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 27 February 2026 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-13 and 21-27 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 using Seki are herein withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 27 February 2026.
All other rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the workpiece" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2022/0259756 A1).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a system, comprising:
a workpiece case including a closed position and an opened position (Fig. 1/2 #s 110/210 [0027] “a head 210 having a substrate 215 coupled with the head. The substrate may be coupled with a seal 212 incorporated on the head in some embodiments.”; [0025] “a wafer may be clamped to the system head 110, inverted” where the clamped wafer is a closed position and unclamped being the open position) the workpiece including an opening (the workpiece itself is interpreted as material worked upon the apparatus which does not further distinguish over the prior art in according to MPEP 2115)
a workpiece within the workpiece case having a surface exposed from the workpiece case by the opening (See citation below)
a fluid head including a fluid outlet, the fluid head (#135 “in-situ rinse system” [0026]) including:
a first mode of operation in which a first fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #330 “deliver first fluid”); and
a second mode of operation in which a second fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #360 “deliver second fluid), and
wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, hold a workpiece within the workpiece case when in the closed position, and the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, allow the workpiece to be removed from the workpiece case when in the opened position. ([0022] “. During electroplating, a substrate may be clamped to a head and submerged in the electroplating bath to form the metallization.” Necessarily requires the workpiece to be removed unclamped).
It is noted the recitation of “a first mode” and “a second mode” does not impart particular structural differentiation of the apparatus, so long as the fluid head is capable of delivering two fluids in any discernable manner, such as via delivery of a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet and delivery of a second fluid after a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet. It is further noted the type of fluid does not impart structural differentiation based upon the capability of a nozzle to delivery a fluid, much like a bottle can hold a fluid of tea or water.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Lee further wherein the first fluid is different from the second fluid. ([0035] “…the first fluid and the second fluid may be similar or different from one another”). Furthermore as stated above, the specific of the fluid do not impart any further structural distinction of the claimed system.
As to claims 4 and 5, the instant claim limitations are drawn to the specific fluids used. The specific first and second fluids of claim 1 are drawn towards a functional operation of the instantly claimed system ala “a first mode” and “a second mode” thus interpreted under MPE 2114. The types of fluid used does not impart structural differentiation based on the capability of the fluid outlets to deliver fluids, particularly different ones ([0028] “water or other rinse fluids” [0035] “water, such as deionized water, may also include any number of cleaners, acids, organic solvents, or rinsing agents”).
As to claim 6, Lee further discloses wherein the workpiece case is rotatably movable. ([0026], [0031] “The head may be rotated at operation 320…”, Fig. 3).
As to claims 7 and 8, the instant claim limitations are drawn to the specific functions of the fluid used. The specific first and second fluids of claim 1 are drawn towards a functional operation of the instantly claimed system ala “a first mode” and “a second mode” thus interpreted under MPE 2114. The types of fluid used does not impart structural differentiation based on the capability of the fluid outlets to deliver fluids and perform different functions.
As to claim 8, Lee further discloses the workpiece is a wafer ([0024]).
As to claim 10, the instant claim limitations are drawn to a third mode of operation. The specific modes of operation are interpreted as functional use of the apparatus under MPEP 2114. The types of modes used does not impart structural differentiation based on the capability of the fluid outlets to deliver fluids and perform different functions.
As to claim 11, Lee further discloses a workpiece bath configured to, in operation, receive the workpiece and submerge the workpiece within a bath fluid within the workpiece bath. ([0022] “. During electroplating, a substrate may be clamped to a head and submerged in the electroplating bath to form the metallization.”).
As to claim 12, Lee discloses clamping the wafer as cited above thus disclosing a clamshell apparatus since the term “clamshell” does not impart any further structural requirement of the system.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Hirao (US 2014/0295093 A1).
As to claim 13, Lee fails to explicitly disclose a static eliminator configured to prevent contaminant particles and debris from being statically attracted to a workpiece when the fluid head is in the second mode of operation.
Hirao discloses inclusion of astatic eliminator in a system for plating a wafer configured to prevent contaminant particles and debris from being statically attracted to a workpiece when the fluid head is in the second mode of operation. (#250 [0106]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a static eliminator at taught by Hirao in the system of Lee in order to eliminate state electricity from the substrate and substrate holder thus perventinf particles from being attached to the surface of the substrate ([0106] Hirao).
Claims 2, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zimmerman et al (US 2019/0301049 A1).
As to claim 2, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fluid head is rotatable and moveable.
Zimmerman discloses a fluid head that is rotatable and moveable (#355 rotated about axis between the retracted and un-retracted positioning – [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a fluid heat as taught by Zimmerman to perform the fluid deliver of the first and second mode of operation in Lee because it allows for the head to be translatable to a number of operational positions (Zimmerman [0040]).
As to claims 21 and 22, Lee discloses a system, comprising:
a workpiece case including a closed position and an opened position (Fig. 1/2 #s 110/210 [0027] “a head 210 having a substrate 215 coupled with the head. The substrate may be coupled with a seal 212 incorporated on the head in some embodiments.”; [0025] “a wafer may be clamped to the system head 110, inverted” where the clamped wafer is a closed position and unclamped being the open position) the workpiece including an opening (the workpiece itself is interpreted as material worked upon the apparatus which does not further distinguish over the prior art in according to MPEP 2115) wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, hold a workpiece within the workpiece case when in the closed position ([0025] “During electroplating operations, a wafer may be clamped to the system head 110, inverted, and extended into bowl 115 to perform an electroplating operation.”), and the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, allow the workpiece to be removed from the workpiece case when in the opened position. (opposite of the disclosure in [0025]).
A surface of the workpiece is exposed by the opening of the workpiece case when in the workpiece case (See citation below)
a fluid head including a fluid outlet, the fluid head (#135 “in-situ rinse system” [0026]) including:
a first mode of operation in which a first fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #330 “deliver first fluid”); and
a second mode of operation in which a second fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #360 “deliver second fluid), and
wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, hold a workpiece within the workpiece case when in the closed position, and the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, allow the workpiece to be removed from the workpiece case when in the opened position. ([0022] “. During electroplating, a substrate may be clamped to a head and submerged in the electroplating bath to form the metallization.” Necessarily requires the workpiece to be removed unclamped).
It is noted the recitation of “a first mode” and “a second mode” does not impart particular structural differentiation of the apparatus, so long as the fluid head is capable of delivering two fluids in any discernable manner, such as via delivery of a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet and delivery of a second fluid after a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet. It is further noted the type of fluid does not impart structural differentiation based upon the capability of a nozzle to delivery a fluid, much like a bottle can hold a fluid of tea or water.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to explicitly disclose an actuator, configured to, in operation, actuate and direct the fluid head.
Zimmerman discloses an actuator, configured to, in operation, actuate and direct the fluid head, which is configured to rotate and translate the fluid head as required by instant claim 22 (#345 connected to #355 rotated about axis between the retracted and un-retracted positioning – [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a fluid heat as taught by Zimmerman to perform the fluid deliver of the first and second mode of operation in Lee because it allows for the head to be translatable to a number of operational positions (Zimmerman [0040]).
As to the limitations “wherein the first fluid is in a liquid state…wherein the second fluid is in a gaseous state…”, the instant claim limitations are drawn to the specific fluids used. The specific first and second fluids of claim 23 are drawn towards a functional operation of the instantly claimed system ala “a first mode” and “a second mode” thus interpreted under MPE 2114. The types of fluid used does not impart structural differentiation based on the capability of the fluid outlets to deliver fluids, particularly different ones ([0028] “water or other rinse fluids” [0035] “water, such as deionized water, may also include any number of cleaners, acids, organic solvents, or rinsing agents”).
As to claim 24, Lee further discloses wherein the workpiece bath is an electrochemical plating bath (Abstract “electroplating apparatus”).
As to claims 25 and 26, Lee discloses a system, comprising:
a workpiece case including a closed position and an opened position (Fig. 1/2 #s 110/210 [0027] “a head 210 having a substrate 215 coupled with the head. The substrate may be coupled with a seal 212 incorporated on the head in some embodiments.”; [0025] “a wafer may be clamped to the system head 110, inverted” where the clamped wafer is a closed position and unclamped being the open position) the workpiece including an opening (the workpiece itself is interpreted as material worked upon the apparatus which does not further distinguish over the prior art in according to MPEP 2115) wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, hold a workpiece within the workpiece case when in the closed position ([0025] “During electroplating operations, a wafer may be clamped to the system head 110, inverted, and extended into bowl 115 to perform an electroplating operation.”), and the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, allow the workpiece to be removed from the workpiece case when in the opened position. (opposite of the disclosure in [0025]), wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, be rotated to facilitate removal of excess fluid along the workpiece ([0031]).
A surface of the workpiece is exposed by the opening of the workpiece case when in the workpiece case (See citation below)
a fluid head including a fluid outlet, the fluid head (#135 “in-situ rinse system” [0026]) including:
a first mode of operation in which a first fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #330 “deliver first fluid”); and
a second mode of operation in which a second fluid is ejected from the fluid outlet of the fluid head at the surface of the workpiece when held within the workpiece case (Fig. 3 #360 “deliver second fluid), and
wherein the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, hold a workpiece within the workpiece case when in the closed position, and the workpiece case is configured to, in operation, allow the workpiece to be removed from the workpiece case when in the opened position. ([0022] “. During electroplating, a substrate may be clamped to a head and submerged in the electroplating bath to form the metallization.” Necessarily requires the workpiece to be removed unclamped).
It is noted the recitation of “a first mode” and “a second mode” does not impart particular structural differentiation of the apparatus, so long as the fluid head is capable of delivering two fluids in any discernable manner, such as via delivery of a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet and delivery of a second fluid after a first fluid through a singular fluid outlet. It is further noted the type of fluid does not impart structural differentiation based upon the capability of a nozzle to delivery a fluid, much like a bottle can hold a fluid of tea or water.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to explicitly disclose an actuator, configured to, in operation, actuate and direct the fluid head.
Zimmerman discloses an actuator, configured to, in operation, actuate and direct the fluid head, which is configured to rotate and translate the fluid head as required by instant claim 26 (#345 connected to #355 rotated about axis between the retracted and un-retracted positioning – [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a fluid heat as taught by Zimmerman to perform the fluid deliver of the first and second mode of operation in Lee because it allows for the head to be translatable to a number of operational positions (Zimmerman [0040]).
As to the limitations “wherein the first fluid is in a liquid state…wherein the second fluid is in a gaseous state…”, the instant claim limitations are drawn to the specific fluids used. The specific first and second fluids of claim 23 are drawn towards a functional operation of the instantly claimed system ala “a first mode” and “a second mode” thus interpreted under MPE 2114. The types of fluid used does not impart structural differentiation based on the capability of the fluid outlets to deliver fluids, particularly different ones ([0028] “water or other rinse fluids” [0035] “water, such as deionized water, may also include any number of cleaners, acids, organic solvents, or rinsing agents”).
Claims 23 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as modified by Zimmerman, as applied to claims 22 and 25, respectively, in further view of Hirao (US 2014/0295093 A1).
As to claims 23 and 27, Lee, as modified by Zimmerman, fails to explicitly disclose a static eliminator configured to prevent contaminant particles and debris from being statically attracted to a workpiece when the fluid head is in the second mode of operation.
Hirao discloses inclusion of astatic eliminator in a system for plating a wafer configured to prevent contaminant particles and debris from being statically attracted to a workpiece when the fluid head is in the second mode of operation. (#250 [0106]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a static eliminator at taught by Hirao in the system of Lee, as modified by Zimmerman, in order to eliminate state electricity from the substrate and substrate holder thus perventinf particles from being attached to the surface of the substrate ([0106] Hirao).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Lee filed 27 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Lee does not disclose the as amended claim limitations drawn towards the directing of the fluid towards the surface of the substrate. The new limitations have been addressed above and the rejections maintained for the citations provided.
No further arguments are presented.
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