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 09/16/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
Note: Whenever the claims indicated inclusive (and) or alternative (or) limitations, only the alternative limitations were examined unless stated different in the rejection. Similarly, whenever the claims indicated optional limitations (e.g. “optionally"), the claim limitations were considered to be a preference and not a requirement unless stated different in the claim rejection.
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 1-4, 8, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0341204) in view of Dutschke et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0199964), hereinafter referred to as Sasaki and Dutschke, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Sasaki discloses a method for conditioning new polishing pads in a double-side polishing apparatus [Sasaki, page 1, pp’s 0014-0015], the method comprising:
mounting the new polishing pads on the first and second platens (on the first platen or the second platen, clm 12) [Sasaki, fig 2, 2a, new pads];
placing sacrificial wafers in the wafer carriers (placing one or more sacrificial wafers in the one or more wafer carriers, clm 12) [Sasaki, fig 2, 2c, and page 6, pp 0087 is a dummy wafer that is placed within the polishing apparatus];
contacting the sacrificial wafers (or a first batch of one or more sacrificial wafers) with the new polishing pads while supplying a first polishing fluid to the new polishing pads in a first polishing operation [Sasaki, page 6, pp’s 0086-0091, a first polishing fluid of colloidal silica polishing agent];
contacting the new polishing pads with a conditioning substrate [Sasaki, fig 2, 2b]; and
contacting sacrificial wafers with the new polishing pads while supplying a second polishing fluid to the new polishing pads in a second polishing operation [Sasaki, page 6, pp 0085, teaching that the dummy polishing is repeated, and using a second polishing fluid of colloidal silica polishing agent, that just happens to also be of a similar make up as the first solution, however each time, the old agent is rinsed away by water (page 3, pp’s 0049-0050, high-pressure jet water) and new polishing agent is supplied, where the claim does not differentiate of the composition of the polishing agents, where the polishing residues may be alternately repeated];
placing product wafers in the wafer carriers [Sasaki, page 5, pp 0078-0084] (clm 18); and
contacting the product wafers with the new polishing pads while supplying a third polishing fluid to the new polishing pads in a third polishing operation [Sasaki, page 5, pp 0078-0084, the third polishing agent is a colloidal silica polishing agent] (clm 18).
Sasaki may not explicitly disclose the double-side polishing apparatus having first and second platens and wafer carriers.
Dutschke teaches a method for conditioning polishing pads in a double-side polishing apparatus [Dutschke, fig 1, 4 conditions the upper polishing pad 12 and the lower polishing pad 11], the method comprising: contacting the new polishing pads with a conditioning substrate [Dutschke, page 4, pp 0056, 4 is used to condition 11 and 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first and second platens and one or more wafer carriers of Dutschke with the double-sided polishing apparatus of Sasaki 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 first and second platens and wafer carriers as taught by Dutschke in the system of Sasaki, 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 first and second platens and wafer carriers as taught by Dutschke in the system of Sasaki because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being first and second platens holding the wafer carriers in between in a double-sided polishing arrangement. 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 wafers would be held by the wafer carriers and would be polished on both sides by the first and second platens in the double-sided polishing arrangement.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 19, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claims 1, 12, and 18, respectively, wherein the conditioning substrate comprises diamonds [Sasaki, page 5, pp 0085, dresser has diamonds].
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claims 2 and 13, respectively, however Sasaki as modified does not explicitly disclose the conditioning substate is part of a conditioning substrate wheel, the conditioning substrate wheel being an annulus.
Dutschke further teaches the conditioning substrate comprises diamonds [Dutschke, page 4, pp 0057, 4 comprises 8 which comprises diamonds]; and wherein the conditioning substate is part of a conditioning substrate wheel [Dutschke, fig 2, 4 is a wheel], the conditioning substrate wheel being an annulus [Dutschke, fig 2, 4 is annular with a central void and 8 in an annular pattern around 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conditioning substrate of Sakaki as modified be an annulus wheel as taught by Dutschke because this gives a better dressing than just by rotation by having an additional movement of the dressing elements [Dutschke, page 3, pp 0037, summarized].
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claim 3 wherein: each conditioning substrate wheel comprises circumferential teeth for rotating the conditioning substrate wheel [Dutschke, fig 2, 4 comprises annular teeth], the wafer carriers and conditioning substrate wheels having the same diameter [Dutschke, page 4, pp 0055 teaching that 4 may be used instead of the carrier plates in the polishing process].
However, Sasaki as modified may not explicitly disclose wherein: each wafer carrier comprises circumferential teeth for rotating the wafer carrier during the first and second polishing operations.
Dutschke further teaches wherein: each wafer carrier comprises circumferential teeth for rotating the wafer carrier during the first and second polishing operations [Dutschke, page 1, pp 0012, teaching that the wafers are placed within externally toothed wafer carriers].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the externally toothed wafer carriers of Dutschke within the wafer carrier of Sasaki as modified 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 externally toothed wafer carriers as taught by Dutschke in the system of Sasaki as modified, 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 externally toothed wafer carriers as taught by Dutschke in the system of the wafer carrier of Sasaki as modified because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being the teeth to engage the planetary gear(s) of Sasaki as modified as used by the conditioning element(s). 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 both the wafer carriers and the conditioning elements using the same planetary gear drive system.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claims 1 and 12, respectively, wherein the same sacrificial wafers are used in the first polishing operation and the second polishing operation [Sasaki, page 5, pp 0085, teaching that while repeated, that “every 15 microns”, showing that the measurement was step-wise, which means that the wafers were not replaced between each polishing operation in order to achieve a step-wise measurement].
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claim 1 wherein the first and second polishing fluids have the same composition [Sasaki, page 6, pp 0085, teaching that the dummy polishing is repeated as well as the measurements taken five times, and using a second polishing fluid of colloidal silica polishing agent, which is the same composition as the first polishing fluid since the operation is repeated, where each time the old agent is rinsed away by water and new polishing agent is supplied].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0341204) in view of Dutschke et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0199964) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Koyama (US PGPUB No. 2011/0312254), hereinafter referred to as Sasaki, Dutschke, and Koyama, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claim 4 but may not explicitly disclose comprising; removing the wafer carriers from the polishing apparatus after the first polishing operation; and positioning one conditioning substrate wheel on the polishing apparatus for every wafer carrier removed from the polishing apparatus.
Koyama teaches a method for conditioning polishing pads in a double-side polishing apparatus having first and second platens and wafer carriers, the method comprising:
contacting the wafers with the polishing pads while supplying a first polishing fluid to the new polishing pads in a first polishing operation [Koyama, page 4, pp 0070, polishing];
contacting the new polishing pads with a conditioning substrate [Koyama, page 4, pp 0070, teaching conditioning after polishing];
removing the wafer carriers from the polishing apparatus after the first polishing operation [Koyama, page 4, p 0070, each carrier is removed for dressing]; and
positioning one conditioning substrate wheel on the polishing apparatus for every wafer carrier removed from the polishing apparatus [Koyama, page 4, pp 0070, teaching that each wafer carrier is replaced by a dresser].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the step of removing and replacing the wafer carriers with the dressers as taught by Koyama in the method of Sasaki as modified 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 replacement of each wafer carrier with each dresser as taught by Koyama in the system of Sasaki as modified, 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 replacement of each wafer carrier for each dresser as taught by Koyama in the system of Sasaki as modified because the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, the elements being replacement of each wafer carrier for each dresser, where the wafer carrier(s) and dresser(s) are already taught. 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 swapping out the wafer carriers so that the dressers can dress the polishing pad(s).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US PGPUB No. 2017/0341204) in view of Dutschke et al (US PGPUB No. 2016/0199964) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhang et al (US Patent No. 6,135,863), hereinafter referred to as Sasaki, Dutschke, and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Sasaki as modified further discloses the method as set forth in claim 1 but may not explicitly disclose wherein the polishing pads are made of polyurethane or polyurethane impregnated polyester felts.
Zhang teaches a method for conditioning new polishing pads in a double-side polishing apparatus having first and second platens and wafer carriers, the method comprising: mounting the new polishing pads on the first and second platens [Zhang, col 3, lines 27-39], wherein the polishing pads are made of polyurethane or polyurethane impregnated polyester felts [Zhang, col 4, lines 30-36].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included the polishing pads of Sasaki to be made of polyurethane or polyurethane impregnated polyester felts as taught by Zhang because these pad help retain the wafers after completion of each cycle run [Zhang, col 4, lines 30-36, summarized].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 15-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the brushing operation being prior to the second polishing operation” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim. Where there is no reason to brush as the pad as well when the prior art uses the dresser and a rinsing operation to remove the residue from the polishing pad(s).
Claim 7 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 6.
Claim 16 would be allowed as being dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious “the first brushing operation being prior to the first polishing operation” and “the second brushing operation being prior to the second polishing operation” together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and in the independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “In-Situ Diamond Disk Conditioning for Double-Sided Wafer Processing Via Chemical Mechanical Planarization” published by IP.com on 02/03/205 teaches a planetary gear system with both wafer carriers and conditioning disks within the planetary gear system. “Smart pad dressing for double-side polishing” by Kanzow et al, published October 15-17, 2012, which teaches in figure 3 a dressing carrier for a double-sided polishing machine where the abrasive is applied double-sided and only to outer diameter areas.
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