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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 29 April 2026. Claims 1-16 and 21 are currently pending.
Drawings
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s drawings received 29 April 2026. The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action of 30 January 2026 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 29 April 2026. The rejections to the claims presented under 35 USC 112 in the Office Action of 30 January 2026 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 9-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0275776 A1 to Wilson (Wilson).
As to claims 1, 2 and 3, Wilson teaches a contact providing an electrical connection to a substrate in a substate plating system comprising a body (contact ring) (30) having a arcuate (circumferential) shape conforming to the shape of a substrate (wafer) (100) arranged on a lip seal (54) and a cup (52) of the substrate plating system (20); a plurality of first contact fingers (82A) extending a first distance from the body and a plurality of second contact fingers (82B) extending a second distance from the body wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (Paragraphs 0013, 0016 and 0019; Figures 1, 3 and 5). The claim is directed towards a contact capable of performing the functional language of “providing an electrical connection to a substrate in a substrate plating system”. Therefore, it is important to note that any details of the substrate, or the plating system provided in the claim are not actually structural limitations towards the claimed contact itself, but merely narrowing limitations on the functional language. The prior art need not actually teach these substrate and plating system features, the taught contact merely needs to be capable of performing the functional language. The multi distance contact finger contact of Wilson would be capable of use with any number of substrate including a substrate bonded to a carrier substrate with a seed layer arranged on the substrate, the first contact fingers would be capable of directly contacting the seed layer depending on the boundary of the seed layer on the substrate, and the second contact fingers would be capable of directly contacting the carrier substrate outward from the substrate depending on the size of the substrate and carrier layer (MPEP 2114).
As to claim 4, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the plurality of first contact fingers alternate with the plurality of second contact fingers (Paragraph 0019).
As to claim 5, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson teaches that the first contact fingers alternate with the second contact fingers, thus P and Q = 1, with each one adjacent to itself (Paragraph 0019).
As to claim 9, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the apparatus comprises a plurality of third contact fingers (82C) extending a third distance that is different than the first distance and the second distance (Paragraph 0020).
As to claim 10, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that between the contact fingers there are u-shaped cut outs (Figure 5).
As to claim 11, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Wilson further teaches that the plurality of first and second contact fingers are connected together at radially outer ends thereof (Figures 4 and 5).
As to claim 14, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the plurality of first and second contact fingers have a thickness of 0.1mm (0.0029 inches) (Paragraph 0020).
As to claim 15, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the body is annular, one or more circumferential segments (Paragraph 0020).
As to claim 16, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the body is, for example, a single circumferential segments, thus N=1 and the segment spans a full 360 degrees around a periphery of the lip seal (Paragraph 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson as applied to claim 5 above, and as further discussed below.
As to claim 6, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Wilson fails to specifically teach that P and Q are greater than one. However, Wilson teaches that the point of the contacts is providing an excess number of contacts, for example up to 1000, such that contact is made with higher edge tolerances (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005 and 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific alternating grouping would not be critical to operation and that providing groupings of, for example, two first contact fingers alternating with two second contact fingers would be a mere rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
As to claim 7, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Wilson fails to specifically teach that P is greater than Q. However, Wilson teaches that the point of the contacts is providing an excess number of contacts, for example up to 1000, such that contact is made with higher edge tolerances (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005 and 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific alternating grouping would not be critical to operation and that providing groupings of, for example, two first contact fingers alternating with one second contact finger would be a mere rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
As to claim 8, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Wilson fails to specifically teach that Q is greater than P. However, Wilson teaches that the point of the contacts is providing an excess number of contacts, for example up to 1000, such that contact is made with higher edge tolerances (Abstract; Paragraphs 0005 and 0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the specific alternating grouping would not be critical to operation and that providing groupings of, for example, one first contact fingers alternating with two second contact fingers would be a mere rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
As to claim 13, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson discusses the relative length of the contact fingers, with the second contact finger 0.01 to 0.5 mm less than the first contact fingers (Paragraph 0019); however, fails to discuss an actual total length. However, mere changes in size and proportion are not patentably significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0155254 A1 to Prabhaker et al. (Prabhaker).
As to claim 12, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Wilson teaches that the contact fingers are flat and not v-shaped. However, Prabhaker also discusses plating systems with contact fingers and teaches that the contact fingers should be v-shaped in order to allow for the contact fingers to bend under force (Paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the contact fingers of Wilson with a v-shape in order to allow the contact fingers to bend under force and create an even more tolerant contact ring system as taught by Prabhaker.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2012/007526 A2 to Moeller et al. (Moeller).
As to claim 21, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Applicants fails to teach that the first and second contact fingers have a different circumferential width than the second contact fingers. However, Moeller also discusses contact fingers in substrate plating and teaches that the width of the contact fingers can be varied to affect the stiffness and function of the contact fingers (Page 14 Line 45 to Page 15 Line 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the widths of the groups of contact fingers, including optimizing them to different values, in order to optimize the stiffness and function of each set of contact fingers as taught by Moeller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the amended limitations of the claim in view of the contact to the seed layer and carrier substrate are not met by the prior art. However, as discussed above, it is important to note that the claim is directed towards a contact capable of performing the functional language of “providing an electrical connection to a substrate in a substrate plating system”. Therefore, the details of the substrate and the plating system provided in the claim are not actually structural limitations towards the claimed contact itself, but merely narrowing limitations on the functional language. The prior art need not actually teach these substrate and plating system features, the taught contact merely needs to be capable of performing the functional language. The multi distance contact finger contact of Wilson would be capable of use with any number of substrate including a substrate bonded to a carrier substrate with a seed layer arranged on the substrate, the first contact fingers would be capable of directly contacting the seed layer depending on the boundary of the seed layer on the substrate, and the second contact fingers would be capable of directly contacting the carrier substrate outward from the substrate depending on the size of the substrate and carrier layer.
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 CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 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, 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.
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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights