DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are pending.
Claims 6-7 are cancelled.
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 of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a second potential sensor disposed at a second position in a zone of the plating tank” and “said zone being defined by the fixed arrangement of the tank’s electrodes and internal components” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following except appears to be the closest subject matter to the claimed phrasing:
[0048]
PNG
media_image1.png
82
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the phrasing of the original specification does not appear to sufficiently support the amended claim language. There is no support in regards to a particular zone. The specification does not appear to identify where this position is located beyond a position where there is comparatively no change in potential. The drawings do not provide support beyond the sensors (460) (Figure 3). There is a lack of sufficient support for a fixed arrangement. There is a lack of support for what the internal components are in relation to a fixed arrangement.
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 1-5 and 8-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fixed arrangement" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear where the zone is in relation to the electrodes and internal components. It is unclear if the zone is a position within the electrodes, some position nearby the electrodes or some other scenario. It is also unclear what internal components are being referred to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tank’s electrodes" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140) and in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656).
Regarding claim 1, Birang discloses an electroplating plating cell (300, abstract) (= a plating apparatus) comprising:
A fluid basin assembly (301) [0050] (= a plating tank);
A contact ring (314) supporting a substrate (315) [0050] (= a substrate holder that holds a substrate);
An anode (305) within the basin assembly (Figure 3) [0050] (= an anode disposed, in the plating tank, facing the substrate held by the substrate holder),
A diffusion plate (310) or collimator (312) which channels electric field and operates to resistively damp electrical variations [0046], [0050] (= a for adjusting an electric field, disposed between the anode and the substrate),
A sensor assembly (330) comprising an array of sensors (331) disposed in the plating cell wherein the voltage level between sensors is sensed and real time thickness profile can be generated by integrating current values associated with the differential voltages, a difference in voltage is equal to zero [0051], [0059], Figure 3 (= a film thickness measuring module including a plurality of sensors that detect a parameter related to a plating film formed on a surface to be plated of the substrate, the film thickness measuring module measuring a film thickness of the plating film based on a detection value of the plurality of sensors during a plating treatment, wherein
The plurality of sensors includes at least one first potential sensor disposed at a first position between the substrate and the resistor, and a second potential sensor disposed at a second position, and
The film thickness measuring module measuring a potential difference between the first position and the second position to measure the film thickness of the plating film).
Birang differs from the instant claim in that the diffusion plate of Birang is not explicitly a resistor.
In the same or similar field of plating devices, Reid discloses the plating apparatus comprising an ionic resistor (119)to mitigate or eliminate the end effect when plating metal layers [0015], [0076] located between the substrate (107) and anode (115). Reid discloses that the resistor shapes the electrolyte current near the wafer to provide a relatively uniform current distribution on the wafer surface [0077].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a resistor because Reid discloses that a resistor positioned between a substrate and anode provides uniform current distribution over the whole wafer and thereby produce a uniform deposit. Regarding the claimed “a second potential sensor disposed at a second position in a zone of the plating tank where a potential remains substantially constant during plating, said zone being defined by the fixed arrangement of the tank’s electrode and internal components” Birang discloses potential sensors located at different positions. Birang discloses measuring spatial plating cell current distribution represented by measuring the differential voltages inside the plating cell [0003]. The instant phrase appears to define a position based on a potential sensed and wherein the potential sensed remains constant. The claimed zone being defined by the fixed arrangement of the tank’s electrodes and internal components does not appear to make clear the position of the zone. The phrasing does not particularly point out a position whereby the sensor would be placed. To further address a variation or constant potential sensed, the disclosure of Dordi is herein cited for disclosing a reference sensor (250) that is positioned as far as possible from any contact (256) supplying current/voltage to the substrate (page 10 final paragraph – page 11 2nd paragraph). Dordi discloses that the physical isolation of the reference sensor from contacts limit the electrical effects resulting from a contact that is proximally located to the reference sensor. Although Dordi discloses the reference electrodes for providing an indication of the effect of the current flowing through individual anode segments, Dordi further discloses that a plurality of reference sensors may be present at various locations within the electrolyte cell to provide a more accurate indication of a surface potential. Given the teaching of Dordi including providing a plurality of reference sensors, one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily position voltage/potential sensors about an electrolytic cell to obtain a more accurate detection of voltage/current. The instant claim does not require the presence of a constant potential since such claim language is directed towards the operation of the plating apparatus. Moreover, Dordi recognizes that the positioning of multiple reference sensors is selected to avoid interference of for example the contacts.
Regarding claim 2, Birang discloses adjusting the localized intensity of electric field or one or more other process parameters based on the real time thickness profile [0013], [0051], [0069].
Regarding claim 8, Birang discloses measuring the voltage between sensors to estimate local current density [0059].
Regarding claim 9, Birang discloses estimating the local current density as described above [0059]. Birang does not specifically indicate that the estimation would include film thickness distribution, however, since Birang discloses using the current density to determine the real-time thickness, it would have been obvious to utilize the estimated current density and/or current density to estimate the film thickness distribution.
Regarding claim 10, Birang discloses head rotation as a processing variable [0073]. The head being the substrate support.
Regarding claim 11, Birang discloses wherein a plurality of first potential sensors (331) are provided from an outer circumference to an inner circumference of the substrate (Figure 3a-e, 330, 331).
Regarding claim 12, Birgan discloses wherein a plurality of the first potential sensors (331) are provided along an outer edge of the substrate (Figure 3a-e, 330, 331).
Regarding claim 14, Birang discloses wherein the substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate with the surface to be plated being oriented downward in the plating tank (Figure 2 and other Figures).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140), in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656) and in further view of Wang (CN 211142201).
Regarding claim 3, Birang in view of Reid and Dordi fails to disclose a shielding body that is movable as claimed. Reid discloses one or more shields (149, 151).
In the same or similar field of an electroplating apparatus [0002], Wang discloses a shielding plate used to shield part of the electric lines at the edge of a wafer for improving the thickness uniformity of the entire wafer [0006]-[0008]. Wang discloses the shielding plate comprising arc portions for providing variable shielding area for improving versatility [0014]. The shielding plate (1) of Wang includes hollow arc portions (12) and corresponding shielding plates (2) (Figure 2). As shown in Figure 4, the shielding plates (2) are located in a retreated position and are adjusted as needed to provide the desired electric field by being driven over the hollow portions (12) to a shielding position [0067]-[0074].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a shielding plate because Wang discloses that an adjustable shielding plate provides improved thickness uniformity by adjusting the position of arc shield plates about the surface of a wafer. The teachings of Birang in view of Reid and Wang disclose wherein the plating condition adjustment module adjusts a position of the shielding body as the adjustment of the plating condition since Birang teaches adjusting the parameters of the electroplating process based on the real-time calculated thickness. It would have been obvious to adjust the electric field of Birang in view of Reid with the shielding plate of Wang for controlling the electroplating process parameter (i.e. electric field profile).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140), in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656) and in further view of Mayer et al. (US 6,964,792).
Regarding claim 4, Birang in view of Reid and Dordi fails to disclose a drive mechanism to change a distance between the substrate and the resistor.
In the same or similar field of electroplating, Mayer discloses adjusting the separation distance between a diffuser membrane and the workpiece such that the plating uniformity ultimately benefits from the uniform flow emanating therefrom (Col. 5 line 60 – Col. 6 line 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising a drive mechanism to change a distance between the substrate and the resistor because Mayer teaches that the separation between the diffuser membrane and the workpiece is adjusted to improve electroplating uniformity. The membrane of Mayer is similar to the membrane of Mayer (e.g. ceramic or glass plates).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140), in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656) and in further view of Yamasaki et al. (US 2019/0093250).
Regarding claim 5, Birang in view of Reid and Dordi fails to disclose an anode mask as claimed. Reid discloses one or more shields (149) positioned with the anode (113) (Figure 5).
Yamasaki discloses a plating apparatus comprising an anode mask (300) for adjusting the electric field between the anode electrode and the substrate [0062]. Yamasaki discloses wherein the anode mask has an opening portion that is adjustable [0071]-[0072], Figure 5.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising an anode mask because Yamasaki discloses an anode mask with adjustable opening area for controlling the electric field to the substrate. The teachings of Birang in view of Reid and Yamasaki disclose wherein the plating condition adjustment module changes the opening dimension of the anode mask as the adjustment of the plating conditions since Birang teaches adjusting the parameters of the electroplating process based on the real-time calculated thickness. It would have been obvious to adjust the electric field of Birang in view of Reid with the anode mask of Yamasaki for controlling the electroplating process parameter (i.e. electric field profile).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140), in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656) and in further view of Ohashi et al. (US 2019/0301044).
Regarding claim 13, Birang in view of Reid and Dordi fails to disclose wherein the film thickness measuring module is configured to move the first potential sensor along a plate surface of the substrate during the plating treatment.
In the same or similar field of plating (title), Ohashi discloses four film thickness measuring parts (108) including sensors which are movable when considering the following factors such as the number of portions requiring the film thickness measurement and the frequency of measurement [0099]. Ohashi discloses a sensor supporting plate with sensor drive parts for movement of the film thickness measuring parts [0112].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising moving first potential sensor because Ohashi discloses that film thickness measuring sensors are movable depending on the sizing and frequency of measurement. Moreover, movability is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 VA).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112), in view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140), in view of Dordi (WO 01/94656) and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 110184641).
Regarding claim 15, Birang in view of Reid and Dordi fails to disclose wherein the substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate with the surface to be plated being oriented to a side in the plating tank.
In the same or similar field of electroplating, Wang discloses wherein electroplating devices may be arranged horizontally or vertically [0061], [0077]. Regardless of orientation, Wang discloses that the substrate and anode remain parallel to carry out electroplating [0080]-[0081].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising orienting a surface to be plated to a side because Wang teaches in a similar arrangement to Birang in view of Reid, that electroplating can be successfully carried out in either a horizontal or vertical orientation to produce the same or similar predictable result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 January 2026 have been fully considered. On page 6, the argument states that the claim recites a second position of a potential sensor. The Examiner acknowledges that the instant claims require a sensor to be at a second position. The second position of the sensor at a location according to a potential, however, does not fully identify the whereabouts of the second position. The potential amplitude may vary or be constant at a number of positions. The claim second position appears to be arbitrary and not defined according to a physical position. The argument further states that the position is defined by comparatively no change in potential. Such phrasing does not appear to provide sufficient guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to a particular physical position.
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment to define a zone, however, such phrasing does not appear to be fully supported by the original specification. There is no physical location described in the original specification in regards to the second position.
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 STEFANIE S WITTENBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 am -4:00 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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/Stefanie S Wittenberg/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795