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 § 102
2. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsuoka et al.
Katsuoka et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0072358 A1) is directed towards a substrate processing apparatus and a substrate processing method (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Katsuoka et al. discloses a plating apparatus (i.e.: “a substrate processing apparatus” in the title and abstract) that is generally described in ¶282 to ¶316. The plating apparatus of Katsuoka et al. comprises: a plating tank (i.e.: processing tank 710) in which a plating solution (i.e.: “processing liquid Q”) is stored and is used for both electroless and electroplating. When the plating apparatus is employed for electroplating, as indicated in ¶316, an anode is present and the substrate W is the cathode. The plating apparatus of Katsuoka et al., when used in an electroplating method, would require that the substrate holder is disposed above the anode given the position of the substrate/substrate holder as depicted in FIG. 34A and FIG. 34B (i.e.: in the horizontal direction). Katsuoka et al. further describes the substrate holder (i.e.: “substrate holding device 780”) in ¶308-310 and depicts a head module that contacts and holds the substrate, a tilting module (element 811) configured to tilt the head module, and an elevating/lowering module (i.e.: “lifting mechanism 831”) configured to elevate and lower the head module in FIG. 20A, FIG. 20B, FIG. 21, FIG. 22A, and FIG. 22B. Lastly, Katsuoka et al. discloses the tilting module includes a first member (analogous to the suction mechanism to hold the substrate in ¶297), a second member supporting the head module, the second member being connected to the first member in a rotatable manner about a rotation axis, and an actuator that rotates (i.e.: “the substrate rotating motor 801” in ¶312) the second member about the rotation axis, the rotation axis is offset from a center of the substrate held by the head module, and the elevating/lowering module is configured to elevate and lower the substrate holder by elevating and lowering the first member of the tilting module as depicted in FIG. 20A, FIG. 20B, FIG. 21, FIG. 22A, and FIG. 22B and further explained in ¶308-313.
Regarding Claim 2, Katsuoka et al. the apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising: a position adjustment module configured to move the head in the horizontal direction, wherein the position adjustment module moves the head in the horizontal direction to compensate for the horizontal movement of the center of the substrate held by the head module when the tilting module tilts the head module as supported in ¶309-313 by the description of the pivoting mechanism 821 (see FIG.21, FIG. 22A, and FIG. 22B).
Regarding Claim 3, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the position adjustment is configured to move the head module in the horizontal direction and a vertical direction and moves the head module in the horizontal direction and the vertical direction to compensate for the horizontal and vertical movement of the center of the substrate held by the head module when the tilting module tilts the head module as supported in ¶309-313 by the description of the pivoting mechanism 821, and the tilt angle of the substrate (see FIG.21, FIG. 22A, and FIG. 22B).
Regarding Claim 4, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1 wherein the first member is a vertically extending plate-shaped member, and the second member is rotatably connected to the first member at an end portion in the horizontal direction as depicted in FIG. 20A/B and explained in ¶294.
Regarding Claim 5, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1 wherein the second member is rotatably connected to the first member on one end side in a horizontal direction and connected to the actuator on the other end side in the horizontal direction as indicated in ¶312 and depicted in FIG. 20A/B.
Regarding Claim 6, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the rotation axis intersects with an axis extending perpendicularly through a center of a surface to be plated of the substrate as illustrated in FIG. 20A and FIG. 21.
Regarding Claim 7, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the tilting module includes a biasing member that biases the second member in a direction in which a surface to be plated of the substrate is horizontal as explained in ¶309 and ¶312-313.
Regarding Claim 8, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising: a rotation module configured to rotate the substrate about a rotation axis extending perpendicularly through a center of a surface to be plated as explained in ¶303 and ¶312 (FIG. 20A/B)
Regarding Claim 9, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 8, wherein the rotation module is supported on the second member as depicted in FIG. 20A/B and indicated in ¶312.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuoka et al.
Katsuoka et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0072358 A1) is directed towards a substrate processing apparatus and a substrate processing method (title).
Regarding Claim 10, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the tilting module tilts the head module at a predetermined tilt angle, but the reference does not explicitly disclose the range of Claim 10 (i.e.: a tilt angle between 1 and 5 degrees). Katsuoka et al. does discuss in ¶313 the importance of tilting the substrate as a means to reduce the formation of air bubbles that prevent the chemical or electrochemical deposition of the metallic species onto the substrate during the plating process. Therefore, the tilt angle is a results-effective variable. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the tilt angle. 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 of the tilt angle, including values within the claimed range, through routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to do so in order reduce the persistence of air bubbles or gaseous bubbles that adhere to the surface of the substrate during deposition since said bubbles reduce the deposition rate, quality, and uniformity of the metallic film/layer.
7. Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuoka et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. and Masato.
Katsuoka et al. (US Pub. No. 2005/0072358 A1) is directed towards a substrate processing apparatus and a substrate processing method (title). Takahashi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0010147 A1 – published on date 14 January 2021 in US) is directed toward a plating apparatus (title). Masato (JPH09279392A – EPO translation) is directed toward a continuous electroplating device for metallic strip (title).
Regarding Claim 11, Katsuoka et al. discloses the plating apparatus according to Claim 1, but does not teach a resistor disposed above the anode and below the substrate in an interior of the plating tank. The use of resistors/current modifying elements within a plating tank are well known in the art. Takahashi et al. and Masato are both directed toward plating apparatuses as indicated by the titles. Therefore, they are analogous art to Katsuoka et. al.
The plating apparatus of Takahashi et al. 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. such that it is 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.). However, Takahashi et al. is generally silent on the use of resistive elements on the regulation plate or the composition of the regulation plate.
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. 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 plating tank/apparatus of Katsuoka et al. with regulating plate covered with insulating elements taught by the combination of Takahashi et al. and Masato with the reasonable expectation of forming a more uniform metallic coatings across the diameter of the deposition substrate by ensuring a uniform electric field/current density.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sendai et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0057098 A1) is directed toward a plating apparatus (title). Fukjikata et al. (US App. No. 2016/0145760 A1) is directed toward a plating apparatus and a plating method (title).
9. 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.
10. 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
Prosecution Insights