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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 10/10/2024.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 3-4, 6-8, and 10-11 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3, 4, 5A, 5B, 8, 9, 13A, 13B and 13C fail to show labels identifying each of the graph axis. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1, belongs to a statutory category, namely an apparatus. Similarly claims 12 belongs to a statutory category namely a method.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 and 12 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “a corrector configured to correct the first and second film thickness data generated by the receiver, wherein the corrector obtains corrected film thickness data based on a size of a measurement range on the polishing object as a measurement target in a single measurement by the film thickness sensor, the first film thickness data measured at a first measurement point on the polishing object, and the second film thickness data measured at a second measurement point on the polishing object, and a distance between the first measurement point and the second measurement point is equal to or less than the size of the measurement range” and which is mere characterization of the data necessary to implement the judicial exception.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (emphasis added). Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “processing apparatus” recited by claim 1 and the “corrector” recited in claims 1 and 12 amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and the “film thickness sensor”, “the first film thickness data measured at a first measurement point on the polishing object, and the second film thickness data measured at a second measurement point on the polishing object”, recited by claims 1 and 12, amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity, and the results of the mathematical algorithm are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer (i.e. “processing apparatus” and “corrector”), used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1 and 12 further recite the additional element of “film thickness sensor”, “the first film thickness data measured at a first measurement point on the polishing object, and the second film thickness data measured at a second measurement point on the polishing object” which is extra-solution data gathering and is also well understood routine and conventional activities as evidenced by Nakamura US 2018/0001437 A1 and Kobata et al. US2012/0164917A1 and Nakamura US2018/0016676.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-11 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-11 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-11, do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 2-11, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. “the corrector obtains at least one of third film thickness data and fourth film thickness data corresponding to third measurement point and fourth measurement point that are apart by a distance of the size on the polishing object, as the film thickness data corrected based on the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data” recited by claim 4; “a difference between the third film thickness data and the fourth film thickness data is proportional to a difference between the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data” recited by claim 5; “wherein the correction is performed when a change amount in time of the first film thickness data or the second film thickness data exceeds a predetermined value” recited by claim 6; “wherein the correction is performed when a change amount in position of the first film thickness data or the second film thickness data exceeds a predetermined value” recited by claim 7;” “wherein the correction is performed based on the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data measured in a vicinity of an end of the polishing object” recited by claim 8; “the correction is performed when the end is within the measurement range of the film thickness sensor” recited by claim 9), which is also characterization of the data (claims 2-10) necessary to implement the abstract idea and which is also part of the abstract idea).
Claims 2-11 introduces the additional element of “wherein a first distance from the first measurement point to a center of the polishing object and a second distance from the second measurement point to the center of the polishing object are different” recited by claim 2; “the second film thickness data is measured in a first measurement after the first film thickness data is measured” recited by claim 3; “third measurement point and fourth measurement point that are apart by a distance of the size on the polishing object” recited by claim 4; and “wherein the size is a first size when a distance between the polishing object and the film thickness sensor is a first length, the size is a second size when a distance between the polishing object and the film thickness sensor is a second length, and when the first length is longer than the second length, the first size is larger than the second size” recited by claim 10; and “a polishing apparatus comprising: a polishing table to which a polishing pad for polishing the polishing object is attachable; a driver configured to rotatably drive the polishing table; a holder configured to hold and press the polishing object against the polishing pad; a film thickness sensor arranged in a hole formed in the polishing table and configured to detect a film thickness of the polishing object as the polishing table rotates; and the film thickness signal processing apparatus” recited by claim 11, which are also well understood routine and conventional activities as evidenced by Nakamura US 2018/0001437 A1 and Kobata et al. US2012/0164917A1 and Nakamura US2018/0016676.
Therefore, for similar reasons as discussed above, the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 2-11 fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4-5 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.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites “obtains at least one of third film thickness data and fourth film thickness data corresponding to third measurement point and fourth measurement point that are apart by a distance of the size on the polishing object” in lines 3-5 oft the claim renders the claim indefinite.
There is insufficient antecedent basis issues for the recitation “the size on the polishing object” as it is unclear whether the recitation “the size” is the same or different size of the recited “size of measurement range” recited by claim 1.
Furthermore it is unclear form the claim language the scope of the claimed “size” is intending to cover. The metes and bounds of the claimed “size” have not been defined as to ascertain by the scope of the term “size” is intending to cover as to ascertain the distance of the size on the polishing object.
Claim 1 recites “a size of a measurement range” in which the size is of a measurement range, however, claim 4 recites “a distance of the size on the polishing object” in which the claim recite a distance separating the third and fourth measurement points, the distance being of “the size on the polish object”, which have not been defined by the scope of the claim, since the size claimed in claim one correspond to a range and not to a specific value of a distance. Therefore it is unclear to ascertain the scope the claimed “distance of the size on the polishing object” as to ascertain the distance size by which the third measurement point and fourth measurement point are apart, rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification correction is required.
Dependent claim 5, is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 4 from which it depends.
For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections discussed above.
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, 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura US 2018/0001437 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura disclose a film thickness signal processing apparatus (see abstract, para. 0018, “film thickness signal processing apparatus; para. 0040-0044, 0046-0048) comprising:
a receiver (“receiving unit”, abstract) configured to receive sensor data output from a film thickness sensor (“eddy current sensor”, abstract) to detect a film thickness of a polishing object and generate first film thickness data and second film thickness data (see abstract, para. 0012, 0014, 0018, wherein thickness data generated in the inside of the edge, and thickness data generated in an outside of the edge is received); and
a corrector (see abstract, “correcting unit”) configured to correct the first and second film thickness data generated by the receiver (see abstract, para. 0046, where data is corrected in both of the inside edge data and the outside of the edge),
wherein the corrector obtains corrected film thickness data based on a size of a measurement range on the polishing object as a measurement target in a single measurement by the film thickness sensor (see abstract para. 0007, 0014, 0063, 0069, where the size resides in “output of the film thickness sensor to reach approximately 100%, the entire range of the spot diameter has to be inside the edge of the polishing object”, therefore the size is implied; para. 0014, 0018, where the effective range of the sensor is widened at the edge to improve accuracy of detecting film thickness at the edge of the polishing object), the first film thickness data measured at a first measurement point on the polishing object, and the second film thickness data measured at a second measurement point on the polishing object (see abstract, para. 0012, 0014, 0018, wherein thickness data generated in the inside of the edge, and thickness data generated in an outside of the edge is received; para. 0044, where film thickness differences amount a plurality of adjacent points of the film thickness data, therefore the first and second measurement point is implied), and
a distance between the first measurement point and the second measurement point is equal to or less than the size of the measurement range (see para. 0014, 0018, where the effective measurement range is expanded/widened so that the measurements are performed inside the range of the area where measurements are gathered, therefore the first and second measurement points are located within the measurement range, which meets the distance being equal or less than the size of the measurement range).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamuro disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1 and further disclose the film thickness sensor detects a film thickness while relatively moving along a surface to be polished of the polishing object along with the rotation of the polishing table (see para. 0007), which suggests multiple measurements are being made at multiple points that apart by a distance.
Nakamuro discuss that the eddy current sensor scans the polishing object a plurality of times, for example 50 times to obtain the film thickness data over the whole polishing object (see para. 0064, therefore the data disclosed include at least one of third film thickness data and fourth film thickness data corresponding to third measurement point and fourth measurement point that are apart by a distance of the size on the polishing object), which are used in the correction method (see para. 0063-0064), where the film thickness data at a position which is located at a distance outward from the peak position and a distance inward from the peak position are employed on the correction method (see para. 0046, 0066-0068) are disclosed.
Nakamura further disclose the correcting unit performs the correction by using film thickness data at a position located at a first distance outward from the edge to the film thickness and film thickness data generated at a position that is located at a second distance inward from the edge (see para. 0018, 0046).
Therefore as best understood, in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above, the corrector disclosed by Nakamuro as discussed obtains at least one of third film thickness data and fourth film thickness data corresponding to third measurement point and fourth measurement point that are apart by a distance of the size on the polishing object, as the film thickness data corrected based on the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data meeting the claimed language.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamuro as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above, disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 4 and further disclose wherein a difference between the third film thickness data and the fourth film thickness data is proportional to a difference between the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data (see para. 0006, 0035-0036, 0045, where the change in thickness corresponds to the difference claimed; para. 0064, where measurements are obtained at an interval of 1mm in the radial positions and where in order to improve the accuracy of correction it is preferable to obtain the data at 0.1mm interval narrower than 1mm interval, therefore the differences between thickness data are proportional to one another).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamuro disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakamuro further disclose wherein the correction is performed when a change amount in time of the first film thickness data or the second film thickness data exceeds a predetermined value (see para. 0006, 0035, 0036, 0046, 0049, where spot diameter s an outer diameter of the eddy current produced when the eddy current sensor is sufficiently inside the polishing object, the eddy current [film thickness data] having the magnitude which is equal to or larger than a prescribed value).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamuro disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakamuro further disclose wherein the correction is performed when a change amount in position of the first film thickness data or the second film thickness data exceeds a predetermined value (see para. 0065-0067, where amount to be added by correction is in a region of the curve which is outside from the peak position).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamuro disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakamuro further disclose wherein the correction is performed based on the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data measured in a vicinity of an end of the polishing object (para. 0014, 0032, 0034, where sensor is located in the vicinity of and inside the edge and where polishing object is located in the vicinity of the excitation coil; para. 0063).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamuro disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakamuro further disclose wherein the correction is performed when the end is within the measurement range of the film thickness sensor (see para. 0063, 0069-0070, where thicknesses are measured using a laser range finder to confirm the validity of a curve, where thicknesses are represented in a range from 120mm to 150mm).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamuro disclose the materials as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Nakamuro further disclose wherein the size is a first size when a distance between the polishing object and the film thickness sensor is a first length (see para. 0007, 0054-0055), the size is a second size when a distance between the polishing object and the film thickness sensor is a second length (see para. 0054-0055), and when the first length is longer than the second length (see para. 0054-0054, the polishing object exists 100% in the spot diameter, therefore it is implied that the first length is longer), the first size is larger than the second size (see para. 0054-0055, when the polishing object exists 100% in the spot diameter it is larger than the second size).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamuro disclose the features of the film thickness signal processing apparatus of claim 1 as discussed above and further disclose a polishing apparatus (see para. 0002-0005 “polishing apparatus”) comprising:
a polishing table to which a polishing pad for polishing the polishing object is attachable (see para. 0002-0005 “polishing table”);
a driver configured to rotatably drive the polishing table (see para. 0002-0005 “polishing apparatus polishes the polishing object by pressing the polishing object held on the top ring against the polishing pad while rotating the polishing table”; para. 0039, where electromotive motor is used by the polishing apparatus and rotary-drives the polishing table);
a holder configured to hold and press the polishing object against the polishing pad (see para. 0004-0005, “top ring for holding a polishing object”; para. 0019, “holding unit capable of holding and pressing the polishing object against the polishing pad”);
a film thickness sensor arranged in a hole formed in the polishing table and configured to detect a film thickness of the polishing object as the polishing table rotates (see para. 0019, “a film thickness sensor disposed in a hole formed in the polishing table and capable of detecting the film thickness of the polishing object along with the rotation of the polishing table”); and the film thickness signal processing apparatus (see abstract, para. 0018, “film thickness signal processing apparatus; para. 0040-0044, 0046-0048) as discussed above according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura disclose a film thickness signal processing method (see para. 0002, “film thickness signal processing method”) using a polishing apparatus (see para. 0002, “polishing apparatus”) including a film thickness sensor (“eddy current sensor”, abstract), a receiver (“receiving unit”, abstract), and a corrector (see abstract, “correcting unit”), the film thickness signal processing method comprising:
receiving sensor data output from the film thickness sensor to detect a film thickness of a polishing object by the receiver and generating first film thickness data and second film thickness data (see abstract, para. 0012, 0014, 0018, wherein thickness data generated in the inside of the edge, and thickness data generated in an outside of the edge is received);
correcting the first film thickness data and the second film thickness data generated by the receiver by the corrector (see abstract, para. 0046, where data is corrected in both of the inside edge data and the outside of the edge);
obtaining the corrected film thickness data based on a size of a measurement range as a measurement target in a single measurement by the film thickness sensor (see abstract para. 0007, 0014, 0063, 0069, where the size resides in “output of the film thickness sensor to reach approximately 100%, the entire range of the spot diameter has to be inside the edge of the polishing object”, therefore the size is implied; para. 0014, 0018, where the effective range of the sensor is widened at the edge to improve accuracy of detecting film thickness at the edge of the polishing object), the first film thickness data measured at a first measurement point on the polishing object, and the second film thickness data measured at a second measurement point on the polishing object by the corrector (see abstract, para. 0012, 0014, 0018, wherein thickness data generated in the inside of the edge, and thickness data generated in an outside of the edge is received; para. 0044, where film thickness differences amount a plurality of adjacent points of the film thickness data, therefore the first and second measurement point is implied),
wherein a distance between the first measurement point and the second measurement point is equal to or less than the size of the measurement range (see para. 0014, 0018, where the effective measurement range is expanded/widened so that the measurements are performed inside the range of the area where measurements are gathered, therefore the first and second measurement points are located within the measurement range, which meets the distance being equal or less than the size of the measurement range).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura US 2018/0001437 A1 in view of Kobata et al. US2012/0164917A1 (hereinafter Kobata).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamuro disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1 and further disclose the film thickness sensor detects a film thickness while relatively moving along a surface to be polished of the polishing object along with the rotation of the polishing table (see para. 0007, which suggests that the measurements would be made at different distances from the center of the polishing object.
However although the motion indicate of the sensor along the surface to be polished along the rotation would suggest that the measurements would be made at different distances from the center of the polishing object, Nakamuro do not explicitly disclose wherein a first distance from the first measurement point to a center of the polishing object and a second distance from the second measurement point to the center of the polishing object are different.
Kobata disclose a polishing apparatus and method comprising a film thickness measuring device for a conventional CMP apparatus and substrate. The film-thickness measurement device 100 measures the film thickens at multiple points on the substrate while moving across the substrate W each time the polishing table rotates, for the purpose of measuring the film thickness at multiple measuring pints distributed in a radial direction of the substrate as shown in Fig. 2 (para. 0005, see Fig. 2). Therefore, Kobata disclose the first distance from the first measurement point to a center of the polishing object and a second distance from the second measurement point to the center of the polishing object are different as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kobata as discussed above to configure the system of Nakamuro such that a first distance from the first measurement point to a center of the polishing object and a second distance from the second measurement point to the center of the polishing object are different for the benefit of obtaining highly accurate film-thickness data in the peripheral portion of the substrate and highly accurate film thickness profile of the substrate during polishing (see para. 0010-0011, 0024).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamuro disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 1 and further disclose the film thickness sensor detects a film thickness while relatively moving along a surface to be polished of the polishing object along with the rotation of the polishing table (see para. 0007), which suggests that the measurements would be made one after another.
However although the motion indicate of the sensor along the surface to be polished along the rotation would suggest that the measurements would be made one after another, Nakamuro do not explicitly disclose wherein the second film thickness data is measured in a first measurement after the first film thickness data is measured.
Kobata disclose a polishing apparatus and method comprising a film thickness measuring device for a conventional CMP apparatus and substrate. The film-thickness measurement device measures the film thickness at multiple points on the substrate while moving across the substrate W each time the polishing table rotates, for the purpose of measuring the film thickness at multiple measuring points distributed in a radial direction of the substrate as shown in Fig. 2 (para. 0005, see Fig. 2); and where several measurements are performed over time (see para. 0038, 0050, 0064). Therefore, Kobata disclose wherein the second film thickness data is measured in a first measurement after the first film thickness data is measured, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Kobata as discussed above to configure the system of Nakamuro such that wherein the second film thickness data is measured in a first measurement after the first film thickness data is measured for the benefit of obtaining film-thickness data in the peripheral portion of the substrate and film thickness profile of the substrate during polishing in order to control a load on the substrate based on the measured value of the film thickness and to determine a polishing end point.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
