4-7; redefining the relative angle, pgs. 17 and 18, Yoshida), of the wafer to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier (Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48 ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”; figs. 10-14).
Both Fukushima in view of Yoshida and Trojan are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus and the control device, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to further include a slip sensor and configure the controller determine whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate, as taught by Trojan as a means to prevent damage to the substrate and machine and improve CMP yields (pg. 8; 176-185).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima (US 20130196573 A1) in view of Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20100072907 A).
Regarding claim 10, Fukushima, in view of Yoshida teach the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teach wherein the substrate processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the control device is configured to:
after starting polishing of the substrate, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (fig. 47; Steps 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 48); and
when the current film thickness distribution is not within the first target film thickness distribution range, check whether the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier correspond to the film thickness distribution of the substrate (fig. 47; Steps 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 48, “the first film thickness distribution is updated based on the newly acquired film thickness profile”).
However, Fukushima in view of Yoshida does not explicitly state when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, operate the offset mechanism to return the carrier to an initial position; though, it states in that when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range the program is terminated (fig. 47; Step 9, pg. 48, Yoshida).
However, Young (KR 20100072907 A), concerned with the art of a chemical mechanical polishing device, teaches wherein when the operation is finished the platen is restored to its original horizontal state (fig. 1; pg. 4). Both Fukushima in view of Yoshida and Young are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to operate the offset mechanism to return the carrier to an initial position, as taught by Young, as a means to normally perform the polishing operation of the wafer again (pg. 4, Young).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1) in view of Trojan (WO 2021025927 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate processing method further comprises:
determining whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate; and
when the relative angle has changed, correcting the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier.
However, Trojan (WO 2021025927 A1) concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus teaches determine wherein the control device is configured to: whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate (fig. 8, pgs. 2 and 3, ll. 47-57).
With slippage detected, , meaning the relative angle is not the same, Fukushima in view of Yoshida teaches correct the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle (defining the relative angle; figs, 4-7; pgs. 17 and 18, Yoshida), of the wafer to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier ((Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48 ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”; figs. 10-14).
Both Yoshida and Trojan are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate processing apparatus and the control device, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to further include a slip sensor and configure the controller determine whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate, as taught by Trojan as a means to prevent damage to the substrate and machine and improve CMP yields (pg. 8; 176-185).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (WO 2017056636 A1) in view of Young (KR 20100072907 A).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further teach wherein the substrate processing method wherein:
after starting polishing of the substrate, determine whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (fig. 47; Steps 1, 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 47 and 48, predetermined via the target film thickness distribution); and
when the current film thickness distribution is not within the first target film thickness distribution range, check whether the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier correspond to the film thickness distribution of the substrate (fig. 47; Steps 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 48, “the first film thickness distribution is updated based on the newly acquired film thickness profile”).
However, Yoshida does not explicitly disclose when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, operate the offset mechanism to return the carrier to an initial position; though it states that when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range the program is terminated(fig. 47; Step 9, pg. 48, Yoshida).
However, Young (KR 20100072907 A), concerned with the art of a chemical mechanical polishing device, teaches wherein when the operation is finished the platen is restored to its original horizontal state (fig. 1; pg. 4). Yoshida and Young are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, as taught by Fukushima in view of Yoshida, to operate the offset mechanism to return the carrier to an initial position, as taught by Young, as a means to normally perform the polishing operation of the wafer again (pg. 4, Young).
Claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Fulton (US 20150298288 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches the limitation of a computer (7; fig. 1; pg. 11, ll. 255-270) performing the steps of:
causing a substrate holding device to perform an operation of pressing a substrate against a polishing surface of a polishing pad to polish the substrate (fig. 3; pg. 13, ll. 305-319);
determining an eccentricity direction and an eccentricity of a carrier (carrier, 45, is operatively connected to the substrate holding device; figs.7-11; pg. 22, ll. 525-545 pg. 23, ll. 567-571 and pg. 24, ll. 573-584) coupled to an elastic membrane (44; fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327- 347) configured to form at least one pressure chamber (fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327- 347) for pressing the substrate based on a film thickness distribution of the substrate measured during polishing of the substrate (fig. 3; pg. 14, ll. 327- 347); and
causing an offset mechanism (61; fig. 21; pg. 23, ll. 574-584) to perform an operation of offsetting the carrier (carrier, 45, is operatively connected to the substrate holding device, therefore both are offset; fig. 21; pg. 23, ll. 574-584) based on the determined eccentricity direction and eccentricity (Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48 ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”, pg. 11 ll. 255-265 specifies the polishing condition adjustment system includes modifying the position of the head eccentric mechanism, so thus the eccentric mechanism is modified to be eccentrically changed with a given direction to provide polishing means for area T1 and T2, pg. 25, figs.23- 25. Areas T1 and T2 are determined by the operation control unit, pg. 21, ll519-522, and feeds the information to the polishing condition adjustment system, pg. 11 ll. 255-265, pg. 32 and 33, ll.795-807; figs 10-14 and 47).
However, Yoshida does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to perform steps. However, Fulton (US 20150298288 A1), concerned with the art of a substrate polishing apparatus, teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (106; fig. 1; paras. 12 and 15) storing a program (fig. 1; paras. 12 and 15) for causing a computer to perform steps (fig. 1; paras. 12 and 15).
Both Yoshida and Fulton are concerned with the art of a substrate polishing apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the computer, as taught by Yoshida, to be given stored steps, as taught by Fulton, as a means to execute programmed instructions and have the apparatus function as intended (paras. 12 and 15, Fulton).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida in view of Fulton, teach the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teach the steps of:
after starting polishing of the substrate, determining whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a radial direction of the substrate is within a predetermined second target film thickness distribution range (predetermined second target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Yoshida Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22and 23, ll. 545-550. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, 249-265 and pg. 16 379-398; fig. 47, Yoshida);
when the current film thickness distribution is within the second target film thickness distribution range, determining whether or not the current film thickness distribution in the circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (the predetermined first target film thickness distribution range comes from the target film thickness as noted in Yoshida, Step 1, pg. 47, ll. 1148-1154 and pg. 22and 23, ll. 545-550. Throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring simultaneously measuring the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction through the film thickness profile as noted in Step 9 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing the eccentric mechanism which pertains to changing polishing conditions in the circumferential direction, pg. 11, 249-265, and pg. 21, ll.508-522 and pg. 609-623, Yoshida; fig. 47, Yoshida); and
when the current film thickness distribution is not within the second target film thickness distribution range, causing a pressure regulation device to perform an operation of changing a pressure of a fluid supplied to the pressure chamber (throughout the multiple iterations the control device is capable of measuring values of the film thickness distribution in the radial direction, as noted in Yoshida, Step 8 “the polishing conditions are optimized and updated”, the specification refers to the polishing condition system containing a pressure regulator, which regulates the pressure of the pressure chambers for film thickness distribution in the radial direction, pg. 11, 249-265 and pg. 16 379-398; fig. 47, Yoshida).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Fulton (US 20150298288 A1) and further in view of Trojan.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida in view of Fulton teach the limitations of claim 16, as described above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the storage medium causes the computer to perform the steps of:
determining whether or not a relative angle of the substrate with respect to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate; and
when the relative angle has changed, correcting the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier.
However, Trojan (WO 2021025927 A1) concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus teaches the steps of determining whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate (fig. 8; pgs. 2 and 3, ll. 47-57).
With slippage detected, meaning the relative angle is not the same, Yoshida in view of Fulton teach the steps of correcting the relative angle based on the amount of change in the relative angle (figs. 10-14, Yoshida; redefining the relative angle, pgs. 17 and 18, Yoshida), of the wafer to determine the eccentricity direction and the eccentricity of the carrier (Yoshida, Steps 6 through 8, pg. 47 and 48 ll. 1165-1179, “polishing conditions are determined”; fig. 47, Yoshida).
Both Yoshida in view of Fulton and Trojan are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as taught by Yoshida in view of Fulton, to store a program which causes the computer to perform the steps of determining whether or not a relative angle of the substrate to the substrate holding device has changed when measuring the film thickness distribution of the substrate, as taught by Trojan as a means to prevent damage to the substrate and machine and improve CMP yields (pg. 8; 176-185).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Fulton (US 20150298288 A1) and further in view of Young (KR 20100072907 A).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida in view of Fulton teach the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teach the steps of:
after starting polishing of the substrate, determining whether or not the current film thickness distribution in a circumferential direction of the substrate is within a predetermined first target film thickness distribution range (Steps 1, 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 47 and 48, predetermined via the target film thickness distribution; fig. 47, Yoshida);
when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, causing the offset mechanism to perform an operation of returning the carrier to an initial position (Steps 8 and 9, Yoshida pg. 48, “the first film thickness distribution is updated based on the newly acquired film thickness profile”; fig. 47, Yoshida);
However, Yoshida in view of Fulton does not explicitly disclose the steps of when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, causing the offset mechanism to perform an operation of returning the carrier to an initial position; though it states the step that when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range the program is terminated(Step 9, pg. 48, Yoshida; fig. 47, Yoshida).
However, Young (KR 20100072907 A), concerned with the art of a chemical mechanical polishing device, teaches a step wherein when the operation is finished the platen is restored to its original horizontal state (fig. 1; pg. 4, Young). Both Yoshida in view of Fulton and Young are concerned with the art of a substrate processing apparatus. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as taught by Yoshida in view of Fulton, to store a program which causes the computer to perform the steps of when the current film thickness distribution is within the first target film thickness distribution range, causing the offset mechanism to perform an operation of returning the carrier to an initial position, as taught by Young, as a means to normally perform the polishing operation of the wafer again (pg. 4, Young).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T. FARRELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0401. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 5PM.
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.
/MICHAEL THADDUES FARRELL JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights