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 Status
The amendment filed 07/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-20 are pending. Claims 10-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/2025.
In the amendment filed 07/03/2025, claims 1, 5, and 6 were amended and claims 7 and 9 were canceled. No new claims were added.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to recite specific details about the substrate. Because the claim is directed to an apparatus (planarization tool), these limitations are interpreted as being directed to the article worked upon.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the plurality of edge inhibitor dispensers discharge an etch inhibitor selectively toward a first section of each first recess area in the first metal layer”. This limitation and specifically the language “selectively toward” is interpreted inclusive of capable of spraying in a direction toward the recited section of the article worked upon. Capable in this interpretation is inclusive of having a controllable and/or adjustable spray angle of the dispenser. Such an interpretation is consistent with the instant specification [0028-0029]. The claim is not interpreted as being limited to a narrower interpretation in which etch inhibitor is only provided at the recited first section of each first recess in the first metal layer (i.e. not provided to other portions of the surface) because such narrower interpretation may represent new matter.
The claim limitation of claim 2 that recites “the plurality of nozzles and the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers are provided in the planarization tool as a plurality of single discharge units that discharge the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together” is interpreted inclusive of the single discharge unit is an array of a subportion of the plurality of nozzles and a subportion of the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers such that the plurality of single discharge units include the plurality of nozzles and the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers. Note that in this case because it is an array of both, there are no clarity issues and the “single discharge unit” is provided with sufficient structure in the claims to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification such as [0030].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“target handling system” in claim 8 interpreted as a roller, frame with clamps, robotic arm [0024] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that “blower module” in claim 6 has not been interpreted as invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because “blower” is sufficient structure. Additionally, as indicated above “single discharge unit” is provided with sufficient structure in the claims to avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 3 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 3, the claim depends from claim 2 which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 was amended to recite “a first metal layer is disposed on the first surface of the target and has a plurality of first recess areas” in line 5-6 and that “the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers discharge an etch inhibitor selectively toward a first section of each first recess area in the first metal layer” (emphasis added) in line 8-9. Note that the first metal layer is on the first surface. Claim 2 requires “the plurality of nozzles and the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers are provided in the planarization tool as a plurality of single discharge units” (emphasis added). Claim 3 then requires that “the plurality of single discharge units comprises: a first set of single discharge units positioned over the target that discharges the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together at a downward discharge angle toward the target; and a second set of single discharge units positioned below the target that discharges the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together at an upward discharge angle towards the target.” (emphasis added). Claim 3 becomes unclear because if the single discharge units may be both above and below the target and must include the etch inhibitor dispensers, it is unclear how or if all the etch inhibitor dispensers are still discharging selectively toward a first section of each first recess area in the first metal layer that is on the first surface (noting that the claim 1 clarifies a second surface different from the first surface such that openings extend from the first surface to the second surface). Assuming that the upper surface is the first surface, it is unclear how or if the etch inhibitor dispensers of the second set of single discharge units positioned below the target and discharging at an upward discharge angle toward the target are still spraying selectively toward a portion of the metal layer on the first (i.e. upper) surface. Conversely, if the first surface is the lower surface the issue then becomes unclear as to whether the first set of single discharge units positioned above the target and discharging at a downward discharge angle toward the target are still spraying selectively toward a portion of the metal layer on the first (i.e. lower) surface. For purpose of examination on the merits, the claim will be interpreted inclusive of “selectively toward” is in a general direction and allows for intervening structures (e.g. the opposite surface of the substrate) that will actually receive the dispense liquid. Applicant is kindly requested to amend the claims for clarity such as defining additional discharge units that do not have antecedent basis in the prior claim language or removing the language of “selectively toward” in claim 1.
The remaining claims are included for their dependence from a claim addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent 5,308,447 of Lewis et al., hereinafter Lewis.
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches a planarization tool (Fig 2, abstract, note that this is directed to the intended use of the apparatus) comprising: at least one module (61 Fig 2), the module comprising: a target holder (roller 65 Fig 2), wherein a target (63 Fig 2) is supported by the target holder (Fig 2); and at least one of a plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers and a plurality of nozzles (69, 71, 73, 75, 77 Fig 2 and col 4, ln 60-col 5, ln 10) wherein the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers discharge a chemical toward the target and the plurality of nozzles discharge a chemical etchant (col 4, ln 60-col 5, ln 10) at an acute angle (Fig 2, note the movement arrows of the nozzles 69, 71, 73, 75, 77 Fig 2 which includes positions in which the angle of incident is acute) towards the target (Fig 2). Regarding the target has a first surface and a second surface and openings extending from the first surface to the second surface, wherein a first metal layer is disposed on the first surface of the target and has a plurality of first recess areas, it is noted the instant claims are directed to an apparatus. Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Regarding reference to the contents of the apparatus during operation (i.e. etchant, etch inhibitor), [e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Regarding dispensing selectively toward a specific section of the substrate, the apparatus of Lewis is capable of being operated in the recited manner because the angle of the nozzles is adjustable (see angle of movement arrows in Fig 2 for 69, 71, 73, 75, 77 and individual supply control valves 81, 83, 85, 89, 91 Fig 2). Regarding the reference to planarization and to perform selective removal of the metal layer for planarization of the target, [i]t has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches the plurality of nozzles and the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers are provided in the planarization tool as a plurality of single discharge units that discharge the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together (col 4, ln 60 to col 5 ln 10, note that one of the developer solution and one of the rinse solution may be considered a “supply unit” and there are two of these such pairs).
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(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0157762 of Higa, hereinafter Higa (previously cited not relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Lewis remains as applied to claim 2 above. Lewis teaches a first set of single discharge units positioned over the target that discharges the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together at a downward discharge angle toward the target (Fig 2 of Lewis) but fails to teach a second set of single discharge units positioned below the target that discharges the chemical etchant and the etch inhibitor together at an upward discharge angle towards the target. In the same field of endeavor of a spray etching apparatus (abstract), Higa teaches that in addition to a set of nozzles above the substrate (102a-f Fig 1,2) there is a set of spray nozzles (103a-f Fig 1,2) below the substrate [0056]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis to include the lower discharge unit in addition to the upper discharge unit because Higa teaches this is a conventional arrangement [0007-0009] and doing so allows for processing of both the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate simultaneously [0007-0009] which reduces processing time.
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 3 above. As part of teaching the lower nozzles, Higa teaches the upper and lower nozzles are adjustable independently to be set at different downward and upward discharge angles toward the target [0104].
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Uesugi (prev. presented US 2004/0104199).
Regarding claim 4, Lewis fails to teach a plurality of modules. In the same field of endeavor of a spray array apparatus (abstract), Uesugi teaches the at least one module comprises a first module (87 Fig 8) containing the plurality of etch inhibitor dispensers (nozzles 103 as shown in Fig 8, note the above regarding “etch inhibitor” being a limitation of the contents during operation) and a second module (88 Fig 8) containing the plurality of nozzles [0089] (113 Fig 8 again note the above regarding reference to specific chemicals). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis to include separately supplying the two chemicals in different modules because Uesugi demonstrates this is a functional alternative for applying two chemicals to the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. In the same field of endeavor of a spray etching apparatus (abstract Fig 8), Uesugi teaches a blower module (104 Fig 8) for removing excess etch inhibitor from the target provided in the first module [0093]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Weber to include the air knife as taught by Uesugi because Uesugi teaches this for being positioned at the exit of the first module and teaches a blower at the exit of the etching chamber removes etching liquid left on the substrate to terminate the etching [0082].
Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to claim 4 above. Lewis teaches the target holder (65 Fig 2) includes a target handling system (rollers 65) for conveying the target (col 4, ln 59-68) but fails to teach this is for conveying between modules. In the combination as applied to claim 4 in which there are modules, using the rollers to convey between modules is an obvious modification of the rollers to convey within a module as taught by Lewis. Further, Uesugi teaches the target holder further comprises a target handling system for conveying the target between modules for processing operations (Fig 8 and [0089-0091]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lewis to include the target handling system of Uesugi for conveying between modules because this allows for automated movement between modules rather than requiring an operator to move the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2025, hereinafter reply, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s corrected drawings filed 07/03/2025 are acknowledged. Applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitated a new drawing objection which has been included herewith. Applicant’s drawings filed 07/03/2025 corrected the previously applied objections to the drawings.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Weber (reply p13) are moot because the reference is no longer being applied as a rejection. Regarding the arguments regarding Lewis (reply p13), it is noted that, as indicated above, the article worked upon does not define the apparatus. Applicant may wish to consider a system claim if applicant believes the article worked upon is a critical component. Additionally, as indicated above, Lewis is capable of being operated in a manner to spray etchant selectively toward portions of the substrate surface. It is noted that the claim does not require the entire surface to not be covered in etchant as applicant’s arguments suggest.
The arguments regarding Uesugi (reply p12) are directed to the application of the reference to teach claim 1 and does not address the teachings as currently relied upon for the dependent claims. Therefore this argument is not persuasive.
The arguments regarding dependent claims rely on the alleged failing of the art to address the independent claim (reply p13) and are therefore unpersuasive at this time.
For all of these reasons the arguments are not persuasive as to the allowability of the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2025/0185177 teaches spray etching at an angle to direct the spray to a portion of a recess on the substrate surface (Fig 5C).
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 MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is (571)270-5513. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on 571-272-1435. 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.
/MARGARET KLUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716