DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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The previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by amendment.
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 1-14 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 “the region being defined by the fixed arrangement of the tank’s electrodes, internal structures, and fluid geometry” 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 support the phrase as the specification does not relate “the region” to any particular structural elements including the tank’s electrodes, internal structures and/or fluid geometry. The internal structures are not defined or discussed. The fluid geometry is not defined or discussed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tank’s electrodes" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fixed arrangement" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-3, 5, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl et al. (US 2015/0008132) in view of Birang et al (US 2011/0031112).
Regarding claim 1, Stahl discloses an electrochemical deposition apparatus (title) (= a plating apparatus) comprising:
A plating chamber (10) [0050] (= a plating tank);
A working electrode (11) (abstract, [0050]) (= a substrate holder that holds a substrate; a substate holder is intrinsically present since a substrate is supported);
A counter electrode (12) [0050] (= an anode disposed, in the plating tank, facing the substrate held by the substrate holder), and
Instruments for measuring and providing film deposition results (16 = measuring instruments, 17, 18 voltmeters) (Figure 3) [0050] (= a film thickness measuring module including a sensor that detects a parameter related to a plating film formed on a surface to be plated of the substrate, the film thickness measuring module measuring a film thickness of the plating film based on a detection value or the sensor during a plating treatment), wherein the sensor comprises:
Multiple reference electrodes (13, 13’) disposed either between the substrate and anode (Figures 3-4) and/or in a location outside the space between the substrate and anode (Figures 6 and 8) [0044]-[0045] (= first, second and third potential sensors), and
Measuring a potential difference [0017], [0088].
Stahl differs from the instant claim in that Stahl presents the reference electrodes outside the substrate and anode in one embodiment (Figures 6 and 8) and the reference electrode between the substrate and anode in another embodiment (Figures 3-4), however, combining the embodiments including providing multiple reference electrodes in multiple locations would have been an obvious engineering design choice to measure voltages at various, multiple locations. Stahl discloses that the system may be presented in a more complex manner [0060].
Stahl discloses measuring the voltage and calculating the differences to obtain film results, however, Stahl does not explicitly disclose the film results including a film thickness.
Birang discloses an electroplating apparatus (title) comprising a plating cell (300) [0050], a substrate (315) supported by contact ring (314) [0050], a disk shaped anode member (105, 405) [0044], [0059] (Figure 4A), a sensor assembly including an array of sensors configured to measure cell current distributions during plating and wherein a thickness profile of plated metal can be generated from the cell current distributions [0041], a first potential sensor (331) disposed between the substrate (315) and anode (305) (Figure 3) [0050], the film thickness measuring module measures a first potential difference that is a potential difference between different positions of the array of sensors [0060].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce an apparatus comprising using potential sensors to obtain potential differences to measure a film thickness because Birang discloses that obtaining potential differences in a plating cell are used to determine film thickness profile.
Regarding claim 2, Birang discloses wherein the measuring of the sensors allow estimating the local current density [0059].
Regarding claim 3, Birang discloses that estimating the local current density can then be correlated to a total charge and a local plating thickness [0059].
Regarding claim 5, Birang discloses adjusting one or more process parameters according to the real time thickness profile [0013]-[0015], [0051].
Regarding claim 9, Birang discloses head rotation [0073].
Regarding claims 10-11, Birang discloses a plurality of first potential sensors are provided from an outer circumference to an inner circumference of the substrate (Figure 3) [0051] including an outer edge as applied to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Stahl discloses wherein the substrate is held oriented downwards (Figures 6 and 8). Birang discloses wherein the substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate with the surface to be plated being oriented downward in the plating tank (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Stahl discloses wherein the substrate is held to a side of the tank (Figures 6 and 8). Birang discloses the surface of the substrate positioned to a side of the cell (Figure 5). The instant claim language is not particularly limiting and does not require the surface to be facing the side of the cell. Moreover, even if the instant claim did require the surface to be facing a sidewall, which it does not currently, the mere rearrangement of parts does is not patentably distinct and would have been an obvious engineering design to carry out the same electroplating process.
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl et al. (US 2015/0008132), in view of Birang et al (US 2011/0031112) and in further view of Reid et al. (KR 20160132140).
Regarding claim 4, Stahl in view of Birang fail to disclose the claimed resistor.
In the same or similar field of electroplating devices, Reid discloses the device comprising an ionic resistor (119) having perforations which is used to mitigate or eliminate the end effect when plating [0004], [0015], [0071], [0076]. Reid discloses the resistor positioned adjacent to the wafer [0077] and between the wafer and substrate (Figure 5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a resistor because Reid discloses a resistor positioned between a wafer and anode to mitigate or eliminate the end effect which produces a non-uniform deposit. Regarding the positioning of the sensor between the resistor and the substrate, it would have been obvious to position the sensor of Stahl in view of Birang between the resistor and substrate for accurately measuring the potential in a position near the substrate. Moreover, rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 7, Reid discloses the gap between the resistor and wafer is adjustable [0077] therefore a drive mechanism is intrinsically present. The device of Stahl in view of Birang and Reid is capable of adjusting the gap based on the film thickness particularly in view of the monitoring and control as described by Birang [0009]. Moreover, the claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the device which is not structurally distinct from the device of Stahl in view of Birang and Reid (MPEP § 2114 II).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl et al. (US 2015/0008132), in view of Birang et al (US 2011/0031112) and in further view of Mayer et al. (US 6,402,923).
Regarding claim 6, Birang discloses a membrane or collimator (2113, 2111) [0077] which operate as a fluid flow restrictor to even out the flow pattern across the surface of the substrate [0046]. Stahl in view of Birang fail to disclose a retreated position of a shielding body.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Mayer discloses a shield (502) that is actuated by a controller to position the shield to control and vary an electric field around the wafer during electroplating operations (Col. 7 lines 3-11, claim 15). Mayer discloses the shield for screening the applied field during electroplating operations to compensate for potential drop along the radius of a wafer (abstract). Mayer discloses that a pair of stepper motor-driven screen assemblies (504, 506) are actuated by controller (424) to impart X and Y motion to the shield (502) (Col. 7 lines 3-11).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising a shield that is movable between a shielding position and a retracted position because Mayer discloses a shield for controlling the electric field and wherein the shield is movable about the electroplating cell. Regarding the claimed retracted position, positioning the shield of Mayer to be in a retracted position would have been an obvious engineering design choice in a scenario that the shield function is not required and/or for routine maintenance. The controller of Mayer is capable of positioning the shield in a retracted position based on the desired electroplating operations.
Regarding claim 8, the shield (416) of Mayer reads on the claimed anode mask since it is located above the anode and directs electric current to the substrate (Figure 4). Mayer discloses that the controller (422) controls the diameter D2 of the iris (418) to provide a more direct route to the wafer with less curvature of field lines (420a-c) along electrical pathway (410) (Col. 5 line 50 – Col. 6 line 19).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahl et al. (US 2015/0008132), in view of Birang et al (US 2011/0031112) and in further view of Amaya (JP 2008-014699).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed “is configured to move” is merely an obvious engineering design choice since mobility is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 V). Moreover, the teachings of Amaya are herein cited for disclosing that thickness measurement sensors in an electroplating device are designed to scan across the substrate to obtain thickness information. Amaya discloses an electrolytic device (title) comprising sensors that scan an entire object [0015] to obtain surface current density information and thereby measure the thickness of the object [0013].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a device comprising wherein the film thickness measuring module is configured to move because Amaya discloses that an entire object to be plated is scanned by sensors to obtain current density information and thereby determine the thickness profile. Regarding the claimed during the plating treatment, the claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device and does not further structurally limit the claimed invention (MPEP § 2114 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered. The remarks on pages 5-8 are directed towards the previous grounds of rejection which have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and therefore will not be specifically addressed at this time. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0289299 thickness based on local currents
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
Prosecution Insights