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 08/28/2024. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A) the terms “first groove” in claims 5 and 6 should read as “first grooves”.
B) the terms “second groove” in claims 5 and 6 should read as “second grooves”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the second grooves comprise at least one of (i) to (iii) below:” is indefinite because there are three alternatives to choose from open list. Per MPEP 2173.05(h) it is held that “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim”. Where in the instant case, claim 7 recites “comprise” meaning that the list is an open list and not closed. For purposes of examination the Office will interpret the limitation to read as “The polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the second grooves consisting of at least one of (i) to (iii) below:”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bresson (US PGPUB No. 2020/0246937), hereinafter referred to as Bresson.
Regarding claim 1, Bresson discloses a polishing pad [Bresson, fig 3, 314], which comprises a polishing layer having a polishing surface [Bresson, page 1, pp’s 0003-0004, where the polishing pad has a polishing layer and a top surface of the pad, in the instant case, the top surface of 314], wherein the polishing layer comprises a plurality of first grooves having a circular shape and sharing the center of the polishing surface [Bresson, fig 3, showing at least two concentric circular grooves of 345]; and
a plurality of second grooves [Bresson, fig 3, showing radial grooves of 345] formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 10% to 90% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03].
The Office notes that the limitation(s) “when the silicon oxide layer of a silicon wafer is polished using a ceria slurry on the polishing surface, and when the polishing rate is measured at 30 or more random locations, the within-wafer non-uniformity (WIWNU) calculated by the following equation is 15% or less: WIWNU% = (RR_stdev / RR_avg) × 100, wherein RR_stdev is the standard deviation of the polishing rate (Å/minute) measurements, and RR_avg is the average of the polishing rate (Å/ minute) measurements” is/are conditional limitation(s) because the term “when” indicates that the limitation(s) may not need to be performed or that there are configurations that do not require the limitation(s) not affect by the “when”, therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the limitation is not required to be shown by the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Bresson further discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the second grooves comprise at least one of (i) to (iii) below [Bresson, fig 3, the radial grooves of 345 satisfy each of the following conditions]:
(i) a plurality of second-A grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 10% to 39% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03],
(ii) a plurality of second-B grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 40% to 59% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03], and
(iii) a plurality of second-C grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 60% to 90% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03].
Regarding claim 10, Bresson further discloses a process for preparing a semiconductor device, which comprises polishing the surface of a semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad of claim 1 [Bresson, pages 15-16, claim 24].
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 1-3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresson (US PGPUB No. 2020/0246937) in view of Barton et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0226958), hereinafter referred to as Bresson and Barton, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, in order to promote compact prosecution and assuming arguendo of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the Office sets forth the following rejection under 35 USC 103 in order to address the limitation(s), even though the limitation(s) may not be expressly required.
Bresson discloses a polishing pad [Bresson, fig 3, 314], which comprises a polishing layer having a polishing surface [Bresson, page 1, pp’s 0003-0004, where the polishing pad has a polishing layer and a top surface of the pad, in the instant case, the top surface of 314], wherein the polishing layer comprises a plurality of first grooves having a circular shape and sharing the center of the polishing surface [Bresson, fig 3, showing at least two concentric circular grooves of 345]; and
a plurality of second grooves [Bresson, fig 3, showing radial grooves of 345] formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 10% to 90% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03], and
when the silicon oxide layer of a silicon wafer is polished using a ceria slurry on the polishing surface [Bresson, page 11, pp 0101 and page 4, pp 0037, teaches the use of ceria fluid medium 126 used within the polishing on 314]; and further measuring the removal rate in angstroms/min [Bresson, page 10, pp 0094].
Bresson does not explicitly disclose when the polishing rate is measured at 30 or more random locations, the within-wafer non-uniformity (WIWNU) calculated by the following equation is 15% or less:
WIWNU% = (RR_stdev / RR_avg) × 100
wherein RR_stdev is the standard deviation of the polishing rate (Å/minute) measurements, and RR_avg is the average of the polishing rate (Å/ minute) measurements.
Barton et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0226958) teaches a polishing pad [Barton, page 10, example 16], which comprises a polishing layer having a polishing surface [Barton, page 1, pp 0006], wherein the polishing layer comprises a plurality of first grooves having a circular shape and a plurality of second grooves formed radially [Barton, page 10, pp 0108, comprising a plurality of radial and concentric circular grooves], and
when a polishing rate is measured at 30 or more random locations [Barton, page 10, pp 0110, 49 point scan], the within-wafer non-uniformity (WIWNU) calculated by the following equation is 15% or less [Barton, page 10, table 1, %NUR is less than 15% for all configurations]:
WIWNU% = (RR_stdev / RR_avg) × 100 [Barton, page 10, pp 0110, %NUR was calculated by % standard deviation of the removal rates],
wherein RR_stdev is the standard deviation of the polishing rate (Å/minute) measurements [Barton, page 10, pp 0110, %NUR was calculated by % standard deviation of the removal rates], and RR_avg is the average of the polishing rate (Å/ minute) measurements [Barton, page 10, pp 0110, %NUR was calculated by % standard deviation of the removal rates and table 1, column for removal rates of angstroms/min].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the composition of the material of the polishing pad of Bresson in accordance with the polishing pad composition as taught by Barton and further to measure the properties of the polishing pad of Bresson as modified according to the table 1 of Barton because the composition of materials of the polishing pad influence the removal rates and non-uniformity, such that the composition of the materials (and hence properties) improves performance of the polishing of the wafer [Barton, page 11, pp 0111, summarized].
Regarding claim 2, Bresson as modified further discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the WIWNU is 1% to 8%, and the RR_avg is 2,500 Å/minute to 4,000 Å/minute [Barton, page 10, table 1, “16-pad” meet the requirements” which corresponds to the embodiment in pp’s 0108-0110].
Regarding claim 3, Bresson as modified further discloses the polishing pad according to claim 2, however Bresson may not explicitly disclose wherein the RR_avg is 3,200 Å/minute to 3,400 Å/minute as required by the claim.
Bresson as modified discloses that the removal rate average (RR_avg) needs to be optimized to “improve planarization efficiency” [Barton, page 11, pp 0111] without an “undesirable increase in defectivity and hardness (of the polishing pad)” [Barton, page 1, pp 0005]. As shown in table 1, the removal rate average changes with the composition of the materials of the polishing pad [Barton, table 1, showing the comparison of the column of “1-pad” through “16-pad” rows to the column for removal rates of angstroms/min] and as such the removal rate average is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the material composition of the polishing pad changes the average removal rates which affects the planarization efficiency. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bresson as modified to have a removal rate average within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Bresson as modified by making the removal rate average be between 3,200 and 3,400 angstroms / minute 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.” (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Regarding claim 7, Bresson as modified further discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, wherein the second grooves comprise at least one of (i) to (iii) below [Bresson, fig 3, the radial grooves of 345 satisfy each of the following conditions]:
(i) a plurality of second-A grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 10% to 39% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03],
(ii) a plurality of second-B grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 40% to 59% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03], and
(iii) a plurality of second-C grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 60% to 90% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Bresson, fig 3, showing that the radial grooves of 345 overlap the claimed range as approaching 100% of the radial range, see MPEP 2131.03].
Regarding claim 10, Bresson as modified further discloses a process for preparing a semiconductor device, which comprises polishing the surface of a semiconductor substrate using the polishing pad of claim 1 [Bresson, pages 15-16, claim 24].
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresson (US PGPUB No. 2020/0246937) in view of Barton et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0226958) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yun et al (US Patent No. 11,534,888), hereinafter referred to as Bresson, Barton, and Yun, respectively.
Regarding claims 4-6, Bresson as modified further discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, and the second grooves in a total of 2 to 50 [Bresson, fig 3, showing at least two and less than 50 radial grooves of 345, which overlaps the claimed invention].
Bresson as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing layer comprises the first grooves in a total of 50 to 150 (clm 4); wherein the width of the first groove is 0.1 mm to 1 mm, and the width of the second groove is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (clm 5); and wherein the depth of the first groove is 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm, and the depth of the second groove is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm (clm 6).
Yun teaches a polishing pad [Yun, fig 1, 100], which comprises a polishing layer having a polishing surface [Yun, fig 1, top surface of 100], wherein the polishing layer comprises a plurality of first grooves having a circular shape and sharing the center of the polishing surface [Yun, fig 1, 110]; and a plurality of second grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center by 10% to 90% of the radius of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Yun, fig 1, 120, where the radial distance of 120 overlaps the claimed range such that 120 is within 95% of the radial distance of 100], wherein the polishing layer comprises the first grooves in a total of 50 to 150 [Yun, fig 1, there are eight 110 grooves per section, and eight sections, giving 64 first grooves, which overlaps the claimed range] and the second grooves in a total of 2 to 50 [Yun, fig 1, showing 8 sections divided by 120, such that there are eight 120 grooves, which overlaps the claimed range] (clm 4); wherein the width of the first groove is 0.1 mm to 1 mm [Yun, col 4, lines 5-7 and 21-23, which overlap the claimed range], and the width of the second groove is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm [Yun, col 4, lines 11-13 and 21-23, which overlaps the claimed range]; and wherein the depth of the first groove is 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm [Yun, col 4, lines 7-10 and 18-20, which overlaps the claimed range], and the depth of the second groove is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm [Yun, col 4, lines 13-20, 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 further modified the polishing pad of Bresson as modified to include more grooves and the dimensions of the width and depths of the groves as taught by Yun because with this enhances the fluidity of the slurry, whereby the discharge of debris generated in the polishing process can be more efficiently performed [Yun, col 4, lines 35-40, summarized].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bresson (US PGPUB No. 2020/0246937) in view of Barton et al (US PGPUB No. 2022/0226958) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kojima et al (US Patent No. 11,612,979), hereinafter referred to as Bresson, Barton, and Kojima, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Bresson as modified discloses the polishing pad of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprises a plurality of third grooves formed radially from the center of the polishing surface to the outer periphery,
Kojima teaches a polishing pad [Kojima, fig 8, 90], which comprises a polishing layer having a polishing surface [Kojima, fig 8, 92 which polishes on the top surface of 92], wherein the polishing layer comprises a plurality of first grooves having a circular shape and sharing the center of the polishing surface [Kojima, fig 8, 92e showing a plurality of concentric circular grooves]; and a plurality of second grooves formed radially from a position distanced from the center [Kojima, fig 8, 92d]; which further comprises a plurality of third grooves formed radially from the center of the polishing surface to the outer periphery [Kojima, fig 8, 92f].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bresson as modified to include the plurality of third grooves, between the concentric circles and shorter than that of the second grooves as taught by Kojima because having this configuration helps keep the polishing fluid within the polishing pad thus reducing the amount of polishing fluid required [Kojima, col 11, lines 42-59, summarized].
Regarding claim 9, Bresson as modified discloses the polishing pad of claim 8, wherein the polishing layer comprises the first grooves in a total of 16 [Bresson, fig 3, totaling the concentric circle segments of 345 to be two per section and eight sections, giving a total of 16 first grooves], the second grooves in a total of 4 to 50 [Bresson, fig 3, the radial segments of 345 total three per section and eight sections giving a total of 24 second grooves, which overlaps the claimed range], and the third grooves in a total of 4 to 50 [Kojima, fig 3, 92f and col 11, lines 18-27, teaching that the number of grooves 92e are not limited, such that there are about 24 92f grooves between each concentric groove 92e, seeing as the grooves 92e, there are in total at least between 8 and 32 grooves which overlaps the claimed range, accounting for the first ring and then subsequent rings after that].
However, Bresson as modified may not explicitly disclose the polishing layer comprises the first grooves in a total of 50 to 150.
Bresson discloses the number of first segments, which affects the number of groove segments per section, needs to be optimized to “reduce the skew angle between asperities” where having a uniform skew angle facilitates uniform material removal from the wafer [Bresson, page 6, pp 0052-0054, summarized]. As shown in fig 3, the number of segments, and hence the number of first grooves, is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the number of segments affects the uniformity of the skew angle between pad asperities which affects the material removal from the wafer. Further it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Bresson as modified polishing pad to have the number of first grooves by having the number of sections, be within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the polishing pad of Bresson as modified by making the number of sections, and hence the number of second grooves, be between 50 to 150 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.” (see MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.02-716.02(g)).
Conclusion
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