DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 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 stand.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 December 2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office action on 1 October 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-2, 9-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rash et al. (US 2014/0131211) in view of Dinneen et al. (US 2018/0202062).
Regarding claim 1, Rash discloses a semiconductor manufacturing method [0004] (= a method of semiconductor processing) comprising:
Electroplating a wafer (70) [0040] in an electroplating cell (14) [0035] (Figures 1-2) (= performing an electroplating operation on a semiconductor substrate in an electroplating bath within a vessel of an electroplating system);
Flow of anolyte (30) exits the chamber via manifolds (32) (= first drain that drains the electroplating bath) and catholyte exits the cathode chamber over a weir (74) (= second drain that also drains the electroplating bath) (Figure 2) [0037], [0042]. The claimed “electroplating bath” is inclusive of both the catholyte electrolyte and anolyte electrolyte (i.e. the anolyte and catholyte are collectively the electroplating bath).
Rash differs from the instant claim in that Rash fails to disclose removing the semiconductor substrate from the electroplating bath, closing a valve associated with the first drain and increasing flow to a second drain as claimed. Rash discloses the use of valves [0054]-[0055], [0067].
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Dinneen discloses an electroplating cell and method comprising flowing plating solution to the electroplating cell and removing a first wafer from the plating solution and thereafter increasing plating solution flow [0011]. Dinneen discloses the method for providing a flow rate of uniform overflow to remove defect causing particles, bubbles and other debris [0042] prior to electroplating the next substrate. Dinneen discloses valves connected with conduits [0115]-[0116].
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 method comprising removing a substrate from the electroplating bath and increasing flow to a second drain because Dinneen discloses that defect causing particles, bubbles and debris can be flushed out of the electroplating cell by flowing a high rate plating solution through the cell. Regarding the claimed closing a valve associated with a first drain, opening and closing valves in a fluid system is an obvious engineer process step to control the flow of fluid such as plating solution and/or other fluids such as water. Both Rash and Dinneen disclose the use of valves as stated above. Regarding the claimed “associated with” this claim language is not particular structurally limiting.
Regarding claim 2, Rash discloses the method comprising a weir wall (74) [0049]. Dinneen discloses increasing flow (abstract). Dinneen discloses the cell comprising a weir (abstract) [0093]-[0095] (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 9, Rash discloses the use of pumps to circulate the plating solution [0017], [0054], etc. Dinneen discloses the use of pumps [0115], [0125]. Coupling the pump with the second drain would have been obvious in order to circulate the plating solution that overflows the weir. Rash discloses the use of level sensors to control the level of electrolyte to a defined height [0020]. Dinneen discloses the use of liquid level sensors [0121]. Connecting a pump with a level sensor would have been obvious in order to control the electrolyte or liquid level.
Regarding claim 10, Rash discloses using the level sensors to maintain a defined height of the liquid level between a vertical column and the outer housing. Rash discloses using a controller to maintain a level of electrolyte while using the sensors [0020]. Dinneen discloses the increase in flow rate as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Rash in view of Dinneen disclose the claimed invention as applied above. Dinneen discloses increasing and decreasing the flow. Dinneen discloses a time period including 20 seconds [0013], [0093]-[0097], claim 19. Dinneen discloses the flow over the weir (= second drain) and Rash discloses removal of electrolyte over a wall and downward out of the chamber (= first and second drains).
Regarding claim 12, Dinneen discloses flowing plating solution at an increased rate for 20 seconds then the plating solution is flowed at a decreased rate to about 2 L/min and 20 L/min [0095]-[0097]. Regarding the claimed increasing flow to the first drain, while the plating solution of Dinneen is being reduced, the additional plating solution would drain from a first drain with the combination of Rash in view of Dinneen.
Regarding claim 13, Rash and Dinneen disclose the claimed weir as described above. Dinneen discloses increasing flow as stated above.
Regarding claim 17, Dinneen discloses increasing a flow of plating solution as described above. Increasing the flow of plating solution that is overflowed to a drain would necessarily increase a height of the plating solution in the drain area since more plating solution is being delivered in the same amount of time (e.g. more volume). Dinneen discloses wherein the plating solution may flow radially over a distance of about 50 mm in less than about 5 seconds or a point 150 mm from the center flows over the weir [0013]. Dinneen further indicates that the weir spacing is within the millimeter range [0014]. The claimed height increase of less than or about 2 cm would have been obvious given the millimeter ranges of Dinneen.
Regarding claim 18, Dinneen discloses a second increased flow rate for a time period of about 20 seconds [0013] which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rash et al. (US 2014/0131211), in view of Dinneen et al. (US 2018/0202062) and in further view of Kuribayashi et al. (US 2015/0233007).
Regarding claim 3, Dinneen discloses the weir comprising shaped moats [0070]-[0073] (Figure 6). Rash in view of Dinneen fail to disclose a plurality of notches.
In the same or similar field of electroplating, Kuribayashi discloses an electroplating apparatus comprising an inner tank (1) with an upper rim that has equally spaced apart V-shaped notches (11). The notches are present such that when solution overflows the upper rim of the tank, the solution passes through the notches and discharges equally on the sides. Kuribayashi discloses that the notches are effective for inhibiting the surface of the solution in the tank from waving under the influence of surface tension so that the surface of the overflowing solution may be kept flat [0047].
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 method comprising a plurality of notches because similar to a shaped moat of Dinneen, Kuribayashi teaches a plurality of notches at an upper surface to provide a flat overflow of solution.
Claim(s) 4-8, 15-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rash et al. (US 2014/0131211), in view of Dinneen et al. (US 2018/0202062) and in further view of McHugh et al. (US 2012/0292181).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Rash discloses a cathode volume in a cathode chamber (18) and an anode volume within an anode chamber (22) including a membrane (24) [0037]-[0043].
Rash in view of Dinneen fail to disclose wherein the vessel includes an upper cup as claimed.
In the same or similar field of electroplating, McHugh discloses an electroplating processor (20) comprising an upper cup (76) [0035] (Figure 3). The upper cup defines a plurality of apertures or slots extending downwardly for flow of the catholyte [0035], [0039]. McHugh additionally discloses a membrane present [0036]. McHugh teaches that having a high electrical resistance between anode and workpiece is helpful in achieving uniform deposition and that high electrical resistance reduces current leaks down the slots through the catholyte chamber and up the slots to the wafer edge [0040].
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 method comprising an upper cup with a plurality of channels because McHugh discloses the apparatus comprising an upper cup with slots to produce a uniform deposit.
Regarding claim 5, Rash discloses a cathode electrolyte that is flowed within the cathode volume defined by the cathode chamber (18) and the cathode volume is in contact with an upper surface of the membrane (24) [0045]-[0049] (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Rash discloses flowing an anode electrolyte in contact with a lower surface of the membrane (24) opposite the upper surface [0042] (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Rash discloses flow of electrolyte (30) exiting via manifolds (32) (Figure 2) [0042].
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Rash discloses the flow from over that cathode chamber (18) from the wall (74) and is returned to the plating bath. McHugh discloses a central catholyte chamber (120) defined by the upper cup (76) (Figures 5-9).
Regarding claim 19, Rash, Dinneen and McHugh disclose the claimed invention as described above. The combination discloses performing electroplating as taught by all the references, removing the substrate as taught by Dinneen, providing a first flow through a central channel as taught by McHugh, providing an additional flow with the upper cup (76) of McHugh with the slots and overflowing the weir (74) as taught by Rash and Dinneen.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rash et al. (US 2014/0131211), in view of Dinneen et al. (US 2018/0202062), in view of McHugh et al. (US 2012/0292181) and in further view of Kuribayashi et al. (US 2015/0233007).
Regarding claim 20, Dinneen discloses the weir comprising shaped moats [0070]-[0073] (Figure 6). Rash in view of Dinneen and McHugh fail to disclose a plurality of notches.
In the same or similar field of electroplating, Kuribayashi discloses an electroplating apparatus comprising an inner tank (1) with an upper rim that has equally spaced apart V-shaped notches (11). The notches are present such that when solution overflows the upper rim of the tank, the solution passes through the notches and discharges equally on the sides. Kuribayashi discloses that the notches are effective for inhibiting the surface of the solution in the tank from waving under the influence of surface tension so that the surface of the overflowing solution may be kept flat [0047].
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 method comprising a plurality of notches because similar to a shaped moat of Dinneen, Kuribayashi teaches a plurality of notches at an upper surface to provide a flat overflow of solution. Dinneen discloses wherein the plating solution may flow radially over a distance of about 50 mm in less than about 5 seconds or a point 150 mm from the center flows over the weir [0013]. Dinneen further indicates that the weir spacing is within the millimeter range [0014]. The claimed height increase of less than or about 2 cm would have been obvious given the millimeter ranges of Dinneen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7 the argument states that Rash discloses different fluids that are physically separated and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The anolyte electrolyte and catholyte electrolyte of Dash collectively disclose the electroplating bath. There is nothing present in the instant claim that excludes this interpretation. An electroplating bath may be inclusive of both solutions of the catholyte and anolyte. Dash discloses that the anolyte electrolyte and catholyte electrolyte are separated by a membrane that blocks insoluble particles that are formed at the anode and/or to confine organic additives. The membrane of Dash allows the flow of ions between the anode and cathode therefore the electrolytes are in fluid communication with each other and are considered parts of the electroplating bath.
On page 7 the argument states that Dinneen uses a fundamentally different mechanism to increase the flow and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. The instant claim does not recite any specific mechanism of increasing the flow.
On page 9 the argument states that McHugh does not disclose flow over the weir and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As recited in the grounds of rejection both Rash and Dinneen disclose flow over a weir which is combined with the channels of McHugh.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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