DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
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
The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrasing “performing a plating process detaching the substrate from the substrate holder” (line 6) appears to misplace the phrase of “detaching the substrate from the substrate holder”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 detaching step of detaching a substrate from a substrate holder performing a plating process on a substrate held by the substrate holder” 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 original specification does not appear to support the method step of detaching a substrate. The original specification states “the plating module 400 recovers the substrate” [0085], Figure 13 step (108). There is a lack of sufficient support for any detaching a substrate.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizohata et al. (US 2007/0080057).
Regarding claim 1, Mizohata discloses determining if plating liquid has intruded or leaked into a restriction region [0057], [0062] (= a leakage determination method) comprising:
A cleaning process for cleaning with a cathode cleaning liquid (e.g. water) [0058] for discharging the cathode cleaning liquid to a cathode ring (80) (abstract = contact member) of a substrate holder after performing a plating process where the substrate (W) is immersed in a plating liquid [0007], [0126] (= a discharging step of discharging a cleaning liquid to a contact member of a substrate holder after immersing a substrate held by the substrate holder in a plating solution and performing a plating process);
Measuring a conductivity of the cathode cleaning liquid [0055]-[0057] (= a measuring step of measuring a conductivity of the cleaning liquid after cleaning the contact member);
Electrical conductivity is measured of the cathode cleaning liquid and the conductivity of the cathode cleaning liquid is drastically increased (i.e. comparatively analyzed) by even a very small amount in the presence of the plating liquid [0057]-[0058] (= a determining step of determining presence or absence of a leakage of the plating solution to an arranged region of the contact member based on comparison between a first conductivity of a cleaning liquid measured in advance for a substrate holder serving as a reference and a second conductivity of the cleaning liquid measured in the measuring step).
Mizohata discloses after the plating process removing plating liquid on the plated surface of the wafer before and during the plating process is performed on the next wafer [0421] and measuring the conductivity as stated above. Mizohata differs from claim 1 in that Mizohata does not disclose a detaching step of detaching a substrate prior to a discharging step, however, Mizohata appears to disclose performing the cleaning step prior to the next wafer being plated [0421]. Moreover, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C). Performing the discharge of cleaning liquid during or after a plating process has been performed would have been obvious in order to ensure that the cathode ring of Mizohata is clean for current and subsequent wafer processing [0025]-[0027].
Regarding claim 2, Mizohata discloses a difference in conductivity present between the cathode cleaning liquid and plating liquid to determine the presence of plating liquid in the cathode ring area and restriction region (80f) [0061]. Mizohata discloses a threshold is properly set for the electrical conductivity measured by the conductivity meter (212), so that the system controlled (155) can detect the leakage of the plating liquid from the gap between the wafer and the abutment portion on the basis of the output signal of the conductivity meter [0413].
Regarding claim 3, the instant claim states “a correcting step” which appears to relate a conductivity to a substrate. The “correcting step” is interpreted as providing a conductivity (e.g. by measuring an initial conductivity). The claimed “type” of substrate may be any substrate. The difference between conductivities is addressed above and when the conductivity is measured to be above the threshold a leakage is present. The claimed “correcting” and “determining” are also mental process steps performed by the operator and/or controller of the device of Mizohata.
Regarding claim 4, the instant claim appears to state providing (e.g. measuring) a conductivity over time (i.e. rate). Mizohata does not explicitly disclose measuring multiple conductivities over time, however, measuring the conductivity over time (e.g. multiple times) would have been an obvious engineering process step. Mizohata discloses measuring the conductivity and performing measuring the conductivity over time is an obvious step to obtain multiple data outputs to determine whether this is any leakage [0385]. Mizohata discloses the threshold as described above. The claimed determining step is directed towards a mental process step.
Regarding claim 5, the instant claim states “a correcting step” which appears to relate a conductivity rate to a substrate. The “correcting step” is interpreted as providing a conductivity (e.g. by measuring an initial conductivity and subsequent conductivities). The claimed “type” of substrate may be any substrate. The difference between conductivities is addressed above and when the conductivity or conductivities is/are measured to be above the threshold a leakage is present. The claimed “correcting” and “determining” are also mental process steps performed by the operator and/or controller of the device of Mizohata.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 November 2025 have been fully considered. The previous grounds of rejection of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn. The cited reference Mizohata is still relied upon for disclosing the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 as stated above. On pages 5-6 the argument states that Mizohata does not disclose a process in which the substrate is first detached from the substrate holder and only then is the cleaning liquid discharged to the contact member and therefore Mizohata does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mizohata discloses after the plating process performing a cleaning step prior to processing the next wafer [0421]. Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C). Performing the discharge of cleaning liquid during or after a plating process has been performed would have been obvious in order to maintain that cathode ring of Mizohata is clean for current and subsequent wafer processing.
On pages 6-7 the argument states that Mizohata does not disclose the claimed determining step and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed determining step is directed towards a mental process step. The disclosure of Mizohata unambiguously discloses measuring the conductivity. Performing multiple conductivity measurements overtime is an obvious engineering design choice in order to monitor the conductivity. Mizohata discloses comparing the change in conductivity levels [0057], [0074]. Mizohata additionally recognizes that the conductivity is compared to a threshold [0413], [0497].
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