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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 06/10/2026.
Status of Rejections
All previous rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahagi et al. (U.S. 2016/0108539) in view of Contolini et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,159,354), and further in view of Fredenberg et al. (U.S. 2011/0278162).
Regarding claims 1-2, Yahagi teaches a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate in an apparatus for plating (see e.g. Fig. 1, substrate holder 7 holding wafer 7 in plating apparatus; Paragraph 0037, lines 1-7), the substrate holder comprising:
a seal configured to seal an outer peripheral part of the substrate and provided with a first opening which a surface to be plated or a plating surface of the substrate is exposed on (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 5, seal ring 31 with opening pressing against peripheral portion of wafer W to seal; Paragraph 0041, lines 1-3 and 5-8); and
a seal ring holder configured to hold the seal and provided with a second opening which the plating surface of the substrate is exposed on (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 5, see e.g. Fig. 5, fixing ring 40 with opening formed by regulation ring 45 pressing against, i.e. holding, seal ring 31; Paragraph 0041, lines 4-5, and Paragraph 0043, lines 4-7), the seal ring holder being configured such that electric lines of force arrive at the plating surface of the substrate from an anode only via the first and second openings (see e.g. Figs. 5 and 7, electric field between anode and wafer W regulated by regulation ring 45 in direct contact with seal ring 31, thereby arriving via the first and second openings; Paragraphs 0043 and 0057),
wherein a height of the seal ring holder is higher than that of the seal (see e.g. Figs. 5 and 9-10, seal ring 31 slotted adjacent inner circumferential surface 42a of fixing ring 40, which is shown to have a greater total height than the seal ring 31 by this relative fitting; Paragraph 0043).
Yahagi does not explicitly teach a diameter ratio that is a ratio of an opening diameter of the second opening to an opening diameter of the first opening being in a range of not lower than 99.32% and not higher than 99.80%, of claim 1, or in a range of not lower than 99.42% and not higher than 99.59%, of claim 2. Yahagi does however teach the diameter of the second opening being smaller than that of the first opening (see e.g. Fig. 5, inside diameter of regulation ring 45 smaller than inside diameter of seal ring 31; Paragraph 0056), resulting in a diameter ratio of less than 100%, this reduced diameter being intended to regulate the electric field formed on the peripheral portion of the substrate and suppress the amount of conductive material deposited on the peripheral portion of the substrate, thereby enabling uniform deposition of the conductive material over the entirety of the substrate surface (see e.g. Paragraph 0057).
Contolini teaches an electroplating apparatus comprising a cup in which a wafer is mounted (see e.g. Fig. 1, wafer 38 mounted in cup 36; Col. 4, lines 1-2 and 11-12), the cup comprising a first aperture formed by a seal in contact with the wafer (see e.g. Figs. 3A-3B, seal 72 with aperture at inner perimeter 90 sealing against plating surface 76 of wafer 38; Col. 4, lines 64-66) and a second aperture formed by a flange further from the wafer surface with a diameter less than that of the first aperture (see e.g. Figs. 3A-3B, flange 48A with annulus 49A forming aperture at inner perimeter 92 with diameter less than that of inner perimeter 90; Col. 6, lines 1-6), wherein the diameter of the second aperture may be adjusted to provide a more uniform current flux and adjust the thickness of plating in the edge of the wafer and thereby achieve a more uniform overall plated surface (see e.g. Col. 1, lines 36-46 , Col. 2, lines 30-49 and Col. 6, lines 35-62).
Paragraph 0035 of the instant specification similarly describes the diameter ratio of the second opening to the first opening being optimized to achieve enhanced thickness uniformity of the plating film on the substrate surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter ratio of the second opening to the first opening in the substrate holder of Yahagi to be optimized to within the claimed ranges under 100% as taught by Contolini to adjust the thickness of plating in the edge of the substrate and thereby achieve better overall plating uniformity. MPEP § 2144.05 II states “"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. The diameter ratio of the second and first openings is a results-effective variable influencing plating uniformity as taught by Contolini and Yahagi above.
Modified Yahagi does not explicitly teach a height of a bank formed by the seal and the seal ring holder being equal to or higher than 2.0 mm and equal to or lower than 3.0 mm.
Fredenberg teaches a substrate holder for a plating system (see e.g. Abstract) comprising a clamping ring provided with a low-profile structure that reduces disturbance or hindering of the flow of electrolyte on the front of the substrate, the low-profile structure extending a distance from the substrate, i.e. bank height, preferably in the range of less than 10 mm, such as less than 5 mm (see e.g. Fig. 3A, distance D from substrate 102 to outer surface of low-profile structure 305; Paragraph 0058), encompassing the claimed range of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal and seal ring holder of modified Yahagi to together form a low-profile bank with a height of preferably less than 10 mm, such as less than 5 mm, as taught by Fredenberg to reduce disturbance or hindering of the flow of electrolyte on the front of the substrate. MPEP § 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 4, modified Yahagi teaches the second opening of the seal ring holder having a second taper on a side close to the seal, wherein the second taper is provided to increase a diameter of the second opening in a direction closer to the seal (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 10, inclined inner circumferential surface of regulation ring 45 which increases in diameter toward seal ring 31; Paragraph 0063, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of the substrate holder holding the substrate “in such a manner that the plating surface of the substrate faces down” is a statement of intended use, regarding how the substrate holder is positioned in a plating apparatus. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Modified Yahagi teaches all the elements of the claimed substrate holder as stated above, and the substrate holder itself could be positioned in any relative orientation, such as face down.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yahagi teaches the substrate holder holding the substrate in such a manner that the plating surface of the substrate stands up (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 1, substrate holder 7 and wafer W in vertical position; Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9).
It should be noted, as stated above in regards to claim 7, that the orientation of the substrate holder is a statement of intended use regarding how it may be positioned in a plating apparatus (see MPEP § 2114 as cited above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yahagi teaches an apparatus for plating (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 1, plating apparatus; Paragraph 0036, lines 1-2), comprising:
the substrate holder according to claim 1 (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 1, substrate holder 7; Paragraph 0037, lines 4-5); and
a plating tank which the substrate holder is placed in (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 1, plating bath 1 with storage bath 2 in which substrate holder 7 is immersed; Paragraph 0036, lines 2-5, and Paragraph 0037, lines 4-7).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahagi, Contolini and Fredenberg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prabhakar et al. (U.S. 2010/0155254).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yahagi teaches all the elements of the substrate holder of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Yahagi does not teach the second opening of the seal ring holder having a first taper on a side away from the seal, wherein the first taper is provided to increase a diameter of the second opening in a direction farther away from the seal.
Prabhakar teaches a wafer holding apparatus (see e.g. Paragraph 0047) comprising a cup including a lipseal for contacting the wafer and a cup bottom for supporting, i.e. holding, the lipseal (see e.g. Figs. 2A and 3A, cup assembly 200 including lipseal 212 contacting wafer 304 and cup bottom 210; Paragraph 0056, lines 7-10, Paragraph 0057, lines 17-20, and Paragraph 0061, lines 1-3), wherein the cup bottom may have a tapered edge at its innermost periphery away from the lipseal that increases in diameter farther from the lipseal, this tapered edge being shaped to improve flow characteristic of electrolyte/rinsate around the edge and improve bubble rejection characteristics (see e.g. Fig. 2A, tapered edge 216 of cup bottom 210 opposite from and increasing in diameter away from lipseal 212; Paragraph 0057, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal ring holder of modified Yahagi to have a taper on a side opposite the seal that increases in diameter farther from the seal as taught by Prabhakar to improve flow characteristic of electrolyte/rinsate around the edge and improve bubble rejection characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yahagi teaches all the elements of the substrate holder of claim 1 as stated above. Modified Yahagi further teaches the second opening of the seal ring holder having a second taper on a side close to the seal, wherein the second taper is provided to increase a diameter of the second opening in a direction closer to the seal (see e.g. Yahagi Fig. 10, inclined inner circumferential surface of regulation ring 45 which increases in diameter toward seal ring 31; Paragraph 0063, lines 3-5).
Modified Yahagi does not teach the second opening of the seal ring holder having a first taper on a side away from the seal, wherein the first taper is provided to increase a diameter of the second opening in a direction farther away from the seal.
Prabhakar teaches a wafer holding apparatus (see e.g. Paragraph 0047) comprising a cup including a lipseal for contacting the wafer and a cup bottom for supporting, i.e. holding, the lipseal (see e.g. Figs. 2A and 3A, cup assembly 200 including lipseal 212 contacting wafer 304 and cup bottom 210; Paragraph 0056, lines 7-10, Paragraph 0057, lines 17-20, and Paragraph 0061, lines 1-3), wherein the cup bottom may have a tapered edge at its innermost periphery away from the lipseal that increases in diameter farther from the lipseal, this tapered edge being shaped to improve flow characteristic of electrolyte/rinsate around the edge and improve bubble rejection characteristics (see e.g. Fig. 2A, tapered edge 216 of cup bottom 210 opposite from and increasing in diameter away from lipseal 212; Paragraph 0057, lines 11-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seal ring holder of modified Yahagi to further comprise a taper on a side opposite the seal that increases in diameter farther from the seal as taught by Prabhakar to improve flow characteristic of electrolyte/rinsate around the edge and improve bubble rejection characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 over Yahagi in view of Contolini, particularly regarding the height of the bank formed by the seal and the seal ring holder, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yahagi, Contolini and Fredenberg.
On pages 6-8, Applicant argues that there is no teaching showing that the seal and flange apertures and adjusted dimensions described by Contolini are the same as the claimed seal/SRH openings and diameter ratio, and that there is no explanation as to why one would not rely on the additional structures taught by Contolini influencing the current distribution, such as apertures extending through the flange wall, or whether the modification would achieve the same field-shaping result. This is not considered persuasive. Yahagi initially teaches the reduced inside diameter of the sealing ring holder with respect to the inner diameter of the directly underlying sealing ring, i.e. similar to the claimed and disclosed configuration, regulating the electric field formed on the peripheral portion of the substrate and suppressing the amount of conductive material deposited on the peripheral portion of the substrate, thereby enabling uniform deposition of the conductive material over the entirety of the substrate surface (see e.g. Yahagi Paragraphs 0056-0057). Contolini then teaches a flange which provides a reduced aperture diameter above an aperture of sealing ring (see e.g. Contolini Figs. 3A-3B, flange 48A with annulus 49A forming aperture at inner perimeter 92 with diameter less than that of inner perimeter 90; Col. 6, lines 1-6), wherein the aperture diameter of the flange may be adjusted to provide a more uniform current flux and adjust the thickness of plating in the edge of the wafer and thereby achieve a more uniform overall plated surface (see e.g. Contolini Col. 1, lines 36-46 , Col. 2, lines 30-49 and Col. 6, lines 35-62), thereby relying on the same mechanism described by Yahagi. It should be noted that paragraph 0039 of the instant specification similarly describes the changing of the respective opening diameters varying the plating film thickness distribution especially in an outer peripheral part of the substrate. Therefore, optimizing the ratio of the sealing ring and sealing ring holder of Yahagi, which has the structure similar to the instant disclosure, as a results-effective variable in light of the teachings of Contolini to provide improved uniformity by controlling the degree of reduction of the amount of peripheral deposited material, as already described by Yahagi, would be expected to result in the same or very similar values as the claimed range. Though Contolini has additional features that it discloses, it is not necessarily bodily incorporated into the structure of Yahagi. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights