DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. in view of Masato.
Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2021/0010147 A1) is directed toward a plating apparatus (title). Masato (JPH09279392A – EPO translation) is directed toward a continuous electroplating device for metallic strip (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses a plating apparatus (title and abstract, “plating bath 38” in FIG. 2 and ¶26) comprising: a plating tank (“tank wall 60” in FIG. 2 and ¶26) configured to accumulate a plating solution (“plating solution Q1” in FIG. 2 and ¶26) and provided with an anode 61; a substrate holder (“substrate holder 18” in FIG. 2 and ¶26) configured to hold a substrate (“substrate W” in FIG. 2 and ¶26) as a cathode such that the substrate is opposed to the anode as depicted in FIG. 2, the substrate being a polygonal substrate (e.g.: rectangle or polygon in ¶26) having a plurality of sides. Takahashi et al. further describes a regulation plate 61 whose purpose is to modulate the thickness of the deposited plating material (¶37) and functions as an electric field regulation mask.
The aforementioned purpose and placement in the plating apparatus of the regulation plate 61 as described in ¶26 and depicted in FIG. 2 in Takahashi et al. is analogous to the claim recitation: “an intermediate mask (“regulation plate 61” of Takahashi et al.) arranged between the anode (61 of Takahashi et al.) and the substrate (W of Takahashi et al.) inside the plating tank (“plating bath 38 of Takahashi et al.), the intermediate mask (“regulation plate 61” of Takahashi et al.) being provided with a hole (opening 75 of Takahashi et al.) that allows a current flowing between the anode (61 of Takahashi et al.) and the substrate (W of Takahashi et al.) to pass therethrough; and an auxiliary anode (“auxiliary electrode 72” of Takahashi et al.), wherein the hole of the intermediate mask (“regulation plate 61” of Takahashi et al.) is a polygonal hole (“square shape” as depicted in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 of Takahashi et al.) having a plurality of sides corresponding to the respective plurality of sides of the substrate, the auxiliary anode (“auxiliary electrode 72” of Takahashi et al.) is arranged between the substrate (W of Takahashi et al.) and the intermediate mask (“regulation plate 61” of Takahashi et al.) so as to correspond to at least one side of the hole (opening 75 of Takahashi et al.) of the intermediate mask, and the auxiliary anode (“auxiliary electrode 72” of Takahashi et al.) extends in an extending direction of the side of the hole of the intermediate mask (“regulation plate 61” of Takahashi et al.).”
However, Takahashi et al. is generally silent on the use of resistive elements on the auxiliary anode and in particular does not disclose “the end portion proximal regions of the auxiliary anode from both end portions in an extending direction of the auxiliary anode toward a center are covered by resistive elements having electrical conduction rates larger than zero, the electrical conduction rates are lower than an electrical conduction rate of the plating solution, a region closer to the center than the end portion proximal regions of the auxiliary anode is not covered by the resistive element, and a surface of the region closer to the center than the end portion proximal regions of the auxiliary anode is exposed.” In
Masato is directed toward an electroplating device (title). Masato in ¶13 discloses the continuous electroplating apparatus for metal strip (i.e.: cathode) that has an auxiliary anode covered with an insulator. Therefore, Masato and Takahashi et al. are analogous art. Masato further explains in ¶31. The continuous electroplating device of Masato is designed to improve the uniformity of deposition (¶30). Masato further explains that coating defects on the plating strip (or wafer) are larger, i.e.: more pronounced, near the edge portion of the plating strip (or wafer) and the quality of the coating is capable of being controlled by regulating the current density by the use of insulators (i.e.: lower conduction rates) specifically near the edge (¶31).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the intermediate mask or regulating plate of Takahashi et al. with the insulators used on the auxiliary anode taught by Masato et al. with the reasonable expectation of forming a more uniform metallic coatings across the diameter of the deposition substrate.
The insulators (analogous to resistive elements) taught by Masato have a conduction rate, though small, that is larger than zero since these materials can be selected from a resin, a ceramic, or an insulating coating (¶24). Moreover, Masato indicates that the concentration of resistive elements (i.e.: insulators) should be higher near the edge of the auxiliary anode to ensure uniform plating coverage. Therefore, modifying Takahashi et al. with Masato would meet the claim limitations of Claim 1 not expressly disclosed in Takahashi et al. alone.
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi et al. in view of Masato discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the electrical conduction rates of the resistive elements decrease along from a central side toward end portion sides extending in the direction of the auxiliary anode covered by the resistive elements as supported by ¶30-31 in Masato. In particular, Masato explains that defects on the plating strip (or wafer) are larger, i.e.: more pronounced, near the edge portion of the plating strip (or wafer) which is controlled by regulating the current density by the use of insulators (i.e.: lower conduction rates) specifically near the edge (¶31).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi et al. in view of Masato discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the lengths in the extending direction of the auxiliary anode of the end portion of the proximal regions of the auxiliary anode are a length of 10% or less the total length of the auxiliary anode. Masato indicates that in ¶31, the degree of covering of the anode with an insulator is increased especially near the edge. The limitation of Claim 4 indicates that the width (i.e.: proximal) of the resistive element coverage is narrow (10% or less) relative to the length of auxiliary anode and Masato indicates that there is a higher density (length by width) of the resistive elements (i.e.: insulators) near the edge according to ensure uniform film deposition. Therefore, the dimensions (i.e. width) of the end region of the auxiliary anode is a results-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of said variable. This type of optimization or experimentation might be characterized as routine experimentation (See MPEP 2144.0.II.B.). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have sufficient resistive element density (i.e.: width of resistive element coverage) near the edge of the auxiliary anode to ensure uniform film deposition.
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi et al. in view of Masato discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the plating apparatus (i.e.: plating bath 38) includes a housing portion configured to house the auxiliary anode inside the housing portion as explained in the second, third, and fourth aspects of Takahashi et al. in ¶61-67. Takahashi et al. further describes that the housing portion is provided with an opening (i.e.: port in ¶66) so as to face the substrate (W), and the opening is closed by a membrane (e.g.: ion-change membrane in ¶61-62) configured to allow metal ions included in the plating solution (i.e.: replacement or replenishment of electrolytic solution in ¶64-66) to pass through the membrane and inhibit oxygen generated from the surfaces of the auxiliary anode from passing through the membrane (¶64-66).
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. in view of Masato as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dordi et al.
Takahashi (US Pub. No. 2021/0010147 A1) is directed toward a plating apparatus (title). Masato (JPH09279392A – EPO translation) is directed toward a continuous electroplating device for metallic strip (title). Dordi et al. (US Pub. No. 2004/0035695 A1) is directed toward a flow diffuser to be used in electrochemical plating system (title).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi et al. in view of Masato discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1 with resistive elements, wherein the electrical conduction rates of the resistive elements decrease along from a central side toward end portion sides extending in the direction of the auxiliary anode covered by the resistive elements as supported by ¶30-31 in Masato. In particular, Masato explains that defects on the plating strip (or wafer) are larger, i.e.: more pronounced, near the edge portion of the plating strip (or wafer) which is controlled by regulating the current density by the use of insulators (i.e.: lower conduction rates) specifically near the edge (¶31). However, the combination of references does not disclose a plurality of holes in the resistive elements.
Dordi et al. is directed toward a diffuser for use in a plating cell (abstract). Dordi et al. discloses that the diffuser is positioned between the substrate on which the metal film is deposited (i.e.: the cathode) and the anode (¶9) as depicted in FIG. 27. The diffusers tend to be a resistive material such as ceramics including aluminum oxide or alumina (Al2O3) as per ¶144. The ceramic materials are generally hydrophilic and porous, so they facilitate electrolyte flow. Dordi et al. further indicates the flow diffuser 2712 is capable of substantially uniform vertical velocity of electrolyte solution across the width of the electrolyte cell leading to a uniformity of the plating conditions across the substrate (¶134-5). In ¶145, Dordi et al. teaches the flow diffuser may be used in a gradient approach, i.e., different density of flow pores/apertures and different number of diffusers to modify the electrolyte flow toward the substrate and current density during deposition at the substrate.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistive elements of Takahashi et al. in view of Masato with a plurality of holes or apertures as taught by Dordi et al. with the reasonable expectation of ensuring electroplating conditions (e.g.: current density and electrolyte flow velocity) across the substrate the results in the deposition of a uniform, defect free metal film.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fukjikata et al. (US App. No. 2016/0145760 A1) is directed toward a plating apparatus and a plating method (title). Reid et al. (US-20100032310-A1) is directed toward a method and an apparatus for electroplating
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 PM EST.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
8. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794