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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “polishing the wafers by friction thereof with the polishing pads disposed pads disposed thereover and thereunder” in claim 14 should read as “polishing the wafers by friction thereof with the polishing pads
The limitation “the carriers comprise five carries engaged between the first gear and the second gear” in claim 16 should read as “the carriers comprise five carriers
The limitation “the carriers comprise four carries engaged between the first gear and the second gear” in claim 17 should read as “the carriers comprise four carriers .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839), alone, hereinafter referred to as Pietsch.
Regarding claim 1, Pietsch discloses a wafer double-side polishing apparatus [Pietsch, fig 1] comprising:
an upper plate [Pietsch, fig 1, 1] and a lower plate [Pietsch, fig 1, 4] facing each other [Pietsch, fig 1, 1 and 4 face each other];
polishing pads respectively disposed at a lower portion of the upper plate and at an upper portion of the lower plate [Pietsch, fig 1, 11 is on the lower portion of 1 and 12 is on the upper portion of 4, and page 4, pp 0100, 11 and 12 are polishing pads with abrasive];
a first gear disposed in a central region of an upper surface of the lower plate [Pietsch, fig 2, 7] and a second gear disposed in a peripheral region of the upper surface of the lower plate [Pietsch, fig 2, 9]; and
carriers disposed between the polishing pads while being engaged between the first gear and the second gear [Pietsch, fig 2, 13 is engaged with 7 and 9],
wherein the upper plate comprises a plurality of slurry supply holes extending in a vertical direction [Pietsch, fig 1, and page 4, pp 0099, 34],
wherein each of the carriers comprises at least one wafer accommodation hole [Pietsch, figs 2 and 3, 14].
Pietsch does not explicitly disclose a sum of cross-sectional areas of the wafer accommodation holes of the carriers is 32 to 34% of a cross-sectional area of the lower plate.
Pietsch discloses that the that the sum of the cross-sectional areas of the wafer accommodation holes needs to optimized to the wear rate of the working layer(s) of working disks (i.e. polishing pads) [Pietsch, page 6, pp’s 0117-0118 and page 7, pp 0130]. As shown in figures 2-3, the position of the wafers, and hence also the area of the wafer accommodation holes, is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that choosing the rotational values for the upper and lower working disks and layers (polishing pads) and the size or areas of the working disks (polishing pads) affects the optimum wear rate of working disks and layers. Further, it appears that one or ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Pietsch device to have a ratio of the polishing surface to the sum of the areas of the wafer accommodation holes, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment (i.e. the size and rotational speed of the working disks and layers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pietsch by making the ratio of the sum of the cross-sectional areas of the wafer accommodation holes to the cross-sectional area of the lower plate be between 32 and 34% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” [MPEP 2144.05(II)]. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio “may” be with the claimed ranges (applicant’s specification pp [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the carriers have a same shape [Pietsch, fig 1, 1 and 4 have the same shape], and the at least one wafer accommodation hole of each carrier comprises three wafer accommodation holes [Pietsch, fig 2, showing three 14’s to each 13]; and the carriers comprise five carriers engaged between the first gear and the second gear [Pietsch, fig 2, showing five 13’s].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein wafers are accommodated in the wafer accommodation holes of the carriers, respectively, and the lower plate and the upper plate are pressurized by force of 100 to 160 g/cm2 [Pietsch, fig 2, 15 is accommodated within each 14 and page 10, pp 0162 pressure is from 0.012 bar to 0.3 bar which is equal to 12.2 g/cm2 to 305 g/cm2, which overlaps the claimed range].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim (Korean Patent Publication No. KR102116510) as evidenced by the machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Pietsch and Kim, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the carriers have a same shape [Pietsch, fig 1, 1 and 4 have the same shape].
Pietsch as modified does not explicitly disclose the at least one wafer accommodation hole of each carrier comprises four wafer accommodation holes; and the carriers comprise four carriers engaged between the first gear and the second gear.
Kim teaches a wafer double-side polishing apparatus [Kim, fig 1, 1] comprising:
an upper plate [Kim, fig 1, 10] and a lower plate facing each other [Kim, fig 1, 20];
a first gear disposed in a central region of an upper surface of the lower plate [Kim, fig 1, 30] and a second gear disposed in a peripheral region of the upper surface of the lower plate [Kim, fig 1, 40]; and
carriers disposed between the polishing pads while being engaged between the first gear and the second gear [Kim, fig 1, 50],
wherein each of the carriers comprises at least one wafer accommodation hole [Kim, fig 1, space in 50 in which W sits],
wherein: the carriers have a same shape [Kim, figs 1 and 2, 10 and 20 have the same shape], and the at least one wafer accommodation hole of each carrier comprises four wafer accommodation holes [Kim, fig 1, four W’s per each 50]; and the carriers comprise four carriers engaged between the first gear and the second gear [Kim, fig 1, four 50’s between 30 and 40, respectively].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of wafers within each carrier and the number of carriers within the apparatus of Pietsch to have four wafers per carrier and four carriers per the apparatus as taught by Kim because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the of four wafers to a carrier and four carriers as taught by Kim in the system of Pietsch, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the four wafers to a carrier and four carriers as taught by Kim in the system of Pietsch because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being same relationship of wafer accommodation hole sizes to the size of the carrier for optimal movement around the planetary movement. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of that an additional wafer can be polished with this configuration (16 wafers vs 15 wafers).
Regarding claim 13, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein wafers are accommodated in the wafer accommodation holes of the carriers, respectively, and the lower plate and the upper plate are pressurized by force of 100 to 160 g/cm2 [Pietsch, fig 2, 15 is accommodated within each 14 and page 10, pp 0162 pressure is from 0.012 bar to 0.3 bar which is equal to 12.2 g/cm2 to 305 g/cm2, which overlaps the claimed range].
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 20210407816), hereinafter referred to as Pietsch and Yamaguchi, respectively.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claims 1 and 2, respectively, wherein slurry supplied to the slurry supply holes is an operating agent [Pietsch, page 4, pp 0099 teaching that 34 supplies operating agents], and the polishing layers comprise silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers [Pietsch, page 9, pp’s 0146-0147, silica particles of 0.1 microns or 100 nm].
However, Pietsch as modified does not explicitly disclose the slurry supplied to the slurry supply holes comprises the silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers.
Yamaguchi teaches a wafer double-side polishing apparatus comprising:
an upper plate and a lower plate facing each other [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028, upper and lower plates];
a planetary gear system disposed in a central region between the upper and lower plates [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028]; and
at least one carrier disposed between the upper and lower plates [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028, carrier],
wherein slurry comprises silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers is supplied to the double-sided polishing apparatus [Yamaguchi, page 3, pp’s 0033-0034 and 0041, particles ranging from 4 nm to 50 nm, which overlaps the claimed range].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating agent of Pietsch to include the polishing fluid (slurry) of Yamaguchi as a polishing agent because the configuration of the polishing fluid of Yamaguchi has the advantageous effect to reduce the wear of the carrier while still maintaining a good polishing rate for the wafers [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0031, summarized].
Regarding claim 7, Pietsch as modified further discloses The wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a pH of the slurry is 11 or more [Pietsch, page 10, pp 0164, pH of 7.0 to 12.5 which overlaps the claimed range and Yamaguchi, page 8, claim 9 which has a range of 7 to 12 which overlaps the claimed range].
Regarding claim 8, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a particle concentration of the slurry is 1 to 1.5% [Yamaguchi, abstract 0.1 to 5 mass %, which overlaps the claimed range].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) in view of Kim (Korean Patent Publication No. KR102116510) as evidenced by the machine translation, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 20210407816), hereinafter referred to as Pietsch, Kim, and Yamaguchi, respectively.
Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein slurry supplied to the slurry supply holes is an operating agent [Pietsch, page 4, pp 0099 teaching that 34 supplies operating agents], and the polishing layers comprise silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers [Pietsch, page 9, pp’s 0146-0147, silica particles of 0.1 microns or 100 nm].
However, Pietsch as modified does not explicitly disclose the slurry supplied to the slurry supply holes comprises the silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers.
Yamaguchi teaches a wafer double-side polishing apparatus comprising:
an upper plate and a lower plate facing each other [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028, upper and lower plates];
a planetary gear system disposed in a central region between the upper and lower plates [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028]; and
at least one carrier disposed between the upper and lower plates [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0028, carrier],
wherein slurry comprises silica particles having a size of 40 to 100 nanometers is supplied to the double-sided polishing apparatus [Yamaguchi, page 3, pp’s 0033-0034 and 0041, particles ranging from 4 nm to 50 nm, which overlaps the claimed range].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the operating agent of Pietsch to include the polishing fluid (slurry) of Yamaguchi as a polishing agent because the configuration of the polishing fluid of Yamaguchi has the advantageous effect to reduce the wear of the carrier while still maintaining a good polishing rate for the wafers [Yamaguchi, page 2, pp 0031, summarized].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 20210407816) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Zhu (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN104108062), hereinafter referred to as Pietsch, Yamaguchi, and Zhu, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the polishing pads has a hardness of 83 to 93 HRC.
Zhu teaches a double-sided polishing apparatus [Zhu, pp 0007] comprising: a wafer carrier [Zhu, pp 0007] and at least one polishing pads [Zhu, pp 0007], wherein the polishing pad has a hardness of 83 to 93 HRC [Zhu, pp 0007 teaching the polishing pads have an HRC of greater than 65, which overlaps the claimed range].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pads of Pietsch to include the property of having a hardness be between 83 to 93 HRC as taught by Zhu because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the hardness property as taught by Zhu in the system of Pietsch, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the hardness property as taught by Zhu in the system of Pietsch because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being hardness property of the polishing pad to be greater than 65 HRC. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of having high precision [Zhu, pp 0007, summarized].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietsch et al (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) in view of Yamaguchi et al (US PGPUB No. 20210407816) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Staudhammer (US PGPUB No. 2014/0235143), hereinafter referred to as Pietsch, Yamaguchi, and Staudhammer, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Pietsch as modified further discloses the wafer double-side polishing apparatus according to claim 4 but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the polishing pads has a compressiveness of 0.7 to 3.1%.
Staudhammer teaches a double-sided polishing apparatus [Staudhammer, fig 1] comprising: a wafer carrier [Staudhammer, fig 1, 8], and polishing pads [Staudhammer, fig 1, 3 and 4 on top and bottom plates 1 and 2, respectively], wherein each of the polishing pads has a compressiveness of 0.7 to 3.1% [Staudhammer, page 3, pp 0027, at most 3%, which overlaps the claimed range].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polishing pads of Pietsch to include the property of having a compressiveness of 0.7 to 3.1% as taught by Staudhammer because per MPEP 2143(I)(A) the combination of old elements is held to be obvious over the prior art. Where in the instant case, to include the compressiveness property as taught by Staudhammer in the system of Pietsch, each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the compressiveness property of the polishing pads as taught by Staudhammer in the system of Pietsch because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being polishing pads of Pietsch having the compressiveness property. In the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination gave the predictable result of being able to continue to polish the wafers according to the apparatus of Pietsch using the polishing pad property of compressiveness of Staudhammer.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding claim 14, Pietsch (US PGPUB No. 2008/0014839) teaches a global backside ideal plane range (GBIR) measurement [Pietsch, page 8, pp 0155 that a desired TTV, which is a synonymous term for GBIR, needs to be achieved].
Miyazaki (US PGPUB No. 2020/0353585) teaches a GBIR measurement of a double-sided polisher.
However, neither Pietsch or Miyzaki teach the comparison of the GBIR value with a different ratio or value.
Therefore, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “comparing a B/A value with a global backside ideal plane range (GBIR)” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Claims 15-20 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada et al (US PGPUB No. 2009/0298387) teaches a wafer double-side polishing apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NEIBAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7979. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights