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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 and 11-13, and species A, claims 1-5 and 7-10, in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are under consideration in this Office action.
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.
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).
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).
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 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 described 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 above.
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 in view of Contolini, 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.
Conclusion
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