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 statement filed on 10/08/2024 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, the English-language publications for the submitted foreign patent documents do not fulfill the concise-explanation requirement. MPEP § 609.04(a)(III) states, “An English-language equivalent application may be submitted to fulfill this requirement if it is, in fact, a translation of a foreign language application being listed” (emphasis added). Applicant makes no statement that the English-language publications are actually translations of the listed foreign patent references. Patent application publications may differ from their so-called foreign counterpart applications because subject matter is commonly added, modified, or deleted, including entirely different abstracts and claims, and therefore, are not necessarily translations of the foreign counterpart applications. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). Fig. 6B does not match the specification method steps as described (¶¶ 0085-0087). Specifically, step 610 should be relabeled as step 612 (see Fig. 6A); the arrows connecting step 628 to step 634, and step 632 to step 610 (now changed to step 612) should be deleted (see ¶ 0087); a second “Permittivity meets specification?” step should be added after step 632 (see ¶ 0087); an arrow connecting this second “Permittivity” step to step 634 should be added for a “No” branch (see ¶ 0087); and an arrow connecting this second “Permittivity” step to step 610 (now changed to step 612) should be added for a “Yes” branch. Further, the arrow connecting step 628 to step 632 should be a “No” branch instead of a “Yes” branch (see Specification objection below). The specification should also be amended where necessary to reflect these changes to the step numbers. See approved changes in Parent Application No. 17/409,407, filed by Applicant on 10/03/2024. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“is lowered than” (¶¶ 0020, 0065, 0074, 0076) should be changed to --is lower than--;
“If it is determined that the permittivity of the second sample slurry meets the specification” (¶ 0086) should be changed to --If it is determined that the permittivity of the second sample slurry does not meet[[s]] the specification-- (see ¶ 0087);
“the slurry being an insulting layer” (¶ 0095) should be changed to --the slurry being an insulating layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 11, 15-17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the slurry as meeting a specification” (claim 5, line 10) should be changed to --the slurry meeting a specification--;
“an insulting layer” (claim 11, line 6) should be changed to --an insulating layer--;
“immobilize a portion the slurry” (claim 15, line 2) should be changed to --immobilize a portion of the slurry--;
“the slurry delivering system” (claim 16, line 1) should be changed to --the slurry delivery system--;
“one of the electrode pair” (claim 17, line 2) should be changed to --one electrode of the electrode pair--;
“the first quality value” (claim 19, line 12) should be changed to --the first quality values--;
“in response to the first quality metric does not meet a slurry specification” (claim 20, line 8) should be changed to --in response to the first quality metric not meeting a slurry specification--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a removal rate of the slurry based on the first capacitance value”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. There are at least two interpretations for this limitation. The first interpretation is that in association with the deriving of the quality metric, a removal rate of the slurry is determined (e.g., based on the value/result of the quality metric and the first capacitance value) (e.g., Spec. ¶ 0078). The second interpretation is that the determination of the quality metric itself (based on the first capacitance value) includes a determination of a removal rate of the slurry. If the first interpretation is the intended interpretation, Examiner suggests the limitation be amended as follows: --wherein a removal rate of the slurry is determined based on the quality metric--. For examination purposes (other than for § 112(a) rejection below), this will be the interpretation used. If the second interpretation is the intended interpretation, then this interpretation lacks written description support (see § 112(a) rejection below).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the deriving of the quality metric of the slurry is further according to the second capacitance value”. Claim 5 also recites the limitation “and performing the CMP operation using the semiconductor tool in response to the quality metric of the slurry for the first pipe and the second pipe as meeting a specification”. Based on these two limitations being in the same claim, it is unclear if there is one quality metric or two quality metrics. That is, it is unclear if the “quality metric” of claim 5 takes into account the second capacitance value (in addition to the first capacitance value in claim 1), or if there is a second quality metric for the second pipe that is separate from the first quality metric for the first pipe. For examination purposes, this interpretation is interpreted as best understood.
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 4 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 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 4 recites the limitation “wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a removal rate of the slurry based on the first capacitance value.” This limitation is new matter because the specification does not describe this mode of operation (see § 112(b) rejection above, second interpretation). That is, the specification nowhere describes that the determination of the quality metric itself includes a determination of a removal rate of the slurry. Rather, the specification describes the determination of a removal rate of the slurry as a result that is derived from the quality metric; the removal rate (i.e., the abrasive performance of the slurry on a substrate) is not itself a quality metric or a component of a quality metric (e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 0078, 0080, 0085; see ¶¶ 0034-0036, defining “quality metric”).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi and Kondo
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”) and US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Kawashima discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a slurry... (Fig. 1, slurry is received from tank 16);
delivering the slurry...to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe (Fig. 1, slurry is delivered from tank 18 to semiconductor tool 12 via pipe 36; 7:9-15);
coupling a first...sensor to the first pipe; measuring a first...value of the first...sensor while providing the slurry to the tank through the first pipe (Figs. 1, 4; 5:2-15, 6:1-14, 7:9-32, sensor 58 is coupled to first pipe 36 and measures the propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves in the slurry, which relates to the solid material concentration of the slurry, while slurry is provided to tank 18 via first pipe 36 (and via pipe 37));
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to measurements of the first...value (Fig. 5; 6:1-27, the quality metric of concentration of the polishing liquid (also called solid material concentration) is derived based on the propagation velocity; 7:24-32, “At this time, the polishing liquid flowing through the supply pipe 36 is monitored by...the solid material concentration measuring device 58 to determine...the solid material concentration, and the measurements are inputted into the controller 60 for continuing monitoring.”; Examiner notes that the phrase “quality metric” is very broad, and can include a pH value, a liquid particle size, a chemical concentration, a density, a conductivity, an ion concentration, and a permittivity or dielectric constant (Spec. ¶¶ 0034-0036));
and determining whether a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) operation using the semiconductor tool is performed according to the quality metric of the slurry for the first pipe (7:33-8:8, “After it is confirmed that the measurements do not exceed the predetermined limits by the controller 60, an instruction to commence a polishing operation is sent from the controller 60 to the polishing unit 12.”).
Kawashima does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a slurry from a portable container;
delivering the slurry from the portable container to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe;
coupling a first capacitance sensor to the first pipe;
measuring a first capacitance value of the first capacitance sensor while providing the slurry to the tank through the first pipe;
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to measurements of the first capacitance value.
However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious this claim.
Yamagishi discloses:
coupling a first capacitance sensor to the first pipe (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10, capacitance sensor 19 has electrode pair 69 (measuring electrode) and 71 (ground electrode), and is coupled to the outer wall of pipe 1; ¶ 0060, “the electrode 55 is wound around a cylinder 53 that is arranged around the pipe 1 forming the passage 1a”);
measuring a first capacitance value of the first capacitance sensor while providing the slurry to the tank through the first pipe (Figs. 1-2, 9, 10; ¶ 0044, “to detect capacitance changes on the passage 1a”; ¶ 0065; ¶ 0095, capacitance sensor 19 measures capacitance values for non-conductive slurry, “The insulative fluid flowing through a pipe 1...is abrasive (slurry) used to mirror-finish, for example, semiconductor silicon wafers.”);
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to measurements of the first capacitance value (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0099-0100, the measured capacitance value is used to determine a slurry concentration, “A control unit 35 stores a reference capacitance change 37A corresponding to a proper concentration of slurry flowing through the passage 1a toward an outlet 7.”).
Kondo discloses:
receiving a slurry from a portable container; delivering the slurry from the portable container to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe (Fig. 1, slurry is received from portable container 1 and delivered to semiconductor tool 9 via tanks 2, 3 and pipes 51, 53, 56; ¶ 0033, “The fluid tank (1) serves for storing the raw slurry to be supplied to the preparation tank (2), and is constituted from a fixed-type or portable-type container”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Yamagishi with Kawashima by changing the sensor 58 of Kawashima to a capacitive sensor as taught by Yamagishi. This would have been obvious because the Kawashima ultrasonic sensor 58 is similar to the Yamagishi capacitive sensor 19 in that they both are used to determine slurry concentration within the associated pipe, and thus it would be a simple substitution of swapping sensors, structure associated with attaching the sensor to the pipe, and associated software/algorithm relating to determining a quality metric (e.g., slurry concentration) from sensor readings. Further, this modification would have been obvious because Yamagishi teaches that its use of capacitive sensors is superior to ultrasonic sensors (Yamagishi ¶ 0010, “There are other measuring apparatuses employing ultrasonic waves, visible rays, UV monitors, and the like for measuring insulative fluids. These apparatuses suffer from low accuracy, and therefore, are insufficient to increase the yields of wafer processing.”).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kondo with the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination to receive slurry from a portable container and to deliver slurry from the portable container to the semiconductor tool. This would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the slurry must be brought in from an outside source, e.g., from a different location and/or from a chemical supplier. One common way to transport slurry to the slurry preparation apparatus of Kawashima is through the use of portable containers, where the container is connected to the apparatus to supply slurry. Kawashima provides for this operation by including a “chemical supply source 104” (Kawashima Fig. 1; 6:48-60), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize could be a connection point for a portable container of slurry. Examiner also notes that although Kawashima does not clearly identify tanks 14, these may actually be portable slurry containers due to their number (four duplicate tanks 14 feed into tank 16) and schematic representation (including the base underneath) in Kawashima Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kawashima further discloses:
delivering the slurry from the tank to the semiconductor tool through a second pipe (Fig. 1, slurry is delivered from tank 18 to semiconductor tool 12 via second pipe 46; 7:9-15);
measuring a...value...while providing the slurry from the tank to the semiconductor tool through the second pipe (Figs. 1, 4; 5:2-15, 6:1-14, 7:9-32, sensor 58 is coupled to first pipe 36 and measures the propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves in the slurry, which relates to the solid material concentration of the slurry, while slurry is provided to semiconductor tool 12 via second pipe 46),
and performing the CMP operation using the semiconductor tool in response to the quality metric of the slurry for the first pipe...meeting a specification (7:33-8:8, “After it is confirmed that the measurements do not exceed the predetermined limits by the controller 60, an instruction to commence a polishing operation is sent from the controller 60 to the polishing unit 12.”).
Yamagishi further discloses:
coupling a second capacitance sensor to the second pipe (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10, capacitive sensor 21 is coupled to the outer wall of (a different section) pipe 1; ¶ 0060, “the electrode 55 is wound around a cylinder 53 that is arranged around the pipe 1 forming the passage 1a”);
measuring a second capacitance value of the second capacitance sensor while providing the slurry from the tank to the semiconductor tool through the second pipe (Figs. 1-2, 9, 10; ¶ 0044, “to detect capacitance changes on the passage 1a”; ¶¶ 0054, 0065; ¶ 0095, device measures capacitance values for non-conductive slurry, “The insulative fluid flowing through a pipe 1...is abrasive (slurry) used to mirror-finish, for example, semiconductor silicon wafers.”),
wherein the deriving of the quality metric of the slurry is further according to the second capacitance value (Fig. 10; ¶ 0099-0100, the measured capacitance value is used to determine a slurry concentration, “A control unit 35 stores a reference capacitance change 37A corresponding to a proper concentration of slurry flowing through the passage 1a toward an outlet 7.”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to duplicate the modified (capacitive) sensor 58 of Kawashima and add it to second pipe 46, in a similar fashion as Yamagishi’s multiple capacitive sensor system (Yamagishi Figs. 1, 10), and only performing the CMP operation (e.g., performing polishing) if the quality metric for the slurry in both the first and second pipes meets specification (see Yamagishi ¶¶ 0104-0109, slurry is allowed to flow through the pipe only if the slurry meets specifications under measurements by three sensors 19, 21, 23). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this in order to have a second sensor reading closer to the polishing unit 12 to ensure the quality of the slurry prior to actual use. Alternatively, the second pipe and second sensor could be located in another portion of the slurry distribution/processing system to ensure slurry quality at that location. Examiner notes that Applicant states no new and unexpected result due to having multiple sensors on two pipes (or two sections of a pipe), but only the ordinary result of being able to make multiple sensor measurements at different pipe locations in order to better determine the quality of the slurry at the different pipe locations, and control valves accordingly (Spec. ¶ 0087). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kawashima further discloses coupling a particle size distribution analyzer to the first pipe to measure a particle size in the slurry, wherein the deriving of the quality metric of the slurry is further according to measurements of the particle size distribution analyzer (Fig. 1; 4:59-5:54, 7:24-8:8, particle size distribution sensor 56 of pipe 62b measures the particle size distribution of the slurry (see discussion below)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 10 is the same as for claim 1with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify Kawashima such that the particle size distribution sensor 56 is placed in series with sensor 58 on the first pipe 36. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would involve less piping compared to a parallel setup (see Kawashima Fig. 1, no need for the parallel piping 62b and piping to discharge pipe 38), would not waste any slurry through the parallel sampling setup (Kawashima Fig. 1, particle size distribution sensor 56 is coupled to discharge pipe 38 after sampling), and would be able to measure all of the slurry going to the semiconductor tool 12 for more consistent slurry quality and polishing results (Kawashima Fig. 1, e.g., the portion of slurry (and therefore its quality) going to the semiconductor tool 12 may not be the same at all times as the portion of slurry going to the particle size distribution sensor 56 in the parallel sampling setup).
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi
Claims 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”)
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 11, Kawashima discloses a method, comprising:
delivering a slurry to a semiconductor tool through a piping network of a slurry delivery system (Fig. 1, slurry is delivered from tank 18 to semiconductor tool 12 via pipe 36, which is part of a larger piping network as shown; 7:9-15);
measuring one or more...values associated...with the slurry... (Figs. 1, 4; 5:2-15, 6:1-14, 7:9-32, sensor 58 is coupled to first pipe 36 and measures the propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves in the slurry, which relates to the solid material concentration of the slurry, while slurry is provided to tank 18 via first pipe 36 (and via pipe 37));
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to the one or more...values (Fig. 5; 6:1-27, the quality metric of concentration of the polishing liquid (also called solid material concentration) is derived based on the propagation velocity; 7:24-32, “At this time, the polishing liquid flowing through the supply pipe 36 is monitored by...the solid material concentration measuring device 58 to determine...the solid material concentration, and the measurements are inputted into the controller 60 for continuing monitoring.”; Examiner notes that the phrase “quality metric” is very broad, and can include a pH value, a liquid particle size, a chemical concentration, a density, a conductivity, an ion concentration, and a permittivity or dielectric constant (Spec. ¶¶ 0034-0036));
and determining whether a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) operation using the semiconductor tool is performed based on the quality metric (7:33-8:8, “After it is confirmed that the measurements do not exceed the predetermined limits by the controller 60, an instruction to commence a polishing operation is sent from the controller 60 to the polishing unit 12.”).
Kawashima does not explicitly disclose:
coupling an electrode pair to an outer wall of a pipe of the piping network;
measuring one or more capacitance values associated with the electrode pair with the slurry being an insul[a]ting layer between the electrode pair;
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to the one or more capacitance values;
However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination makes obvious this claim.
Yamagishi discloses:
coupling an electrode pair to an outer wall of a pipe of the piping network (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10, capacitance sensor 19 has electrode pair 69 (measuring electrode) and 71 (ground electrode), and is coupled to the outer wall of pipe 1; ¶ 0060, “the electrode 55 is wound around a cylinder 53 that is arranged around the pipe 1 forming the passage 1a”);
measuring one or more capacitance values associated with the electrode pair with the slurry being an insul[a]ting layer between the electrode pair (Figs. 1-2, 9, 10; ¶ 0044, “to detect capacitance changes on the passage 1a”; ¶ 0065; ¶ 0095, capacitance sensor 19 measures capacitance values for non-conductive slurry, “The insulative fluid flowing through a pipe 1...is abrasive (slurry) used to mirror-finish, for example, semiconductor silicon wafers.”);
deriving a quality metric of the slurry according to the one or more capacitance values (Fig. 10; ¶¶ 0099-0100, the measured capacitance value is used to determine a slurry concentration, “A control unit 35 stores a reference capacitance change 37A corresponding to a proper concentration of slurry flowing through the passage 1a toward an outlet 7.”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 11 is the same as for claim 1, except without Kondo.
Regarding claim 12, the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination makes obvious the method of claim 11 as applied above.
Yamagishi further discloses wherein the electrode pair comprises a first electrode and a second electrode each having a curved shape conformal to the outer wall of the pipe (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10, capacitance sensor 19 has electrode pair 69 (measuring electrode) and 71 (ground electrode), and is coupled to the outer wall of pipe 1; ¶ 0060, “the electrode 55 is wound around a cylinder 53 that is arranged around the pipe 1 forming the passage 1a”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 12 is the same as for claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination makes obvious the method of claim 11 as applied above.
Kawashima further discloses wherein the slurry deliver[y] system comprises a tank configured to store the slurry and a pump configured to pump the slurry from the tank to the semiconductor tool, wherein the pipe is arranged between the tank and the pump (Fig. 1, slurry is delivered from tank 18 to semiconductor tool 12 via pipe 36 and pump 34, pipe 36 is at least in part arranged between tank 18 and pump 36; 7:9-15).
Kawashima in view of Kondo
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19, Kawashima discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a slurry... (Fig. 1, slurry is received from tank 16);
delivering the slurry...to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe (Fig. 1, slurry is delivered from tank 18 to semiconductor tool 12 via pipe 36; 7:9-15);
coupling a first quality sensor to the first pipe; measuring first quality values of the first quality sensor while the slurry is in the first pipe (Figs. 1, 4; 5:2-15, 6:1-14, 7:9-32, sensor 58 is coupled to first pipe 36 and measures the propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves in the slurry, which relates to the solid material concentration of the slurry, while slurry is provided to tank 18 via first pipe 36 (and via pipe 37));
deriving a first quality metric of the slurry according to measurements of the first quality values (Fig. 5; 6:1-27, the quality metric of concentration of the polishing liquid (also called solid material concentration) is derived based on the propagation velocity; 7:24-32, “At this time, the polishing liquid flowing through the supply pipe 36 is monitored by...the solid material concentration measuring device 58 to determine...the solid material concentration, and the measurements are inputted into the controller 60 for continuing monitoring.”; Examiner notes that the phrase “quality metric” is very broad, and can include a pH value, a liquid particle size, a chemical concentration, a density, a conductivity, an ion concentration, and a permittivity or dielectric constant (Spec. ¶¶ 0034-0036));
and determining whether a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) operation using the semiconductor tool is performed based on the first quality metric (7:33-8:8, “After it is confirmed that the measurements do not exceed the predetermined limits by the controller 60, an instruction to commence a polishing operation is sent from the controller 60 to the polishing unit 12.”),
wherein the first quality value[s] of the slurry includes at least one of an average permittivity of the slurry, a permittivity variation of the slurry, and a particle size distribution of the slurry (Fig. 1; 4:59-5:54, 7:24-8:8, sensor 56 of pipe 62b measures the particle size distribution of the slurry (see discussion below)).
Kawashima does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a slurry from a portable container;
delivering the slurry from the portable container to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe.
However, the Kawashima/Kondo combination makes obvious this claim.
Kondo discloses:
receiving a slurry from a portable container; delivering the slurry from the portable container to a semiconductor tool through a tank and a first pipe (Fig. 1, slurry is received from portable container 1 and delivered to semiconductor tool 9 via tanks 2, 3 and pipes 51, 53, 56; ¶ 0033, “The fluid tank (1) serves for storing the raw slurry to be supplied to the preparation tank (2), and is constituted from a fixed-type or portable-type container”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 19 is the same as for claim 10, except without Yamagishi.
Regarding claim 20, the Kawashima/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 19 as applied above.
As modified in claim 19, the Kawashima/Kondo combination makes obvious the limitation delivering the slurry from the portable container through a second pipe (Kawashima Fig. 1, second pipe 46).
Kawashima further discloses:
coupling a second quality sensor to the second pipe; measuring second quality values of the second quality sensor while the slurry is in the second pipe; deriving a second quality metric of the slurry according to measurements of the second quality values (Figs. 1, 4; 5:2-15, 6:1-14, 7:9-32, sensor 58 is coupled to first pipe 36 and measures the propagation velocity of ultrasonic waves in the slurry, which relates to the solid material concentration of the slurry, while slurry is provided to semiconductor tool 12 via second pipe 46; see discussion below re “second pipe”);
and in response to the first quality metric [not meeting] a slurry specification while the second quality metric meets the slurry specification, replacing the slurry in the first pipe while keeping the slurry in the second pipe (Fig. 1, closing off pathway to second pipe 46 using valve 48, see discussion below re “in response to...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to duplicate the sensor 58 of Kawashima and add it to second pipe 46, for the same reasons discussed for claim 5. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the control system of Kawashima to close off the slurry pathway to the second pipe 46 (and to the semiconductor tool 12) using valve 48 in response to the first quality metric (of the first pipe 36) not meeting a required specification. This would have been an obvious because under conditions where new slurry passing through pipe 36 and the first quality sensor 58 is sensed to fail the specification (where the older slurry in second pipe 46 is still found to have sufficient quality via the added second sensor), the closing of valve 48 would allow the defective slurry to return to tank 18 via return line 37 for further conditioning to improve the slurry quality and/or to dispose of the slurry via tank 18 and discharge line 38; in doing so, this would prevent defective slurry from reaching the semiconductor tool 12 where it may damage wafers if used.
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, and Baron
Claims 2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), and US 20030122555 A1 (“Baron”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Baron pertains to a system for detecting liquid purity using a capacitive sensor (Abstr.; Figs. 3a-c; ¶ 0082). This reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns measuring impurities in a liquid flow (e.g., improper composition of or undesired particles in a slurry).
Regarding claim 2, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Kawashima, Yamagishi, and Kondo do not disclose wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a permittivity value of the slurry according to the first capacitance value of the first pipe. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Baron combination makes obvious this claim.
Baron discloses wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a permittivity value of the slurry according to the first capacitance value of the first pipe (¶¶ 0083-0086, 0092-0103, permittivity of the fluid is determined from capacitance values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Baron with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination to determine the permittivity value (also known as the dielectric constant) of the slurry based on the measured capacitance values because it is well known that permittivity is mathematically related to capacitance, based on the geometry of the capacitive plates (e.g., sensor electrode geometry) (Baron ¶ 0083). Yamagishi already teaches the use of measured slurry capacitance values to derive a quality metric for the slurry (Yamagishi ¶¶ 0099-0100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use measured capacitive values of the slurry to calculate a permittivity value for the slurry (Baron ¶ 0091) so that the determined permittivity value, which is a unitless quantity, could be compared to a reference permittivity value for the slurry regardless of the sensor electrode geometry (Baron ¶ 0004, “it is one of the physical properties that is most sensitive to the composition of liquids”).
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as claim 2, except as depending from claim 11 and not relying on the Kondo reference.
Regarding claim 14, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Baron combination makes obvious the method of claim 13 as applied above.
Kawashima further discloses:
wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a variation of the...values of the slurry (7:24-32, “the polishing liquid flowing through the supply pipe 36 is monitored by...the solid material concentration measuring device 58 to determine...the solid material concentration, and the measurements are inputted into the controller 60 for continuing monitoring”; Fig. 5, measurement values of the slurry correlate to different concentrations at various temperatures; Kawashima at least implicitly discloses that monitoring is continuous, i.e., a number of measurements are made and a range of concentration values are determined; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean “determining a variation of the permittivity values of the slurry, based on multiple permittivity values”, e.g., determining a range of permittivity values of the slurry (Spec. ¶¶ 0071-0074)). Kawashima does not explicitly disclose that the values are permittivity values.
Baron further discloses:
wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a variation of the one or more permittivity values of the slurry (¶¶ 0089-0092, a variation of permittivity values of the fluid is determined based on measured capacitance values at different fluid temperatures; Examiner interprets this limitation to mean “determining a variation of the permittivity values of the slurry, based on multiple permittivity values”, e.g., determining a range of permittivity values of the slurry (Spec. ¶¶ 0071-0074)).
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 13, noting that Kawashima teaches continuous measurements and a determination of a range of concentration values (“a variation of the...values of the slurry”), which would be applied to the derivation of the permittivity values performed by the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Baron combination.
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, Baron, and Biencourt
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), US 20030122555 A1 (“Baron”), and US 5417107 A1 (“Biencourt”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Baron pertains to a system for detecting liquid purity using a capacitive sensor (Abstr.; Figs. 3a-c; ¶ 0082). Biencourt pertains to a capacitive sensor for detecting compositions of a fluid (Abstr; 2:63-18). These references are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because they concern measuring impurities/solids in a liquid flow (e.g., improper composition of or undesired particles in a slurry).
Regarding claim 3, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above. Kawashima, Yamagishi, and Kondo do not disclose wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining an average permittivity of the slurry. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Baron/Biencourt combination makes obvious this claim.
Baron discloses wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining...[a] permittivity of the slurry (¶¶ 0083-0086, 0092-0103, permittivity of the fluid is determined from capacitance values).
Biencourt discloses wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining an average permittivity of the slurry (6:66-7:3, “These [capacitance] probes may be...used to determine the average permittivity of a liquid sample.”).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 2 (combining Baron re “permittivity”), with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Biencourt with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Baron combination because using Biencourt’s teaching, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an average permittivity value could be determined from capacitance measurements (e.g., a capacitance measurement representing a particular volume of slurry in the pipe, which is not completely homogeneous), and would also recognize that an average permittivity value is sufficiently descriptive of a volume of slurry and is more convenient to use to determine slurry quality verses a single permittivity value of a smaller, discrete amount of slurry (i.e., a smaller volume), which may have a local composition outside allowable tolerances.
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi and Cho
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”) and US 20070295063 A1 (“Cho”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Cho pertains to a system for measuring slurry quality for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 15, the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination makes obvious the method of claim 11 as applied above. Kawashima and Yamagishi do not disclose controlling switching of valves of the piping network to immobilize a portion the slurry during the measuring of the one or more capacitance values. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Cho combination makes obvious this claim.
Cho discloses controlling switching of valves of the piping network to immobilize a portion the slurry during the measuring of the one or more capacitance values (Figs. 1, 6, slurry is immobile in particle size sensor 650 during measurement, is later flushed via valve of drain line 652; ¶¶ 0039-0040, “The slurry that is re-diluted by the second diluting device 640 may be discharged through a line 642 and then supplied to a sensor 650. The sensor 650 may be configured to measure the number of particles mixed in the diluted slurry...The diluted slurry that has been sampled may be drained through a line 652.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Cho with the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination by modifying the control system of Kawashima to immobilize a portion of slurry in pipe 36 (Kawashima Fig. 1, e.g., using valves 48, 50, 96a, and/or 96b) during measurement of one or more capacitance values (Kawashima Fig. 1, e.g., modified (capacitive) sensor 58) because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this added functionality could be beneficial in some situations. Such situations include the start of a processing run, when it is unknown whether the slurry would meet the quality standard since it is a new batch of slurry that has not yet been rigorously tested or measured. Having the slurry immobilized in pipe 36 allows for a more accurate measurement of the slurry quality (e.g., if the slurry is not as homogeneous as desired and would give different measurements as different, non-homogeneous portions of slurry are passing through pipe 36) and would prevent any slurry from reaching the polishing unit 12 or the recirculation line 37 until it is determined whether the slurry is fit/unfit for use (i.e., the portion of slurry after the sensor 58 would be more efficiently directed and not wasted (by sending it to the polishing unit 12 where it is not used) or recycled (by sending it back to the tank 18 when it is unnecessary to do so)).
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi and Stephanou
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”) and US 20190383762 A1 (“Stephanou”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Stephanou pertains to a capacitive sensor for use in pipes having fluid flow (Abstr.; Fig. 4; ¶ 0043). This reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns the construction and implementation of a capacitive sensor in a fluid pipe application.
Regarding claim 17, the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination makes obvious the method of claim 11 as applied above. Kawashima and Yamagishi do not disclose wherein the measuring of the one or more capacitance values comprises supplying a sensing signal to one [electrode] of the electrode pair and measuring a current flowing through the electrode pair. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Stephanou combination makes obvious this claim.
Stephanou discloses wherein the measuring of the one or more capacitance values comprises supplying a sensing signal to one [electrode] of the electrode pair and measuring a current flowing through the electrode pair (Fig. 4; ¶ 0043, “Applying an electrostatic excitation to lead 404 and lead 405 creates a voltage or current response between electrode 402 and electrode 403, respectively, in proportion to capacitance 408 of cylindrical volume 409, which in turn depends on the dielectric properties of cylindrical volume 409.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Stephanou with the Kawashima/Yamagishi combination because it would have been obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a common, well-known way of measuring capacitance using two electrodes (as taught by Yamagishi) is to measure the current flowing through the electrode pair based on an applied signal (Stephanou ¶ 0043). A person of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the capacitive electrodes of Yamagishi could be successfully used in the manner taught by Stephanou.
Regarding claim 18, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Stephanou combination makes obvious the method of claim 17 as applied above.
Stephanou further discloses wherein the sensing signal comprises an alternating-current waveform (Figs. 7A, 7B; ¶ 0046, “FIG. 7A is a graph illustrating an embodiment of periodic drive voltage waveform referenced to a ground potential. In some embodiments, the waveform of FIG. 7A is used to drive a two electrode system”; ¶ 0050).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 17, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to use an alternating-current waveform as the sensing signal because this is simple substitution. Although Stephanou Figs. 7A and 7B show an alternating voltage waveform (as an input sensing signal) as a function of time, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this means that the waveform is also an alternating-current waveform, based on Ohm’s law and the associated impedance of the capacitive sensor circuit, especially since the response from the sensor is described to be in the form of a current waveform (Stephanou ¶ 0050, “an electrical response waveform to a drive voltage waveform is a current waveform having an amplitude, the same frequency as a drive voltage waveform, and a phase shift relative to a drive voltage waveform. The magnitude and phase of the response current for a given drive voltage depends on the complex impedance of the load in accordance with Ohm’s law.”).
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, Stephanou, and Warmack
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), US 20190383762 A1 (“Stephanou”), and US 20020158637 A1 (“Warmack”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Stephanou pertains to a capacitive sensor for use in pipes having fluid flow (Abstr.; Fig. 4; ¶ 0043). Warmack pertains to calibrating and designing capacitive sensors (Abstr.; Fig. 1(b)). These references are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because they concern the construction and implementation of a capacitive sensor in a fluid pipe application.
Regarding claim 6, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Yamagishi further discloses:
wherein the first capacitance sensor comprises an electrode pair wrapping around an outer wall of the first pipe (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10, sensor 19 has electrode pair 69 (measuring electrode) and 71 (ground electrode), and is coupled to the outer wall of pipe 1; ¶ 0060, “the electrode 55 is wound around a cylinder 53 that is arranged around the pipe 1 forming the passage 1a”).
Kawashima, Yamagishi, and Kondo do not disclose connecting the first capacitance sensor to an amplifier and a resistor in parallel and measuring the first capacitance value according to an output value of the amplifier. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Stephanou/Warmack combination makes obvious this claim.
Stephanou discloses connecting the first capacitance sensor to an amplifier and a resistor...and measuring the first capacitance value according to an output value of the amplifier (¶ 0072; “DDS module 2214 generates an excitation waveform that is amplified by PA 2213 and used to drive DUT 2212”, “Signal conditioning 2210 may comprise a current-to-voltage converter (e.g., a trans-impedance amplifier, a resistor, or any other suitable current-to-voltage converter), an amplifier (e.g., a low-noise amplifier, a variable gain amplifier, or some other suitable amplifier)”; Examiner notes that this limitation does not specify whether the amplifier is used to amplify the input sensor signal or the measured current output, but Stephanou covers both applications; see discussion below regarding “in parallel”).
Warmack discloses connecting the first capacitance sensor to an amplifier and a resistor in parallel and measuring the first capacitance value according to an output value of the amplifier (Fig. 1(b), capacitive sensor 115 is connected to an amplifier 116 and resistor 132 in parallel for measurement; ¶¶ 0040-0041).
The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1, with the addition that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Stephanou and Warmack with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination to use an amplifier with the input sensor signal and/or for the measured current output (e.g., with the “other” electrode). This would have been obvious because the use of an amplifier, as described by Stephanou, is a well-known technique to boost the signal strength in order for the circuit/controller to properly process the signals. Further, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that there are several ways to measure the capacitive reactance (i.e., take a measurement) from a capacitive sensor, and the examples provided in Warmack (Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) show two of the simpler, common ways that are obvious to try and would have yielded success.
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, and Benner
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), and US 20110177623 A1 (“Benner”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Benner pertains to a semiconductor polishing and slurry analysis/distribution system (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 5). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kawashima, Yamagishi, and Kondo do not disclose wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a removal rate of the slurry based on the first capacitance value. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner combination makes obvious this claim.
Benner discloses wherein the deriving of the quality metric comprises determining a removal rate of the slurry based on the first capacitance value (Fig. 5, slurry analysis unit 50, effluent analyzer 47, processor 62; ¶ 0030, “The recovered polishing slurry is then presented to a slurry analysis unit 50 that is used to measure the viscosity (or other parameters, perhaps) of the removed polishing slurry...A separate analysis of the chemistry of the initial effluent stream is used to determine the current ‘material removal rate’ (MRR) associated with layer 18.”; see discussion below re “based on the first capacitance value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Benner with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination to make a determination of the slurry removal rate based on the measured first capacitance value (as measured by the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a direct correlation between the measured capacitance value and the slurry removal rate (i.e., slurry polishing performance) would be convenient for controlling and monitoring the slurry composition, as opposed to needing another step or calculation to interpolate the effect of the slurry composition on polishing performance (Kawashima 2:13-45, “It is known that a polishing rate and a polishing quality in a polishing process depend on the concentration of the polishing liquid used for polishing semiconductor wafers.”; 2:64-3:9, “the properties of the polishing liquid supplied to the polishing section are continuously monitored, and when the polishing liquid has been degraded up to a condition that scratches are likely to be formed on a polished surface of the substrate by aggregated abrasive particles, various remedial procedures can be taken to stabilize the properties of the polishing liquid...if it is found that the polishing liquid has been degraded to a large degree, then the operation of the polishing apparatus may be stopped to prevent inferior products from being produced.”).
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, Benner, and Marquardt
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), US 20110177623 A1 (“Benner”), and US 20050070214 A1 (“Marquardt”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Benner pertains to a semiconductor polishing and slurry analysis/distribution system (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 5). Marquardt pertains to a semiconductor polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-13). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination makes obvious the method of claim 1 as applied above.
Kawashima, Yamagishi, and Kondo do not disclose performing a pilot run of the CMP operation by examining an average removal rate and a removal rate variation of a raw slurry, and determining whether the CMP operation can be performed normally based on whether the average removal rate and the removal rate variation meets a slurry specification. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner/Marquardt combination makes obvious this claim.
Benner discloses determining a removal rate of a slurry (Fig. 5, slurry analysis unit 50, effluent analyzer 47, processor 62; ¶ 0030, “The recovered polishing slurry is then presented to a slurry analysis unit 50 that is used to measure the viscosity (or other parameters, perhaps) of the removed polishing slurry...A separate analysis of the chemistry of the initial effluent stream is used to determine the current ‘material removal rate’ (MRR) associated with layer 18.”; see discussion below re “”).
Marquardt discloses performing [runs] of the CMP operation by examining an average removal rate and a removal rate variation of a raw slurry, and determining whether the CMP operation can be performed normally based on whether the average removal rate and the removal rate variation meets a slurry specification (Figs. 12-13; ¶ 0050, showing average removal rates and removal rate variation of a slurry over a number of wafer polishing runs, see discussion below re “pilot run” and “determining...”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Benner and Marquardt with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo combination to meet the limitation “performing a pilot run of the CMP operation by examining an average removal rate and a removal rate variation of a raw slurry, and determining whether the CMP operation can be performed normally based on whether the average removal rate and the removal rate variation meets a slurry specification.” Regarding the determination of removal rates based on measuring slurry quality (as taught by Benner), the obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 4. Further, it would have been obvious to perform a pilot run (e.g., a run of polishing a wafer (whether that pilot run yields good or bad results) before an actual polishing run where the polished wafer must be a good result (meeting specifications)) to examine whether the raw slurry (e.g., before adding chemicals or water to change its composition) is satisfactory (e.g., having an acceptable average removal rate and removal rate variation). A pilot run is commonly done in any mass production process, especially semiconductor fabrication processes, and is obvious in light of Marquardt, where the average removal rate for a slurry and the variation of the removal rate over multiple runs (Marquardt Figs. 12-13) are monitored. In addition, it would have been obvious to modify the control system of Kawashima to determine whether the tested slurry is satisfactory and only start the actual mass production wafer polishing process (as opposed to test runs) when it is so, or to subject the slurry for further processing (e.g., adding chemicals or water) to yield a satisfactory slurry (Kawashima Fig. 1; 7:33-55, “The controller 60 judges whether there has been any change in the particle size distribution, and any coarse particles have been produced on the basis of the inputted measurements. When it is judged that a change has taken place in the particle size distribution, one or both of the ultrasonic transducers 94a, 94b are operated to disperse the particles in the polishing liquid stored in one or both of the adjusting tank 16 and the supply tank 18 by the application of ultrasonic energy. When it is judged that there has been an increase in the concentration of coarse particles, the three-way valves 96a, 96b are switched to allow the polishing liquid to pass through the bypass line 98, thereby removing the coarse particles in the polishing liquid by the filter 100. Further, when it is judged that there has been a change in either the oxidation-reduction potential or the solid material concentration, the flow rate control valve 108 of the chemicals adding device 102 is opened, and by adding chemicals to the polishing liquid in the adjusting tank 16, the oxidation-reduction potential or the solid material concentration of the polishing liquid is adjusted to keep the volume ratio of additives to abrasive particles at a constant value and to uniformize the particle size distribution in the polishing liquid.”).
Regarding claim 8, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner/Marquardt combination makes obvious the method of claim 7 as applied above.
Kawashima further discloses wherein the slurry is received and delivered to the first pipe after diluting or blending the raw slurry (Fig. 1, raw slurry is diluted and blended in tanks 14 and 16 before delivering it to the first pipe 36; 7:1-8, “The condensate stored in the storage tanks 14 is supplied to the adjusting tank 16 by operating the pump 26, and is diluted to a certain concentration with pure water supplied from the pure water supply line 24. After being adjusted to a desired concentration, the polishing liquid is fed to the supply tank 18 by operating the delivery pump 30, and is stored therein.”).
Kawashima in view of Yamagishi, Kondo, Benner, Marquardt, and Huang
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6338671 B1 (“Kawashima”) in view of US 20030184316 A1 (“Yamagishi”), US 20020061722 A1 (“Kondo”), US 20110177623 A1 (“Benner”), US 20050070214 A1 (“Marquardt”), and US 20170152402 A1 (“Huang”).
Kawashima pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Yamagishi pertains to a fluid measuring apparatus for a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0008). Kondo pertains to an apparatus for supplying a polishing fluid to a semiconductor polishing device (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Benner pertains to a semiconductor polishing and slurry analysis/distribution system (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 5). Marquardt pertains to a semiconductor polishing apparatus (Abstr.; Figs. 2-13). Huang pertains to a semiconductor polishing and slurry processing/distributing system (Abstr.; Figs. 2, 4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 9, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner/Marquardt combination makes obvious the method of claim 7 as applied above. Kawashima, Yamagishi, Kondo, Benner, and Marquardt do not explicitly disclose wherein the slurry specification is obtained from historical data. However, the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner/Marquardt/Huang combination makes obvious this claim.
Huang discloses wherein the slurry specification is obtained from historical data (Fig. 4, database 420, removal rate data 424; ¶¶ 0046-0047, “database 420 may store removal rates 424 of different chelating agents for different material compositions...the different removal rates 424 may correspond to different desired pH values...the selection of a removal rate...may cause the database 420 to provide a desired pH value to the control unit 216.”; Examiner notes that the removal rate data 424 disclosed in Huang satisfies the “historical data” limitation because the data is necessarily based, at least in part, on past observations of removal rate by slurry having particular measured pH levels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Huang with the Kawashima/Yamagishi/Kondo/Benner/Marquardt combination to use a database of removal rates (i.e., “a slurry specification”) (which includes historical data) corresponding to the measured capacitance value of the slurry. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a database would be convenient because of the direct correlation between the capacitance of the slurry and the polishing performance (removal rate), as opposed to needing another step or calculation to interpolate the polishing performance. A person of ordinary skill would also recognize that such a table/database could be constructed, at least in part, based on testing the removal rate using slurry having various measured quality metric values.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to slurry deliver systems, including ones that have various sensors to determine slurry quality and quantity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: June 16, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights