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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on July 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No 12, 145, 236, referred to as the patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent encompasses the scope of the present invention.
Regarding claim 1: See claim 1 of the patent which recites a CMP system with a polishing pad, a substrate carrier head, and an atomizer.
Regarding claim 3: See claim 7of the patent which recited that the polishing pad is formed of polyurethane.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No 12, 145, 236, referred to as “the patent” in view of Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780).
The claims of the patent that recite the CMP system with a polishing pad, a substrate carrier head, and an atomizer with a polishing pad being made of polyurethane were discussed above.
The patent fails to claim:
The CMP system of Claim 1, wherein the atomizer is further configured to force a compressed gas in combination with the liquid through an orifice to atomize the liquid.
The prior art of Shinozaki et al teaches a CMP system, comprising: a polishing pad 22; a substrate carrier head (top ring 24) configured to retain a wafer against the polishing pad; and an atomizer 27 configured to atomize a liquid ( such as pure water see [0062]) and spread a layer of the atomized liquid over a surface area of the polishing pad to allow the liquid to evaporate and pull heat directly from the surface of the polishing pad. See [0044] of Shinozaki et al see Figs. 2-4 of Shinozaki et al.
In Shinozaki et al, wherein the atomizer 27 is further configured to force a compressed gas (see [0044] and [0045] with the discussion of high pressure fluid (compressed gas) in combination with the liquid through an orifice to atomize the liquid. The motivation to modify the apparatus resulting from the claims of the patent with the teachings of Shinozaki et al to force a compressed gas in combination with the liquid through an orifice to atomize the liquid is that the compressed gas offers enhanced mechanical contact of the liquid onto the polishing pad which is improve the regeneration/conditioning of the polishing and yield better wear and tear. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the apparatus of the patent with the teachings of Shinozaki et al to provide the atomizer is further configured to force a compressed gas in combination with the liquid through an orifice to atomize the liquid which enhanced mechanical contact of the liquid onto the polishing pad which is improve the regeneration/conditioning of the polishing and yield better wear and tear.
The teachings of Shinozaki et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 4: The CMP system of Claim 1, wherein the amount of liquid provided to the polishing pad is low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
The amount of liquid provided to the polishing pad and the dimensions of the retaining ring as each matters of optimization that could be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention without undue routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would ensure the sufficient amount of liquid is provided to cool and wet the polishing pad to maintain the quality of polishing pad and endure many polishing runs and yet ensure the amount is low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
PNG
media_image1.png
656
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No 12, 145, 236, referred to as “the patent” in view of Moloney et al (US 2003/0224703).
The claims of the patent were discussed above.
The claims of the patent fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The CMP system of Claim 1, further comprising a retaining ring having a stepped shape.
See the prior art of Moloney et al teaches CMP apparatus with a stepped retaining ring see abstract. According to Moloney et al teaches in [0008] where the inner edge of the retaining ring is stepped. The inner edge of the retaining ring includes an open region having a height equal to about the height of the substrate with a uniform depth that can range from, for example, about two mm to about twelve mm. In addition, the open region includes tips that extend to the inner edge of the retaining ring and hold a substrate in place during CMP. The open region can include three or more tips that are evenly or oddly spaced within the open region. For example, the open region may include four tips spaced at 90.degree. increments. The open region reduces deformity of the pad at the edge of the substrate by enabling the pad deformity to occur at the open region instead of at the edge of the substrate. Accordingly, the removal rate at the outer edge of the substrate is more uniform with the removal rate at other areas of the substrate, thereby leading to a more uniformly flat substrate surface. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the retaining ring of the patent with a stepped retaining ring as suggested by the prior art of Moloney et al.
The patent fails to teach:
Regarding claim 8: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring has a surface area of less than 15 square inches.
The dimensions of the retaining ring to include its surface area is would be optimized to ensure the ring supports the wafer and ensure the wafer is amply supported during polishing to avoid damage. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the apparatus of the patent with the sufficient amount of liquid is provided to cool and wet the polishing pad to maintain the quality of polishing pad and endure many polishing runs and is also low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
PNG
media_image2.png
256
563
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B of Moloney et al (US 2003/0224703)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No 12, 145, 236, referred to as “the patent” in view of Moloney et al (US 2003/0224703) as applied to claims 5 and 8 above and in further view of Hengel, Jr. et al (US 2004/0040656).
The combined teachings of the claims of the patent and Moloney et al were discussed above.
The combined teachings of the claims of the patent and Moloney et al fail to teach:
Regarding claim 6: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring is formed of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Regarding claim 7: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring has a two-piece construction.
The prior art of Hengel, Jr teaches an apparatus for CMP retaining ring see abstract where a two-piece retainer ring where the retaining ring is constructed of PPS or PEEK. Both PPS and PEEK are known plastics that Hengel, Jr. suggests being used to construct the lower portion of the retaining ring. See Fig. 1 of Hengel, Jr. et al which illustrates a retaining ring 10 with an upper part 15 and a lower part 25. The motivation to modify the retaining ring resulting from the combined teachings of the patent, Shinozaki et al, and Moloney et al with the two piece construction as suggested by the prior art of Hengel, Jr. et al as an enhanced design to endure the harsh chemical and physical environment of CMP. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the retaining ring resulting from the combined teachings of the patent, Shinozaki et al, and Moloney et al with the two piece construction as suggested by the prior art of Hengel, Jr. et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
601
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No. 12, 145, 236, referred to as “the patent” in view of Hirokawa (US 2004/0087248).
The teachings of the patent were discussed above.
The teachings of the patent fails to teach:
Regarding claim 9: The CMP system of Claim 1, further comprising: a heat exchanger configured to cool the liquid before providing the liquid to the atomizer.
The prior art of Hirokawa teaches a polishing method and apparatus where a heat exchanger 75/76 is provided cool the liquid (slurry or dressing liquid) via nozzles 123,130 see Fig. 3 and [0059] – [0068]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shinozaki et al with the heat exchanger of Hirokawa is to enhance the control of the temperature of the CMP system especially the pad and the carrier head. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the patent with the heat exchanger of Hirokawa before the effective filing date of the present invention in order to enhance the control of the temperature of the CMP system.
PNG
media_image4.png
365
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
792
652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of US Patent No 12, 145, 236, referred to as “the patent” in further view of Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780) as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Ono et al (US 2012/0190273).
The combined teachings of the claims of the patent and Shinozaki et al as discussed above.
The combined teachings of the claims of the patent and Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10: The CMP system of Claim 2, wherein the orifice comprises a vortex-cooling nozzle configured to cool the compressed gas.
The prior art of Ono et al teaches a polishing apparatus with a cooling nozzle 24 see [0039], see Figs. 1, 2, and 4-6. Note esp. Fig. 5 where cooling fan 50 is used to blow air or a drying gas to the polishing pad to further cool the pad 14. The cooling fan acts as a vortex cooler to further cool the polishing pad as the fan also cools the compressed gas (air). The arrangement of the cooling fan being separated from the cooling nozzles 24 as illustrated in Fig. 5 is an alternative to the fan being integrated with the cooling nozzle according to In re Larson making separate elements integral is generally an obvious engineering choice unless it produces a new and unexpected result, as reflected in MPEP § 2144.04. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of the patent and Shinozaki et al with the fan integrated with the cooling nozzle to produce vortex cooling nozzles to further cool the compressed gas as would be an obvious design choice when combining the teachings of the patent, Shinozaki et al, Ono et al and the case law held to In re Larson.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Shinozaki et al teaches a CMP system, comprising: a polishing pad 22; a substrate carrier head (top ring 24) configured to retain a wafer against the polishing pad; and an atomizer 27 configured to atomize a liquid ( such as pure water see [0062]) and spread a layer of the atomized liquid over a surface area of the polishing pad to allow the liquid to evaporate and pull heat directly from the surface of the polishing pad. See [0044] of Shinozaki et al see Figs. 2-4 of Shinozaki et al (marked up copy of Fig. 2 is provided above) .
Regarding claim 2: The CMP system of claim 1 as recited in Shinozaki et al, wherein the atomizer 27 is further configured to force a compressed gas (see [0044] and [0045] with the discussion of high pressure fluid (compressed gas) in combination with the liquid through an orifice to atomize the liquid.
Regarding claim 3: The CMP system of Claim as recited in Shinozaki et al, wherein the polishing pad is formed of polyurethane. See [0054] of s recited in Shinozaki et al.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780).
The teachings of Shinozaki et al were discussed above.
The prior art of Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 4: The CMP system of Claim 1, wherein the amount of liquid provided to the polishing pad is low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
The amount of liquid provided to the polishing pad and the dimensions of the retaining ring as each matters of optimization that could be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention without undue routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would ensure the sufficient amount of liquid is provided to cool and wet the polishing pad to maintain the quality of polishing pad and endure many polishing runs and yet ensure the amount is low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
Claims 5 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780) in view of Moloney et al (US 2003/0224703).
The teachings of Shinozaki et al were discussed above.
The prior of Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 5: The CMP system of Claim 1, further comprising a retaining ring having a stepped shape.
See the prior art of Moloney et al teaches CMP apparatus with a stepped retaining ring see abstract. According to Moloney et al teaches in [0008] where the inner edge of the retaining ring is stepped. The inner edge of the retaining ring includes an open region having a height equal to about the height of the substrate with a uniform depth that can range from, for example, about two mm to about twelve mm. In addition, the open region includes tips that extend to the inner edge of the retaining ring and hold a substrate in place during CMP. The open region can include three or more tips that are evenly or oddly spaced within the open region. For example, the open region may include four tips spaced at 90.degree. increments. The open region reduces deformity of the pad at the edge of the substrate by enabling the pad deformity to occur at the open region instead of at the edge of the substrate. Accordingly, the removal rate at the outer edge of the substrate is more uniform with the removal rate at other areas of the substrate, thereby leading to a more uniformly flat substrate surface. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the retaining ring of Shinozaki et al with a stepped retaining ring as suggested by the prior art of Moloney et al.
The prior art of Shinozaki et al fail to teach:
Regarding claim 8: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring has a surface area of less than 15 square inches.
The dimensions of the retaining ring to include its surface area is would be optimized to ensure the ring supports the wafer and ensure the wafer is amply supported during polishing to avoid damage. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Shinozaki et al with the sufficient amount of liquid is provided to cool and wet the polishing pad to maintain the quality of polishing pad and endure many polishing runs and is also low enough to prevent substantial drops in a removal rate due to changes in chemistry of a slurry applied to the polishing pad.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780) in view of Moloney et al (US 2003/0224703) as applied to claims 5 and 8 above and in further view of Hengel, Jr. et al (US 2004/0040656).
The combined teachings of Shinozaki et al and Moloney et al were discussed above.
The combined teachings of Shinozaki et al and Moloney et al fail to teach:
Regarding claim 6: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring is formed of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK).
Regarding claim 7: The CMP system of Claim 5, wherein the retaining ring has a two-piece construction.
The prior art of Hengel, Jr teaches an apparatus for CMP retaining ring see abstract where a two-piece retainer ring where the retaining ring is constructed of PPS or PEEK. Both PPS and PEEK are known plastics that Hengel, Jr. suggests being used to construct the lower portion of the retaining ring. See Fig. 1 of Hengel, Jr. et al which illustrates a retaining ring 10 with an upper part 15 and a lower part 16. The motivation to modify the retaining ring resulting from the combined teachings of Shinozaki et al and Moloney et al with the two piece construction as suggested by the prior art of Hengel, Jr. et al as an enhanced design to endure the harsh chemical and physical environment of CMP. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the retaining ring resulting from the combined teachings of Shinozaki et al and Moloney et al with the two piece construction as suggested by the prior art of Hengel, Jr. et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780) in view of Hirokawa (US 2004/0087248).
The teachings of Shinozaki et al were discussed above.
The prior of Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 9: The CMP system of Claim 1, further comprising: a heat exchanger configured to cool the liquid before providing the liquid to the atomizer.
The prior art of Hirokawa teaches a polishing method and apparatus where a heat exchanger 75/76 is provided cool the liquid (slurry or dressing liquid) via nozzles 123,130 see Fig. 3 and [0059] – [0068]. The motivation to modify the apparatus of Shinozaki et al with the heat exchanger of Hirokawa is to enhance the control of the temperature of the CMP system especially the pad and the carrier head. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Shinozaki et al with the heat exchanger of Hirokawa before the effective filing date of the present invention in order to enhance the control of the temperature of the CMP system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki et al (US 2018/0012780) in view of Ono et al (US 2012/0190273).
The teachings of Shinozaki et al were discussed above.
The prior of Shinozaki et al fails to teach:
Regarding claim 10: The CMP system of Claim 2, wherein the orifice comprises a vortex-cooling nozzle configured to cool the compressed gas.
The prior art of Ono et al teaches a polishing apparatus with a cooling nozzle 24 see [0039], see Figs. 1, 2, and 4-6. Note esp. Fig. 5 where cooling fan 50 is used to blow air or a drying gas to the polishing pad to further cool the pad 14. The cooling fan acts as a vortex cooler to further cool the polishing pad as the fan also cools the compressed gas (air). The arrangement of the cooling fan being separated from the cooling nozzles 24 as illustrated in Fig. 5 is an alternative to the fan being integrated with the cooling nozzle according to In re Larson making separate elements integral is generally an obvious engineering choice unless it produces a new and unexpected result, as reflected in MPEP § 2144.04. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Shinozaki et al with the fan integrated with the cooling nozzle to produce vortex cooling nozzles to further cool the compressed gas as would be an obvious design choice when combining the teachings of Shinozaki et al, Ono et al and the case law held to In re Larson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakurai et al (US 6,402,597) teaches a polishing apparatus with a heat exchanger 34 that is controlled by controller 24 to change the temperature of heating medium such as water supplied to the flow passage 32 in the dresser body 31.
Chang et al (US 6,206,760) teaches a method and apparatus for preventing particle contamination in a CMP machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights