DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-9 are pending.
Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The previous objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in view of Applicant cancelling claim 3.
All other rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
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 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112).
Regarding claim 1, Birang discloses an electroplating apparatus (title, 300) (= a plating apparatus) comprising:
A fluid basin assembly (301) for storing fluid volume (316) (Figure 3) [0050] (= a plating tank for storing plating liquid);
A contact ring (314) for holding a substrate (315) (= a substrate holder for holding a substrate);
An anode (305) facing the substrate (Figure 3) (= an anode arranged in the plating tank in such a manner that it faces the substrate held by the substrate holder);
A sensor assembly (330) having an array of sensors (331) that are positioned close to the substrate (Figure 3) [0051] (= an electric potential sensor constructed in such a manner that it is arranged in a position close to the substrate held by the substrate holder, and measures electric potential of the plating liquid).
Additionally, Birang discloses a computer (336) with processing circuit (332), multiplexer (334), differential amplifiers (333) and A/D converter (335), the processing circuit receives the local voltage level from the sensors (331), the computer processes the differential voltage data and provides information of the electric field [0051]. Local current density is calculated based on equation 1 [0059], differential voltage is calculated based on equation 2 [0061] and the local current density may also be estimated by measuring the voltage drop [0059]. Birang discloses a mathematical model [0063], [0073].
The phrasing “a state space model constructed to estimate…of the substrate at time t” is directed towards a mathematical concept, relationship, formula and/or equation. The phrasing does not include a structural element such as a controller/computer/processor to carry out the mathematical concept. The phrasing also does not provide any structural element to the instant claim. The phrasing is merely calculation(s) and the instant claim does not appear to perform method step(s) that may be associated with the claimed apparatus. The phrasing is non-functional instruction. The Examiner takes the position that the claimed phrasing at most requires obtaining either a current or potential and estimating a current density. The device of Birang comprises a sensor assembly that obtains local potential [0051]. Obtaining current information may be calculated based on Ohm’s Law. Birang also unambiguously discloses estimating the local current density [0059]. Further, the discovery of a mathematical formula cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) I. In the instant case there does not appear to be any inventive concept to the claimed state space model particularly in view of the teachings of Birang which estimates a local current density.
Although the instant claim is interpreted to merely be a mathematical concept for the phrasing “a state space model…at time t”, the specific claim language will be addressed.
The phrasing “a state space model constructed to estimate current density of current flowing through an outer edge part of the substrate, based on a measured value of electric potential of the plating liquid obtained by the electric potential sensor and by using a state equation and an observation equation” appears to address a single equation that uses two other equations. Birang is inclusive of multiple equations as described above.
The phrasing “wherein the state equation of the state space model is an equation that describes time evolution relating to the current density of the current flowing through the outer edge part of the substrate, thereby enabling to estimate current density of the current flowing through the outer edge part of the substrate at time t from current density of the current flowing through the outer edge part of the substrate at time t-1” relates to a current density changing over time. Birang discloses real time plating profile generated by integrating current values associated with differential voltage values [0011]-[0012] thus incorporating an estimation based on current over time.
The phrasing “wherein the observation equation of the state space model is an equation that describes relationship between the current density of the current flowing through the outer edge part of the substrate and potential of the plating liquid in a position of the electric potential sensor, thereby enabling to estimate potential of the plating liquid that is expected to be measured by the electric potential sensor at time t from current density of the current flowing through the outer edge part of the substrate at time t” merely relates potential to current density which is disclosed by Birang for example equation 1.
Regarding claim 6, Birang discloses the device comprising a calculation of current density based on the differential voltage [0059]-[0060].
Regarding claim 7, Birang discloses calculating the film thickness based on the current density calculated (Equations 1-4) [0059]-[0067].
Regarding claim 8, Birang discloses wherein the outer edge part of the substrate (315) is a part (i.e. a structure), which is grasped by the contact ring (314) (Figure 3). The claimed “part” is not particularly structurally limiting.
Regarding claim 9, Birang discloses wherein the sensors, which sense the voltage to calculate the current density, are position at a position inward from the edge of the substrate (Figure 3) [0051].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112) in view of Amaya et al. (US 6,542,784).
Regarding claim 4, Birang discloses the plating tank, substrate holder anode and electric potential sensor as described above (= module).
Birang fails to disclose wherein the relationship between the current density and the potential of the plating liquid is that based on a function representing a 3D model of the plating module. It is noted that the claimed “relationship” is directed towards the mathematical concept as described above. However, to fully address the claimed language, Amaya is herein cited.
In the same or similar field of a plating device, Amaya discloses a plating system for obtaining current density and potential distributions (abstract) using conditions such as the structure of a plating bath (Col. 1 lines 34-42). Amaya teaches using the shape or structure of the plating bath as a model to provide a more efficient analysis (Col. 3 lines 49-54, Col. 4 lines 39-46). Amaya discloses the use of the interior of the plating solution which is provided in three dimensions (Col. 12 lines 45-50).
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 a relationship between current density and potential of the plating liquid is that based on a function representing a 3D model of the plating module because Amaya discloses that the structure of the plating bath which is inclusive of the anode, substrate and any other elements present is used as a model to provide efficient analysis of the current and voltage distributions.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birang et al. (US 2011/0031112) in view of Germouni et al. (US 2006/0172427).
Regarding claim 5, Birang discloses the device comprising estimation [0059]. Birang fails to disclose wherein the state space model further comprises a Kalman filter. It is noted that the claimed “Kalman filter” is directed towards the mathematical concept as described above. However, to fully address the claimed language, Germouni is herein cited.
In the same or similar field of monitoring and controlling an electroplating device (title), Germouni discloses the device comprising sensor data which is based on the Kalman Filter principle [0149]. Germouni discloses that corrected data from the Kalman Filter is stored in temporary or permanent memory registers in a computerized control system [0149]. Germouni further discloses that the invention is based on Kalman Filter concept algorithm which estimates the process state at some point in time and then obtains feedback in the form of measurements preferably through real-time analyzer [0173], [0182].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to produce a device comprising a Kalman filter because Germouni teaches that a Kalman filter is used to obtain corrective data for the estimated calculations. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Birang with a Kalman filter for obtaining an accurate collection of data based on real-time corrected analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 6-9, the arguments include multiple references to the Applicant’s specification. For example, on pages 6-7 the argument states that the state is a representation of the edge-current density (e.g. Fourier coefficients …matrix at angular velocity….three-dimensional model…via Taylor expansion”. The Examiner acknowledges the specification examples, however, although the claims are read in light of the specification, the claims are not presented as reading limitations of the specification into a claim. Therefore, the specific examples are not currently required as claim limitations of claim 1.
On page 7 the argument states that Birang does not disclose the claimed latent state vector and therefore does not disclose the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. As it is noted above, the instant claim language “state space model” is directed towards a mathematical concept. There is no structural element that carries out the claimed model. Moreover, the claim language associated with the model includes estimating a current density which is disclosed by the teachings of Birang. Further, the equations of the space state model are non-functional instruction since they are not performing any function as it relates to the claimed plating apparatus.
On page 8 the remarks again are directed towards the instant specification for example “the state equation is an explicit temporal evolution…” however, this language is currently not claimed in claim 1.
On page 8 the remarks are directed to an edge-current state and states that Birang does not disclose an edge current state. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Birang discloses a sensor assembly in the range of an edge of the substrate (Figure 3) to obtain local voltage level and current distribution data [0051].
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 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