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
In response to the amendment filed on 07/29/2026, claims 1 and 3 have been amended, and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3 are pending and under examination.
Specification
In response to the specification objection made in the previous non-final office action dated on 04/30/2026, Applicant has amended specification not to incorporate the PCT application. Therefore, the specification objection has been withdrawn.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP 2013219133A, cited on 12/16/2024 IDS), in view of Benassi (US 2007/0235133) and Basol (US 2005/0150777).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a method of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) of a substrate, comprising the steps of:
polishing the substrate using a processing solution (Sato English translation, p. 2:12-19, a wafer polishing method comprises polishing a wafer while slurry [corresponds to the recited processing solution] is supplied),
changing temperature of the processing solution during the polishing of the substrate (Sato English translation, p. 9:12-17, changing the slurry supply temperature during polishing in order to control a polishing rate of an outer periphery of the wafer), but does not disclose measuring thickness of a layer to be polished of the substrate.
Benassi teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, measuring thickness of a layer to be polished of the substrate (¶ 0056-59, the apparatus of Benassi measures thickness of the wafer layer to be removed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of Sato to provide the step of measuring layer thickness as taught by Benassi so that polishing process including a polishing rate can be modified in response to a change in the layer thickness (Benassi ¶ 0065).
Sato as modified by Benassi teaches based on the measured thickness of the layer to be polished of the substrate, the temperature of the processing solution is changed (Sato English translation, p. 4:23-25, a polishing rate is changed and controlled by lowering supply temperature of slurry during polishing. The thickness of layer changes during polishing, thus Sato teaches the temperature of the processing solution is changed as the thickness of the polished layer changes).
Assuming arguendo, that Sato does not teach the change of processing solution temperature based on the measured thickness of the layer to be polished, Basol teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, based on the measured thickness of the layer to be polished of the substrate, the temperature of the processing solution is changed (¶ 0035-38, an electrochemical polishing of a copper layer of a semiconductor substrate includes varying thickness of a gel layer 120 on a surface of the copper layer. The gel layer is removed and the copper layer is polished, thus the gel layer 120 is considered to be the layer to be polished. The thickness of the layer 120 can be controlled by process parameters including temperature of electropolishing solution 102 [corresponds to the recited processing solution]. In other words, the temperature of the electropolishing solution can be changed related to the thickness of the layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of Sato as modified by Benassi to provide changing the process solution temperature as taught by Basol for effective polishing of the semiconductor substrate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (KR 20160142000A, hereinafter An), in view of McClain et al. (CN 1469794A, hereinafter McClain), Ogata et al. (KR 101439995B1, hereinafter Ogata), and Chichii et al. (JP H09298176A, hereinafter Chichii).
Regarding claim 3, An discloses a method of CMP of a plurality of substrates of the same kind (An English translation, p. 4:19-25 and figs. 1-2, a CMP apparatus is provided with a plurality of polishing plates for simultaneous or sequential polishing on a plurality of substrates. An does not state each substrate is different from one another), wherein processing solution contributes to the polishing of the substrate (An English translation, p. 3:1-7, 4:8-10, a slurry is provided between the substrate and a polishing pad for the polishing. The slurry makes a polishing pad to be wetted to help polishing a substrate),
the method comprises steps of: polishing a first substrate using a first processing solution, and polishing a second substrate using a second processing solution wherein the second processing solution differs from the first processing solution (An English translation, p. 10:5-8, a controller may provide different slurries in a plurality of nozzles. Because there are multiple polishing plates for polishing the multiple substrates, different slurries can be provided for the different substrate).
Assuming arguendo, that An does not teach using different processing solutions for polishing the different substrate, McClain teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the method comprises steps of: polishing a first substrate using a first processing solution, and polishing a second substrate using a second processing solution wherein the second processing solution differs from the first processing solution (McClain English translation, p. 17:10-19 a CMP method utilizes CMP devices 10, 60 to polish wafers 25, 75, and it can use different slurry for each planarization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of An to provide the first and second processing solutions to the first and second substrates as taught by McClain in order to provide appropriate slurry for effective polishing of each substrate.
An as modified by McClain does not disclose the second processing solution differs from the first processing solution in concentration of an effective component contained in the processing solution.
Ogata teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, the second processing solution differs from the first processing solution in concentration of an effective component contained in the processing solution (Ogata English translation, p. 15:17-33, in a polishing method, concentration of polishing liquid is set to a low concentration in a second polishing compared with a first polishing. The concentration varies by adding hydroxyethyl cellulose. Ogata teaches the change of processing solution concentration in a subsequent polishing of a wafer, but by combining with An and McClain, it teaches the processing solutions with different concentration can be supplied to different substrates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of An as modified by McClain to provide the processing solutions as taught by Ogata. The polishing rate of a substrate increases by supplying the low concentration polishing liquid (Ogata English translation, p. 15, 24-25).
An as modified by McClain and Ogata does not disclose inspecting the polished first substrate, and the concentration of the effective component in the second processing solution is selected based on the result of the inspection of the polished first substrate.
Chichii teaches, in an analogous CMP field of endeavor, inspecting the polished first substrate, and the concentration of the effective component in the second processing solution is selected based on the result of the inspection of the polished first substrate (Chichii English translation, p. 11:18-26, a film thickness distribution is measured and compared with a target film thickness distribution. Based on the difference of the thickness, a polishing parameter including slurry concentration in polishing liquid is corrected. Because An teaches polishing multiple substrates, by combining with An, Chichii teaches inspecting the film thickness distribution of a first substrate and selecting/correcting the concentration of the second processing solution for a second substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CMP method of An as modified by McClain and Ogata to provide selecting the concentration of the second processing solution based on the inspection result as taught by Chichii so that the polishing is controlled so as to efficiently promote the polishing the substrate (Chichii English translation, p. 11:18-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Sato, Benassi, and Basol do not teach or suggest the claim limitations that the temperature of the processing solution is changed based on the measured thickness of the layer to be polished of the substrate. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sato teaches a polishing rate is changed and controlled by lowering supply temperature of slurry during polishing (Sato English translation, p. 4:23-25). The thickness of layer changes during polishing, thus Sato teaches the temperature of the processing solution is changed related to the change of the thickness of the polished.
Similarly, Basol teaches the gel layer thickness of the substrate is controlled by process parameters including temperature of electropolishing solution (¶ 0035-36). The gel layer is disposed on a copper layer of a substrate. In applying broadest reasonable interpretation of claim consistent with the specification, the gel layer of the Basol’s substrate is a layer to be polished. Thus, the layer thickness of Basol is related to the processing solution temperature.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chichii.
Applicant argues Ogata does not teach the amended claim limitations of inspecting the first substrate, nor selecting of the concentration of the effective components in the second processing solution based on the result of the inspection of the polished first substrate.
Ogata teaches the concentration of the second polishing liquid can be changed. It is An that teaches first and second substrates can be polished sequentially (An English translation, p. 4:19-25). Thus, An as modified by Ogata teaches the different polishing liquids having different concentration can be applied to the first and second substrates.
Chichii teaches measuring thickness of a substrate surface. Because claim 3 of the instant application does not specify which parameter is inspected, the thickness profile satisfies the claim limitations regarding the inspection. Chichii further teaches the slurry concentration can be changed based on the thickness measurement compared with the target thickness. By combining with An, Chichii teaches the thickness of the first substrate is measured, and the concentration of the processing solution is selected or corrected for the polishing of the second substrate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights