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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 29 December 2025 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-27 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Hafezi, as modified by Bajaj and Chua is herein maintained.
All other rejections are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 29 December 2025.
New rejections are provided over previously cited art as necessitated by the amendment filed 29 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafezi et al (US 2005/0218000 A1) in view of Bajaj et al (US 2003/0201185 A1).
As to claim 1, Hafezi an electrochemical deposition system configured for electrochemical plating of a substrate, the electrochemical deposition system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a chamber holding a plating bath (#203);
an electrode disposed in the plating bath (#205);
a plating cup (#310 comprising a contact ring (#316), wherein the contact ring comprises contacts, and wherein the contacts are immersed in the plating bath (#6354); and
a controller configured during a cleaning operation without presence of a substrate ([0010], [0063], claim 22 “absence of a substrate”) to apply a voltage signal across the contact ring and the electrode to remove residual from the contacts, wherein the voltage signal comprises a plating-de-plating waveform, wherein the plating-de-plating waveform comprises a plurality of cycles, and wherein each of the plurality of cycles includes a pair of pulses with different polarity (Claim 21 among other passages) wherein the voltage signal comprises a plating deplating waveform comprising a plurality of pulses with different polarity (claim 22 “cathodic electrical input” and “anodically controlled electrical input”). The limitation “configured to apply…wherein the plating-de-plating waveform comprises a plurality of cycles…” is interpreted that configured language requires the configuration of a plurality of cycles without presence of a substrate during a particular cleaning operation.
Hafezi further discloses performing additional deplating and plating steps in order to achieve a desired state of the contacts before the next substrate is processed ([0009], [0028], [0071], [0081]).
Hafezi fails to disclose wherein the cleaning cycle comprises a plurality of cycles.
Bajaj discloses applying a plating-deplating waveform in order to clean contaminants from a copper seed layer during a single cleaning cycle (claim 1, [0008]). Bajaj discloses that the pulses are an etch pulse and a depostiong pulse ([0008]).
Bajaj discloses the following dependent claim limitations:
Instant claims 4, 24 and 26: adjusting a voltage of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0024] “Alternatively, the respective pulses may be of varying magnitudes and durations, independent of the load bias voltage” which reads on having amplitudes the same or different as required by instant claims 24 and 26)
Instant claim 5: adjusting a duration of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0024] “Alternatively, the respective pulses may be of varying magnitudes and durations, independent of the load bias voltage” which reads on having amplitudes the same or different as required by instant claims 25 and 27).
Instant claim 6: adjusting a current of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0030]).
Bajaj is of the same field of endeavor of cleaning copper which involved etching the copper ([0024]) and further deposit to prevent damage to the metal layer ([0027]).
Bajaj is of the same field of endeavor of cleaning metal to restore to the appropriate level to carryout subsequent deposition.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a plating-deplating waveform to clean the metal surface as taught by Bajaj in the method of Hafezi because it enables cleaning and protection of the underlying layer (Bajaj [0024] “The individual cathodic pulses 303 may be configured to be slightly greater in magnitude than the load bias voltage 301, while the anodic pulses 304 may be substantially less in magnitude than the load bias voltage 301, thus facilitating a slight etching of organic contamination from the substrate surface while not removing a substantial portion of the seed layer.”).
As to claim 2, Hafezi further discloses a membrane disposed in the chamber between the electrode and the contact ring and separating a first portion of the plating bath from the a second portion of the plating bath (#208).
As to claim 3, Hafezi discloses a respective portion of the residual is removed during each of the plurality of cycles ([0066] “The controlled electrical inputs of the invention are selected to achieve rapid and effective removal of metal residue”).
As to claim 7, the recitations are necessarily met because when removal is performed after the plating of a substrate, even one, the recitation of “predetermined number” is satisfied, and therefore the criterion satisfied before removal.
As to claim 8, the recitation is necessarily met via whenever the first deplating is performed since there is no distinction between the initial pulse and subsequent pulses.
As to claim 9, Hafezi discloses an additional conditioning step via an anodically controlled current or voltage for a fixed duration which is longer than the previous deplating step ([0081] via combination with the plating/deplating waveform of Bajaj).
As to claim 10, Hafezi further discloses performing one or more passive etching operations to further remove residual from the contacts. (“Further, a zero-current or zero-voltage step may be included as part of the combinations of electrical inputs” [0066], [0071], [0077]).
As to claim 21, Hafezi, as modified by Bajaj, further disclose wherein the plurality of cycles are consecutive plating-de-plating cycles performed to remove the residual from the contacts during the cleaning operation via combination above repeating the deplating-plating cycle.
As to claim 22, Hafezi, as modified by Bajaj, further disclose wherein: a first pulse and a last pulse of the plating-de-plating waveform are de-plating pulses having a first polarity and other pulses of the plating-de-plating waveform have a second polarity; and the second polarity is different than the first polarity. (“cathodic” and “anodic” pulses in both Hafezi and Bajaj, See Fig 3 Bajaj last pulse 304).
As to claim 23, Hafezi, as modified by Bajaj, further disclose wherein the controller is configured, during the cleaning operation, to a) remove the substrate from the plating cup (Hafezi, [0032]-[0033] controller 111 controlling cells and robots thus necessarily configured to remove the substrate), b) at least one of lower the cup into the plating bath and increase a level of the plating bath such that the plating cup is immersed into the plating bath (Hafezi [0063] “re-immersing…”), c) rotating the plating cup (Hafezi [0064] “rotated at about 100 rpm or lower…”), d) applying the voltage signal across the contact ring including generating the plurality of cycles without the presence of a substrate (Hafezi [0065]-[0066]), and e) depositing material to induce a cleaning effect (Hafezi [0072]).
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafezi et al (US 2005/0218000 A1) in view of Bajaj et al (US 2003/0201185 A1) and Chua et al (US 2013/0256146 A1).
As to claims 11-15 and 18, Hafezi discloses a residual removal method for an electrochemical deposition system configured for electrochemical plating of a substrate, the method comprising:
removing the substrate from a plating cup ([0063]), wherein the plating cup (#202/201) includes contacts for contacting the substrate (#s 354);
immersing the contacts in a plating bath in a chamber of the electrochemical deposition system ([0063] “such as by re-immersing the contacts without the substrate sitting thereon into the same plating solution in the same electrochemical plating system after removing the substrate from the contacts.”);
applying a voltage signal across an electrode and the contacts to remove residual from the contacts wherein the electrode is disposed in the plating bath wherein the plating-de-plating waveform includes an initial de-plating pulse prior to the plurality of cycles (as required by instant claim 18 Step 620 [0065]).
wherein the voltage signal includes a plating waveform, wherein the plating waveform ([0072]).
Hafezi further discloses performing additional deplating and plating steps in order to achieve a desired state of the contacts before the next substrate is processed ([0009], [0028], [0071], [0081]).
Hafezi fails to disclose wherein the cleaning cycle comprises a plurality of cycles.
Bajaj discloses applying a plating-deplating waveform in order to clean contaminants from a copper seed layer (claim 1, [0008]).
Bajaj discloses the following dependent claim limitations:
Instant claim 13: adjusting a voltage of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0024] “Alternatively, the respective pulses may be of varying magnitudes and durations, independent of the load bias voltage”).
Instant claim 14: adjusting a duration of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0024] “Alternatively, the respective pulses may be of varying magnitudes and durations, independent of the load bias voltage”).
Instant claim 15: adjusting a current of one of the pulses prior to or during a corresponding one of the plurality of cycles ([0030]).
Bajaj is of the same field of endeavor of cleaning copper which involved etching the copper ([0024]) and further deposit to prevent damage to the metal layer ([0027]).
Bajaj is of the same field of endeavor of cleaning metal to restore to the appropriate level to carryout subsequent deposition.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a plating-deplating waveform to clean the metal surface as taught by Bajaj in the method of Hafezi because it enables cleaning and protection of the underlying layer (Bajaj [0024] “The individual cathodic pulses 303 may be configured to be slightly greater in magnitude than the load bias voltage 301, while the anodic pulses 304 may be substantially less in magnitude than the load bias voltage 301, thus facilitating a slight etching of organic contamination from the substrate surface while not removing a substantial portion of the seed layer.”).
Chua discloses rinsing after cleaning substrate holders ([0011], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have rinsed the contacts as taught by Chua in the method of Hafezi to remove any remaining electrolyte on the surface ([0071], [0096] Chua).
As to claim 12, the recitation is a function of the plating process itself thus inherent that residual is removed during a deplating process since that is the intention of the deplating process.
As to claim 16 and 17, the recitations are necessarily met because when removal is performed after the plating of a substrate, even one, the recitation of “predetermined number” is satisfied, and therefore the criterion satisfied before removal.
As to claim 19, Hafezi discloses an additional conditioning step via an anodically controlled current or voltage for a fixed duration which is longer than the previous deplating step ([0081] via combination with the plating/deplating waveform of Bajaj).
As to claim 20, Hafezi further discloses performing one or more passive etching operations to further remove residual from the contacts. (“Further, a zero-current or zero-voltage step may be included as part of the combinations of electrical inputs” [0066], [0071], [0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments towards the “configured to” language is noted. In light of the amended claim limitations, it is noted the configured imparts the capability of the controller to apply the waveform without the presence of a substrate for a plurality of cycles.
No further arguments are presented towards the previous combination of Hafezi in view of Bajaj and thus the amended rejection above is maintained for reasons outlined herein.
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 LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights