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
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 and 12/19/2025 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should provide support for claim 10, wherein the port has an open bore having a diameter of less than 10 mm. The specification should be amended to include this language. The language is not new matter as the claims are originally filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon teaches a method of controlling polishing (fig. 1), comprising:
mixing a carrier gas (fig. 1, carrier gas from line 104) and a slurry (slurry supplied from slurry supply tank 110 via line 112) to form a polishing mixture (via slurry mixing tank 130, fig. 1);
aerosolizing the polishing mixture onto a surface of a polishing pad (Kwon teaches the slurry mixture is discharged to the entire surface of the polishing pad 172 by a gas phase spray method through a plurality of nozzles (second paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation)); and
creating relative motion between the polishing pad and a substrate to polish the substrate (page 4 of the attached translation, third and fourth paragraphs).
Regarding claim 4, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kwon teaches wherein the polishing mixture is mixed immediately prior to dispensing the polishing mixture (fig. 1, the polishing mixture is mixed at mixing tank 130, and then output to the dispensing process. Therefore, the polishing mixture is interpreted as being mixed immediately prior to the dispensing process of the polishing mixture).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon, in view of Pham et al. (US Patent 6872128), hereinafter Pham.
Regarding claim 2, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kwon does not explicitly teach wherein the carrier gas is compressed dry air.
However, Pham teaches a method and apparatus for applying liquid to a CMP polishing pad, wherein the nozzle mixes a carrier gas 214 and a solution 212 (fig. 2b), wherein the carrier gas can compressed dry air (col. 5, lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Pham to provide wherein the carrier gas is compressed dry air. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the carrier gas of Kwon to be compressed dry air. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known carrier gas configuration for another known carrier gas configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing a carrier gas to mix with the slurry for dispensing onto the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 7, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kwon does not explicitly teach wherein mixing comprises mixing the carrier gas and the slurry while the carrier gas is at a pressure of less than 50 pounds per square inch.
However, Pham teaches a method and apparatus for applying liquid to a CMP polishing pad, wherein the nozzle mixes a carrier gas 214 and a solution 212 (fig. 2b), wherein the carrier gas is pressurized to be sufficient to atomize the liquid as the liquid is sprayed from the nozzle. The pressure of the pressurized carrier gas is within a range of 10-50 psi (col. 3, lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Pham to provide wherein mixing comprises mixing the carrier gas and the slurry while the carrier gas is at a pressure of less than 50 pounds per square inch. Specifically, it would have been obvious to pressurize the carrier gas to a pressure of less than 50 psi, and more specifically between 10-50 psi. Doing so would provide sufficient pressure so that the pressurized carrier gas can atomize the liquid as the liquid is sprayed from the nozzle (col. 3, lines 20-24 of Pham).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon, in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 20100048106), hereinafter Wang, and further in view of Pham et al. (US Patent 6872128), hereinafter Pham.
Regarding claim 3, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kwon does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface in a conic spray having an axis of symmetry at an angle with respect to a normal axis of an upper surface of the polishing pad.
However, Wang teaches a CMP apparatus having a movable slurry dispenser, wherein the slurry dispenser includes a nozzle 124a-e having a cross-section with a conical profile to output pressurized fluid in a conical spray pattern [0025]. That is, Wang teaches the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface in a conic spray having an axis of symmetry (The conical spray pattern [0025] is a conic spray having an axis of symmetry)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Wang to provide the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface in a conic spray having an axis of symmetry. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a spraying nozzle with a conical profile to output the pressurized fluid in a conical spray pattern. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known nozzle configuration for another known nozzle configuration to obtain the predictable results of spraying slurry onto the polishing pad. Additionally, doing so would promote increased and uniform coverage of the polishing pad.
Kwon, as modified, does not explicitly teach at an angle with respect to a normal axis of an upper surface of the polishing pad.
However, Pham teaches a method and apparatus for applying liquid to a CMP polishing pad, wherein the nozzle mixes a carrier gas 214 and a solution 212 (fig. 2b), wherein the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface at an angle with respect to a normal axis of an upper surface of the polishing surface (fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kwon, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Pham to provide wherein the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface in a conic spray having an axis of symmetry at an angle with respect to a normal axis of an upper surface of the polishing pad. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify Kwon, as modified, to provide wherein the conic nozzle sprays at an angle with respect to a normal of an upper surface of the polishing pad. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known spraying angle for another known spraying angle to obtain the predictable results of spraying slurry onto the polishing surface. Additionally, doing so would promote increased and uniform coverage of the polishing pad.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon, in view of Suen et al. (US PGPUB 20190099854).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kwon does not explicitly teach wherein the polishing mixture is dispensed at a flow rate that is less than 200 cubic centimeters per minute, wherein the polishing mixture is dispensed at a flow rate that is less than 80 cubic centimeters per minute.
However, Suen teaches a CMP apparatus and method wherein the slurry flow may be maintained at a rate between about 50 cc/min and about 450 cc/min.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Suen to provide wherein the slurry is dispensed at a rate between about 50 cc/min and about 450 cc/min. Doing so would provide a known rate to allow the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would prevent waste of the slurry.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow rate to be less than 80 cubic centimeters per minute as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 0005 of Applicant’s specification, indicating that the flow rate can be less than 200 cc/min) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon, in view of Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20210046602), hereinafter Wu.
Regarding claim 8, Kwon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kwon does not explicitly teach wherein the relative motion between the polishing pad and the substrate defines a trailing edge of the substrate and the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface behind the trailing edge.
However, Wu teaches a CMP apparatus and method, wherein the relative motion between the polishing pad and the substrate (fig. 3b, polishing pad 30 and substrate 10, wherein rotation of the pad 30 in direction A creates relative motion) defines a trailing edge of the substrate and the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface behind the trailing edge (fig. 3b, the relative motion defines a trailing edge of the substrate 10 and the polishing mixture is dispensed from slurry dispenser 39 onto the surface behind the trailing edge).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kwon to incorporate the teachings of Wu to provide wherein the relative motion between the polishing pad and the substrate defines a trailing edge of the substrate and the polishing mixture is dispensed onto the surface behind the trailing edge. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the nozzle of Kwon dispenses the polishing mixture onto the surface behind the trailing edge of the substrate which is defined with respect to the relative motion between the polishing pad and the substrate. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known dispenser configuration for another known dispenser configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing slurry to the polishing surface. Additionally, doing so would prevent the slurry from drying out before reaching the workpiece.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US PGPUB 20210046602), hereinafter Wu, in view of Kwon et al. (KR 20070077237), hereinafter Kwon.
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches a polishing system (fig. 3a-3b), comprising:
a platen (fig. 3a, platen 24) to support a polishing pad (pad 30);
PNG
media_image1.png
516
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a carrier head (70) to hold a substrate (10);
a motor to generate relative motion between the platen and the carrier head (motor 22, [0042]);
a port (fig. 3a, port at end of slurry dispenser 39, [0041]);
a slurry supply line in fluid communication with the port (fig. 3a, slurry supplied to mixing chamber 35).
Wu does not explicitly teach
a gas supply line in fluid communication with the slurry supply line, and configured to mix a carrier gas from the gas supply line and a polishing liquid from the slurry supply line to form a polishing mixture to be dispensed from the port.
However, Kwon teaches
mixing a carrier gas (fig. 1, carrier gas from line 104) and a slurry (slurry supplied from slurry supply tank 110 via line 112) to form a polishing mixture (via slurry mixing tank 130, fig. 1);
aerosolizing the polishing mixture onto a surface of a polishing pad (Kwon teaches the slurry mixture is discharged to the entire surface of the polishing pad 172 by a gas phase spray method through a plurality of nozzles (second paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation)); and
creating relative motion between the polishing pad and a substrate to polish the substrate (page 4 of the attached translation, third and fourth paragraphs).
Specifically, Kwon teaches
a gas supply line (fig. 1, carrier gas from line 104) in fluid communication with the slurry supply line (slurry supplied from slurry supply tank 110 via line 112), and configured to mix a carrier gas from the gas supply line and a polishing liquid from the slurry supply line to form a polishing mixture (via slurry mixing tank 130, fig. 1) to be dispensed from the port (Kwon teaches the slurry mixture is discharged to the entire surface of the polishing pad 172 by a gas phase spray method through a plurality of nozzles (second paragraph on page 5 of the attached translation)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Kwon to provide a gas supply line in fluid communication with the slurry supply line, and configured to mix a carrier gas from the gas supply line and a polishing liquid from the slurry supply line to form a polishing mixture to be dispensed from the port. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the gas supply line and slurry supply line of Kwon, wherein the mixing tank 130 of Kwon mixes the gas and the slurry to form a polishing mixture to be dispensed from the port of Wu onto the polishing surface of Wu. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known slurry delivery configuration for another known slurry delivery configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing slurry to the polishing surface. Additionally, doing so would continue to allow the device to function as intended and provide a polishing slurry to the polishing surface.
Regarding claim 10, Wu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Wu, as modified, teaches the slurry dispenser 39 includes a port (fig. 3a) having an open bore (fig. 3a of Wu).
As such, Wu, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a slurry dispenser having a port wherein the only difference between Wu, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Wu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the port has an open bore having a diameter of less than 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu, as modified, to include wherein the port has an open bore having a diameter of less than 10 mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wu, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed dimension since the port would continue to be capable of supplying slurry to the polishing surface. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, Wu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Wu, as modified, teaches the slurry dispenser 39 includes a port (fig. 3a) having an open bore (fig. 3a of Wu).
As such, Wu, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a slurry dispenser having a port wherein the only difference between Wu, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Wu, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the port has an open bore of 0.25 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wu, as modified, to include wherein the port has an open bore of 0.25 inches, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Wu, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed dimension since the port would continue to be capable of supplying slurry to the polishing surface. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Wu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Wu, as modified, teaches wherein the gas supply line is in fluid communication with the slurry supply line immediately prior to the port (fig. 1 of Kwon, wherein the teachings of Kwon were previously incorporated, the gas supply line and the slurry supply line are mixed at mixing tank 130, and then output to the port and dispensing process. Therefore, the gas supply line and the slurry supply line are in communication immediately prior to the dispensing process and port).
Regarding claim 13, Wu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Additionally, Wu, as modified, teaches comprising a slurry delivery arm (fig. 3b of Wu, slurry dispenser arm 39 [0041]) supporting the port (fig. 3a of Wu), the slurry supply line, and the gas supply line (the arm of Wu operationally supports the previously incorporated slurry supply line and the gas supply line).
Regarding claim 14, Wu, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Wu, as modified, teaches wherein the relative motion between the polishing pad and the substrate (fig. 3b of Wu, polishing pad 30 and substrate 10, wherein rotation of the pad 30 in direction A creates relative motion) defines a trailing edge of the substrate and the slurry delivery arm is arranged such that the port dispenses the polishing mixture onto a surface of the polishing pad behind the trailing edge (fig. 3b, the relative motion defines a trailing edge of the substrate 10 and the slurry delivery arm 39 is arranged such that the port dispenses the polishing mixture onto a surface of the polishing pad behind the trailing edge).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US PGPUB 20180009078) teaches a CMP apparatus with a cone jet mode for a nozzle [0064] similar to the claimed invention
Kajiwara et al. (US Patent 6887132) teaches a slurry distributor for CMP apparatus similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights