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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-20 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 1, the applicant uses the term, “diameter area” for a recess. The term used is unclear to the examiner. How is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? Is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the term, “diameter area”, to be recess area.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant uses the term, “diameter area” for a recess. The term used is unclear to the examiner. How is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? Is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the term, “diameter area”, to be recess area.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant describes the claim limitation “a top part of each of the peripheral recesses formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole is tilted…”. This limitation is unclear to the examiner and as a result is considered to be indefinite. Is the combination of the straight hole and U-shaped hole tilted, or is the U-shaped hole tilted? Is the U-Shaped hole now considered part of the top of the peripheral recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim as, the combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted. The examiner recommends modifying the limitation to, “each of the peripheral recesses, formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole, is tilted…”.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant describes the claim limitation “a top part of the annulus peripheral recess formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped recess is tilted…”. This limitation is unclear to the examiner and as a result is considered to be indefinite. Is the combination of the straight hole and U-shaped hole tilted, or is the U-shaped hole tilted? Is the U-Shaped hole now considered part of the top of the peripheral recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim as, the combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted. The examiner recommends modifying the limitation to, “each of the peripheral recesses, formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole, is tilted…”.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant uses the term, “diameter area” for a recess. The term used is unclear to the examiner. How is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? Is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the term, “diameter area”, to be recess area.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant uses the term, “diameter area” for a recess. The term used is unclear to the examiner. How is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? Is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the term, “diameter area”, to be recess area.
Regarding claim 15, the applicant uses the term, “diameter area” for a recess. The term used is unclear to the examiner. How is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? Is the diameter area different from the area of the recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the term, “diameter area”, to be recess area.
Regarding claim 18, the applicant describes the claim limitation “a top part of each of the peripheral recesses formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole is tilted…”. This limitation is unclear to the examiner and as a result is considered to be indefinite. Is the combination of the straight hole and U-shaped hole tilted, or is the U-shaped hole tilted? Is the U-Shaped hole now considered part of the top of the peripheral recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim as, the combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted. The examiner recommends modifying the limitation to, “each of the peripheral recesses, formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole, is tilted…”.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant describes the claim limitation “a top part of the annulus peripheral recess formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped recess is tilted…”. This limitation is unclear to the examiner and as a result is considered to be indefinite. Is the combination of the straight hole and U-shaped hole tilted, or is the U-shaped hole tilted? Is the U-Shaped hole now considered part of the top of the peripheral recess? For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim as, the combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted. The examiner recommends modifying the limitation to, “each of the peripheral recesses, formed by a combination of the straight and the U-shaped hole, is tilted…”.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, and 19, are similarly rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (US 20100330879 A1), in view of Doi et al., (WO 2006003697 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paik et al., teaches a polishing pad adapted for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Figure 3), and comprising: a central portion (See Annotated Figure 1) provided with a central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) and a peripheral portion (See Annotated Figure 1) surrounding the central portion with at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346), wherein the at least one peripheral recess is arranged along an annulus contour (Par. 0027 concentric circular grooves).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Central and Peripheral portion of Pad
Paik et al., fails to teach a lower part of the at least one peripheral recess is larger than an upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area, and different than the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in shape.
Doi et al., teaches grinding pad and method producing the same wherein a lower part (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) of the at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0131, recess due to spiral groove 16 and widened portion 110) is larger than the upper part (Par. 0068, due to spiral concave groove 16) of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area (See Annotated Figure 2; Note: All three lower parts have a larger diameter area than the upper part), and different than the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in shape (See Annotated Figure 2; Note: Widened portion are in the shapes of polygons, U’s and circles).
PNG
media_image2.png
800
1043
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Comparison of Upper and Lower Parts of Recess
Paik et al., and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Paik et al., with the teachings of Doi et al. Doing so would produce a peripheral recess in which the lower region is larger in diameter area and different in shape allowing for the liquid reservoir to allow more slurry in the groove (Par. 0131).
Regarding claim 2, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., teaches the polishing pad of claim 1.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein an upper part and a lower part of the central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) are substantially the same in shape and diameter area (See Annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
289
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: Central Recess Shape and Diameter Area
Regarding claim 3, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., teaches the polishing pad of claim 1.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein the diameter width of the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0029, grooves 346 have a width between 0.015 inches and 0.04 inches) is smaller than a diameter width of the central recess (Par. 0038, central recess 350 has a width of about 0.5 inches in some implementations and 1 inch in others), (See Annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
319
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4: Visual Comparison of Diameter Width
Regarding claim 6, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., teaches the polishing pad according to Claim 1.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises an annulus peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346), an upper part of the annulus peripheral recess is a straight recess extending continuously along the annulus contour (See Annotated Figure 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
319
725
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5: Straight Annulus Peripheral Recess
Paik et al., fails to teach a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is a U-shaped recess that continuously extends along the annulus contour and is connected to the straight recess at one end.
Doi et al., teaches a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is a U-shaped recess (Par. 0141) that continuously extends along the annulus contour and is connected to the straight recess at one end (See Annotated Figure 6).
PNG
media_image6.png
396
670
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6: Lower U-Shaped Portions of Annuus Contour
Paik et al., and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Paik et al., with the teachings of Doi et al. Doing so would produce a peripheral recess in which the lower region is larger in diameter area and different in shape allowing for the liquid reservoir to allow more slurry in the groove (Par. 0131). Also, to note that the widened portion is not limited to any shape in any way, but it can be formed with various shapes (Par. 0141).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (US 20100330879 A1), in view of Doi et al. (WO 2006003697 A1), and Yagi (US 20220410338 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., teaches the polishing pad of claim 1.
Paik further teaches the at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346).
Paik et al., fails to teach the plurality of peripheral recesses dispersedly arranged along the annulus contour, and an upper part of each of the peripheral recesses is a straight hole, and a lower part of each of the peripheral recesses is a U-shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole.
Yagi teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with polishing pad including debris discharge tunnels (Figure 6A) and methods of operation the same wherein there are a plurality of peripheral recesses (Par. 056, perforation holes 13) dispersedly arranged along the annulus contour (Par. 0057, radial pattern), on the polishing pad (Figure 6C, 112).
Paik et al., and Yagi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., with the teachings of Yagi. Doing so would provide vertical paths for the movement of debris on the polishing pad layer (Par. 0052).
Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., and Yagi fail to teach an upper part of each of the peripheral recesses is a straight hole, and a lower part of each of the peripheral recesses is a U-shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole.
Doi et al., teaches grinding pad and method producing the same wherein a lower part (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) of the at least one peripheral recess (recess due to spiral groove 16 and widened portion 110) is a U-Shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole. (See Annotated Figure 7)
PNG
media_image7.png
261
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7: Peripheral Recess
Paik et al., and Doi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., and Yagi, with the further teachings of Doi. Doing so would provide a liquid reservoir for more liquid (Par. 0131).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (US 20100330879 A1), in view of Doi et al. (WO 2006003697 A1), Yagi (US 20220410338 A1), and Chiu et al., (20100056031 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., and Yagi teaches the polishing pad according to claim 4.
Paik, as modified further teaches wherein the central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) extends into the polishing pad along the vertical direction (See Annotated Figure 3), and the peripheral recess (consisting of the combination of the straight hole, and the U-shaped hole.
Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al, fails to teach wherein a top part of each of the peripheral recesses formed by a combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad.
Chiu et al., teaches an embodiment of groove of a polishing pad (Par. 0023, polishing pad 20), wherein the groove (combination of groove opening 221 and grove bottom 222) is bent (See Annotated Figure 8) to form an angle A1 between 90 and 120 degrees (Par. 0023).
PNG
media_image8.png
316
436
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8: Tilted Groove
Paik et al., and Chiu et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral recesses of a polishing pad to be tilted as in Chiu et al., in the system executing the method of Paik et al. As in Chiu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification as in Paik’s invention with the predictable result of a tilted combination of recesses as needed in Paik et al.
Regarding claim 7, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., teaches the polishing pad according to claim 6.
Paik, as modified further teaches wherein the central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) extends into the polishing pad along the vertical direction (See Annotated Figure 3), and the annulus peripheral recess, formed by the combination of the straight recess and the U-shaped recess (Doi et al.,).
Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al, fails to teach wherein a top part of each of the peripheral recesses formed by a combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad.
Chiu et al., teaches an embodiment of groove of a polishing pad (Par. 0023, polishing pad 20), wherein the groove (combination of groove opening 221 and grove bottom 222) is bent (See Annotated Figure 8) to form an angle A1 between 90 and 120 degrees (Par. 0023).
Paik et al., and Chiu et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral recesses of a polishing pad to be tilted as in Chiu et al., in the system executing the method of Paik et al. As in Chiu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification as in Paik’s invention with the predictable result of a tilted combination of recesses as needed in Paik et al.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (US 20100330879 A1), in view of Doi et al. (WO 2006003697 A1), Berman et al., (US 5882251 A), and Yagi (US 20220410338 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Paik et al., and Doi et al., teach the polishing pad according to claim 1.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises an annulus peripheral recess.
Paik et al., fail to teach wherein an upper part of the annulus peripheral recess is a double annulus recess extending continuously along the annulus contour, and a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess comprises a plurality of holes spaced apart along the annulus contour, and the plurality of holes overlap and are connected to the double annulus recesses respectively.
Berman et al., teaches a chemical mechanical polishing pad with slurry distribution grooves wherein an alternative groove shape for the CMP pad is a complex “multi-leg shape (Figure 4E, legs 452 and 454) resulting from the method by which it is cut.
Paik et al., and Berman et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Paik, as modified by Doi et al., with the teachings of Berman et al. This would allow for a double annular recess to become the upper portion in the annular recess for slurry distribution (Par., 0012 and 0014)
Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., and Berman et al., fails to teach a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess comprises a plurality of holes spaced apart along the annulus contour, and the plurality of holes overlap and are connected to the double annulus recesses respectively.
Yagi teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with polishing pad including debris discharge tunnels and method of operation the same wherein grooves (Par. 0057, 17’) are formed such that each of the perforation holes is connected to a respective one of the grooves. Grooves can be arranged in a radial pattern.
Paik et al., and Yagi., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Paik, as modified by Doi et al., with the teachings of Yagi. This would allow for the upper peripheral recess to be connected to a respective one of the grooves for both vertical and horizontal movement of debris (Par. 0052, and 0057)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paik et al. (US 20100330879 A1), in view of Doi et al. (WO 2006003697 A1), and Berman et al., (US 5882251 A).
Regarding claim 9, Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al teaches the polishing pad according to claim 1.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises an upper and lower annulus peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346).
Paik et al., fails to teach an upper part of the annulus peripheral recess is a double annulus recess extending continuously along the annulus contour, a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is an annulus recess that extends continuously along the annulus contour, and the annulus recesses overlap and are connected to the double annulus recess.
Berman et al., teaches a chemical mechanical polishing pad with slurry distribution grooves wherein an alternative groove shape for the CMP pad is a complex “multi-leg shape (Figure 4E, legs 452 and 454) resulting from the method by which it is cut.
Paik et al., and Berman et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Paik, as modified by Doi et al., with the teachings of Berman et al. This would allow for a double annular recess to become the upper portion in the annular recess for slurry distribution (Par., 0012 and 0014)
Paik et al., as modified by Doi et al., and Berman et al., fails to teach a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is an annulus recess that extends continuously along the annulus contour, and the annulus recesses overlap and are connected to the double annulus recess.
Doi et al., teaches a variety of lower peripheral recesses that extend continuously, connecting to the upper recess (See Annotated Figure 2).
Paik et al., and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Paik, as modified by Doi et al., and Berman et al., with the further teachings of Doi et al. Doing so would allow for the liquid reservoir to allow more slurry in the groove (Par. 0131) due to the large lower peripheral recess.
Claim(s) 10 – 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (US 2020/0353588 A1), in view of Paik et al., (US 20100330879 A1), and Doi et al., (WO 2006003697 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lefevre teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Figure 1), comprising: a carrier (Par. 0024, platen 104); a polishing pad (Par. 0024, CMP Pad 102) placed on the carrier; a wafer suction chuck (Par. 0024, head 108 of rotatable chuck, wafer may be attaches using vacuum or reversible adhesive) configured to attach and control a wafer (Par. 0024, wafer 106) so that the wafer contacts the polishing pad from above; and a polishing liquid supply device (See Annotated Figure 9) configured to provide a polishing liquid (Par. 0027, Slurry 110) to a surface of the polishing pad from above.
PNG
media_image9.png
358
444
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9: Polishing Liquid Supply
Lefevre fails to teach a central portion and a peripheral portion surrounding the central portion, wherein the central portion is provided with a central recess, the peripheral portion is provided with at least one peripheral recess, and the at least one peripheral recess is arranged along an annulus contour, a lower part of the at least one peripheral recess is larger than an upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area and capacity, and is different from the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in shape.
Paik et al., teaches a polishing pad adapted for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Figure 3), and comprising: a central portion (See Annotated Figure 1) provided with a central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) and a peripheral portion (See Annotated Figure 1) surrounding the central portion with at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346), wherein the at least one peripheral recess is arranged along an annulus contour (Par. 0027 concentric circular grooves).
Lefevre et al., and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Lefevre, with the pad teachings of Paik et al., in order to disallow leakage from the CMP machine through the pad and into the platen (Par. 0019).
Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., fails to teach a lower part of the at least one peripheral recess is larger than an upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area, and different than the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in shape.
Doi et al., teaches grinding pad and method producing the same wherein a lower part (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) of the at least one peripheral recess (recess due to spiral groove 16 and widened portion 110) is larger than the upper part (Par. 0068, due to spiral concave groove 16) of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area (See Annotated Figure 2; Note: All three lower parts have a larger diameter area than the upper part), and different than the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess in shape (See Annotated Figure 2; Note: Widened portion are in the shapes of polygons, U’s and circles).
Lefevre et al., and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Paik et al., with the teachings of Doi et al. Doing so would produce a peripheral recess in which the lower region is larger in diameter area and different in shape allowing for the liquid reservoir to allow more slurry in the groove (Par. 0131).
Regarding claim 11, Lefevere et al., as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to claim 10.
Lefevre et al., further teaches a polishing pad conditioning device (Par. 0028, conditioner 112), which contacts the polishing pad from above (Par. 0028, “generally contacts the surface of the polishing pad 102, and removes a portion of the top layer of the polishing pad 102”), configured to remove a polishing residue, and condition a surface of the polishing pad through the rotating disc (See rotation arrows of 112 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Lefevere et al., as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 10.
Lefevre fails to teach wherein the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess is removed and the lower part thereof is exposed at a later stage of a service life of the polishing pad.
Paik et al., teaches wherein each polishing cycle results in the wear of the polishing pad. The polishing layer thins out and as a result the depth of the peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346) will decrease.
Lefevre et al. and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have simply substituted the polishing pad in the apparatus of Lefevre et al., for the polishing pad with the peripheral recess of Paik et al., so that as the polishing pad is worn down during the processing of the substrate, the width of the groove with substantially perpendicular sidewalls do not change as the polishing layer is worn down. This ensures polishing pad has a substantially uniform surface area over its operating lifetime (Par. 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 13, Lefevere et al., as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 10,
Lefevre et al., fails to teach wherein a recess opening area of the peripheral portion of the polishing pad at a later stage of the service life is greater than a recess opening area of the peripheral portion of the polishing pad at an early stage of the service life.
Paik et al., teaches the recess opening area of the peripheral portion of the polishing pad at the beginning and end stages of service life.
Lefevre et al. and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have simply substituted the polishing pad in the apparatus of Lefevre et al., for the polishing pad with the peripheral recess opening area of Paik et al., so that the polishing pad’s surface area over would be considered over its operating lifetime (Par. 0027-0028).
However, Lefevre et al., as modified Paik et al. and Doi et al., fail to teach wherein a recess opening area of the peripheral portion of the polishing pad at a later stage of the service life is greater than a recess opening area of the peripheral portion of the polishing pad at an early stage of the service life.
Doi et al., teaches grinding pad and method producing the same wherein a lower part (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) of the at least one peripheral recess (recess due to spiral groove 16 and widened portion 110) is larger than the upper part (Par. 0068, due to spiral concave groove 16) of the at least one peripheral recess in diameter area (See Annotated Figure 2; Note: All three lower parts have a larger diameter area than the upper part).
Lefevre et al. and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Doi et al., to the modified Lefevre would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Doi et al., to the teaching of modified Lefevre would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such lower, widened portion of the peripheral recess of the polishing pad. Further, applying lower, widened portion of the peripheral recess to the modified Lefevre, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more slurry to be held in the spiral groove (Par. 0043) and reveal a recess with a greater opening area at the latter portion of service life.
Regarding claim 14, The chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 10, wherein the central portion of the polishing pad maintains substantially a same diameter area in an early stage and a later stage of the service life of the polishing pad
Lefevre et al., fails to teach wherein the central portion of the polishing pad maintains substantially a same diameter area in an early stage and a later stage of the service life of the polishing pad.
Paik et al., teaches wherein the central portion (See Annotated Figure 1) of the polishing pad maintains substantially a same diameter area in an early stage and a later stage of the service life of the polishing pad (Note: Due to the central recess being the same over its operating lifetime, Par. 0032).
Lefevre et al. and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have simply substituted the polishing pad in the apparatus of Lefevre et al., for the polishing pad of Paik et al. so that as the polishing pad is worn down during the processing of the substrate, the sidewalls would remain perpendicular to the polishing surface to ensure that the polishing pad has a substantially uniform surface area over its operating lifetime (Par. 0032).
Regarding claim 15, Lefevre et al., as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 10,
Lefevre et al., fails to teach wherein an upper part and a lower part of the central recess are substantially the same in shape and diameter area.
Paik et al., teaches wherein an upper part and a lower part of the central recess (Par. 0030, recess 350) are substantially the same in shape and diameter area (See Annotated Figure 3).
Lefevre et al. and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have simply substituted the polishing pad in the apparatus of Lefevre et al., for the polishing pad of Paik et al. so that as the polishing pad is worn down during the processing of the substrate, the sidewalls would remain perpendicular to the polishing surface to ensure that the polishing pad has a substantially uniform surface area over its operating lifetime (Par. 0032).
Regarding claim 16, Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., and Do et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 10.
Lefevre fails to teach wherein a diameter width of an upper part of the at least one peripheral recess is equal to or smaller than a diameter width of the central recess.
Paik et al., further teaches wherein the diameter width of the upper part of the at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0029, grooves 346 have a width between 0.015 inches p 0.04 inches) is smaller than a diameter width of the central recess (Par. 0038, central recess 350 has a width of about 0.5 inches in some implementations and 1 inch in others), (See Annotated Figure 4).
Lefevre et al. and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., with the further teachings of Paik et al., to create a polishing pad wherein the peripheral recess is smaller than the central recess. This is because the recesses serve different functions, the central recess has a window secured in it (Abstract) and the peripheral recesses prevent leakage (Par. 0019)
Regarding claim 19, Lefevere as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teach the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to claim 10.
Lefevre fails to teach wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises an annulus peripheral recess, an upper part of the annulus peripheral recess is a straight recess extending continuously along the annulus contour, and a lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is a U-shaped recess that continuously extends along the annulus contour and is connected to the straight recess at one end.
Paik et al., teaches a polishing pad adapted for a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus (Figure 3), wherein a peripheral portion (See Annotated Figure 1) surrounding the central portion with at least one peripheral recess (Par. 0027, plurality of circular concentric grooves 346), wherein the at least one peripheral recess is arranged along an annulus contour (Par. 0027 concentric circular grooves).
Lefevre et al., and Paik et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have modified the device of Lefevre, with the pad teachings of Paik et al., in order to disallow leakage from the CMP machine through the pad and into the platen (Par. 0019).
Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al, fails to teach lower part of the annulus peripheral recess is a U-shaped recess that continuously extends along the annulus contour and is connected to the straight recess at one end.
Doi et al., teaches wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises a peripheral recess, an upper part of the peripheral recess is a straight recess (See Annotated Figure 7) extending continuously along the annulus contour, and a lower part of the peripheral recess is a U-shaped recess (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) that continuously extends along the annulus contour and is connected to the straight recess at one end (See Annotated Figure 7).
Lefevre et al. and Doi et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Lafavre, as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., with the further teaching of Doi et al., in order to produce a polishing pad that has a peripheral recess with a liquid reservoir so that more slurry can flow in the groove (Par. 0131)
Regarding claim 20, Lefevre et al., as modified by Paik et al., and Doi et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 19,
Lefevre fails to teach wherein a top part of the annulus peripheral recess formed by a combination of the straight recess and the U-shaped recess is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad, and the central recess extends into the polishing pad along the vertical direction.
Paik et al., teaches the annular peripheral recess which is a straight recess, and the central recess extends into the polishing pad along the vertical direction.
Paik et al., fails to teach wherein a top part of the annulus peripheral recess formed by a combination of the straight recess and the U-shaped recess is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad.
Doi et al., teaches a peripheral recess wherein the top part is a straight recess and the bottom part is a U-Shaped recess.
Doi et al., fails to teach that the recess is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad.
Chiu et al., teaches an embodiment of groove of a polishing pad (Par. 0023, polishing pad 20), wherein the groove (combination of groove opening 221 and grove bottom 222) is bent (See Annotated Figure 8) to form an angle A1 between 90 and 120 degrees (Par. 0023).
Paik et al., and Chiu et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral recesses of a polishing pad to be tilted as in Chiu et al., in the system executing the method of Paik et al. As in Chiu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification as in Paik’s invention with the predictable result of a tilted combination of recesses as needed in Paik et al.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (US 2020/0353588 A1), in view of Paik et al., (US 20100330879 A1), Doi et al., (WO 2006003697 A1), and Yagi (US 20220410338 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., and Do et al., teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to claim 10.
Lefevre fails to teach wherein the at least one peripheral recess comprises a plurality of peripheral recesses dispersedly arranged along the annulus contour, and an upper part of each of the peripheral recesses is a straight hole, and a lower part of each of the peripheral recesses is a U-shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole.
Yagi teaches a chemical mechanical polishing apparatus with polishing pad including debris discharge tunnels and methods of operation the same wherein there are a plurality of peripheral recesses (Par. 056, perforation holes 13) dispersedly arranged along the annulus contour (Par. 0057, radial pattern), of polishing pad (112).
Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., Doi et al., and Yagi fails to teach and an upper part of each of the peripheral recesses is a straight hole, and a lower part of each of the peripheral recesses is a U-shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole.
Doi et al., teaches grinding pad and method producing the same wherein a lower part (Par. 0131, widened portion 110) of the at least one peripheral recess (recess due to spiral groove 16 and widened portion 110) is a U-Shaped hole with one end connected to the straight hole. (See Annotated Figure 7)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lefevre et al. (US 2020/0353588 A1), in view of Paik et al., (US 20100330879 A1), Doi et al., (WO 2006003697 A1), Yagi (US 20220410338 A1), and Chiu (20100056031 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Lefevre, as modified by Paik et al., Doi et al., and Yagi teaches the chemical mechanical polishing apparatus according to Claim 17. Further teaches the central recess extends into the polishing pad along the vertical direction.
Lefevre fails to teach wherein a top part of each of the peripheral recesses formed by a combination of the straight hole and the U-shaped hole is tilted from a vertical direction toward a central axis of the polishing pad.
Chiu et al., teaches an embodiment of groove of a polishing pad (Par. 0023, polishing pad 20), wherein the groove (combination of groove opening 221 and grove bottom 222) is bent (See Annotated Figure 8) to form an angle A1 between 90 and 120 degrees (Par. 0023).
Paik et al., and Chiu et al., are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor of lapping plates for working surfaces characterized by the shape of the lapping pad surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to modify the peripheral recesses of a polishing pad to be tilted as in Chiu et al., in the system executing the method of Paik et al. As in Chiu et al., it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification as in Paik’s invention with the predictable result of a tilted combination of recesses as needed in Paik et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al., (US 2018/0161953 A1) teaches a polishing pad and method of using.
Cook (US 2017/0274496 A1) teaches a debris-removal groove for CMP Polishing Pad.
Hsu (US 2019/0070706 A1) teaches a Wafer Polishing Pad and Using Method thereof.
Lefevre et al., (US 2012/0073210 A1) teaches a Method of Grooving a Chemical Mechanical Planarization Pad
Tenko (US 2021/0347007 A1) teaches a Polishing Pad and Polishing Method using Same.
Yun (US 11534888 B2) teaches a Polishing Pad with Improved Fluidity of Slurry and Process for Preparing Same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 5712724475. 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
9/30/2026
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights