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 Group I, Claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 16 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 602 (See Specification Paragraph 0056). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 240 (See Figure 2C), 656 and 660 (See Figure 6C), 836 (See Figure 8C), 846 (See Figure 8D) and 400 (See Figures 12A, B and C). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 are 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.
As to claim 5, the claim recites the limitation that P first contact fingers are arranged immediately adjacent to one another and Q contact fingers are arranged immediately adjacent to one another but then also recites that P and Q can equal 1. It is unclear how “one contact finger can be immediately adjacent one another”, i.e. there is no “another” when P and Q are 1.
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 claim 1, 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).
As to claim 2, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Wilson further teaches that the plurality of first contact fingers are arranged circumferentially around the wafer (100) and thus specifically configured to contact a seed layer formed on a substrate on a substrate attached to (bonded to) a substrate carrier (backing plate) (26) during plating (Paragraphs 0013 and 0023; Figure 1).
As to claim 3, Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 2. As discussed above Wilson teaches that the second contact fingers are shorter than the first contact fingers, Wilson further teaches that the apparatus is designed for contacting a variety of wafers, and thus teaches that the apparatus is configured to perform the functional language wherein the second contact figures are configured “to contact the carrier substrate at a location outward form a radially outer edge of the substrate during plate” depending on the size of the substrate placed in the plating system (Paragraph 0023; 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.
Conclusion
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