DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 13-32 are pending.
Claims 1-12 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The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.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) 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, 26-29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol et al. (US 2004/0198190) in view of Hongo (US 6,428,661).
Regarding claims 13 and 26, Basol discloses an electrochemical deposition method including semiconductor integrated circuits (title, [0002], [0033]) (= a method of electrochemical plating a semiconductor device), the method comprising:
Immersing a semiconductor wafer (52) in a copper plating electrolyte [0007] the electrolyte comprising an anode (68) in a chamber (66) [0044] (= immersing a semiconductor substrate in a plating solution contained in a plating cell, the plating cell having an anode therein);
Applying a voltage [0041] (= producing an electrical potential difference between the semiconductor substrate and the anode);
Detecting gas bubbles in the chamber [0055]-[0056] (= detecting gas bubbles within the plating solution);
Using degassing methods including ultrasonic or megasonic techniques [0051] to perform degassing in-situ as a result of the monitoring and detecting of bubbles (abstract, [0017], [0021], [0037], [0056]) (= at least partially in response to the detecting, selectively generating a first acoustic wave within the plating solution to suppress at least one of bubble formation, nucleation and growth).
Basol fails to disclose the claimed generating a first acoustic wave within the plating solution in the plating cell. Basol discloses a degasser outside the plating chamber.
Hongo discloses a plating apparatus (4) (title) comprising an ultrasonic oscillating element (26) arranged on the wall of the apparatus (abstract). Hongo discloses the ultrasonic oscillations prevent bubbles in the plating solution (Col. 3 lines 3-13). Hongo discloses that the ultrasonic oscillating elements serve to apply oscillations on the plating solution thereby expediting the circulation of the plating solution at the object’s portion to be plated and also preventing the stagnation of bubbles (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 6, Col. 9 lines 51-62).
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 generating a first acoustic wave within the plating solution in the plating cell because Hongo discloses that an ultrasonic oscillating element may be positioned within the plating chamber to prevent or eliminate the presence of bubbles. It would have been obvious to modify the method and device of Basol with the location of the ultrasonic oscillating element of Hongo for producing the same or similar predictable result of preventing or eliminating bubbles.
Regarding claim 14-15, Hongo discloses multiple ultrasonic oscillating elements to apply ultrasonic oscillations on the plating solution. Hongo discloses that the elements are adapted so as to change the number of oscillations during the plating process, periodically (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 17). Basol discloses a reservoir that supplies the plating solution to the plating cell [0047], [0051] (Figure 3). Basol discloses a monitor unit is coupled to the degasser and the detector may be placed in any number of places including first line (112, 114) or placed in the processing stations [0017], [0055]-[0056]. The combination of Basol and Hongo discloses multiple acoustic waves and a reservoir that supplies plating solution.
PNG
media_image1.png
314
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of US 2004/0198190.
Regarding claim 17, Basol discloses ultrasonic and megasonic techniques [0051].
Regarding claim 18, Basol discloses detecting and monitoring units that read on the claimed sensor and also discloses sensors [0056]. Basol discloses degassing to inhibit at least one of bubble formation, nucleation and growth within the plating solution [0037], [0054]. Hongo discloses the ultrasonic oscillation elements within the plating cell as described above.
Regarding claim 19, the degasser (180) is positioned between first (112) and second lines (114) (Figure 3). Basol discloses a monitor unit is coupled to the degasser and the detector may be placed in any number of places including first line (112, 114) or placed in the processing stations [0017], [0055]-[0056]. Alternatively, the plating solution flows through a first line from the plating chamber to a reservoir (e.g. replenishment tank) and then through a second line from the reservoir to the plating chamber [0049].
Regarding claim 21, Basol discloses that multiple degassers may be used and positioning the degasser in any one of additional tanks and the processing tanks [0048], [0050]. Hongo discloses multiple ultrasonic oscillating elements to apply ultrasonic oscillations on the plating solution. Hongo discloses that the elements are adapted so as to change the number of oscillations during the plating process, periodically (Col. 6 line 65 – Col. 7 line 17).
Regarding claim 22, Basol discloses the use of a filter in a position between the replenishment tank and processing tank [0048]-[0049].
Regarding claim 23, Basol discloses ultrasonic and megasonic techniques [0051].
Regarding claim 27, Basol discloses a fourth solution flow (111D) [0048] (= overflow pipe) to a solution tank (102) (= reservoir) [0047]-[0048] and the solution flows back to the plating processing cell from the reservoir through third line (116) (Figure 3).
Regarding claims 28-29, Basol discloses detecting and monitoring units that read on the claimed sensor and also discloses sensors [0056]. Basol discloses degassing to inhibit at least one of bubble formation, nucleation and growth within the plating solution [0037], [0054]. Basol discloses the detector located in various locations including a first line, second line or processing stations [0056]. It would have been obvious to position the sensors along any piping and/or within the processing stations, reservoirs, etc. to monitor the bubble formation. Regarding the positioning of the generating, Basol discloses generating within piping. Hongo discloses generating within the plating chamber. It would have been obvious to position a generating of a second acoustic wave along any position of the plating solution pathway for preventing or eliminating bubbles.
Regarding claim 31, Basol discloses ultrasonic and megasonic techniques [0051].
Claim(s) 16, 20 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol et al. (US 2004/0198190), in view of Hongo (US 6,428,661) and in further view of KR 20120003260 (‘260).
Regarding claims 16, 20 and 30, Basol in view of Hongo discloses degasser units comprising ultrasonic or megazonic techniques [0051]. Basol fails to disclose wherein the acoustic wave is generated by driving a piezoelectric transducer.
‘260 discloses an electroplating method comprising substrate plating using vibrations to generate penetration efficiency. ‘260 discloses that the vibrating unit includes piezoelectric transducer that generates megasonic waves when power is applied and vibration energy can be generated by the megasonic waves [0009], 4th -6th paragraphs.
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 piezoelectric transducer as a vibration generating unit for megasonic waves because ‘260 discloses that piezoelectric transducers provide a way in which to convert power into waves.
Claim(s) 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol et al. (US 2004/0198190), in view of Hongo (US 6,428,661) and in further view of Stowell et al. (US 2014/0097088).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, Basol in view of Hongo does not disclose wherein the semiconductor substrate is immersed in the plating solution at an angle relative to a surface of the plating solution.
Stowell discloses an electroplating method comprising tilting a wafer to a non-horizontal angle upon immersion into an electroplating bath to eliminate gasses at the substrate/fluid interface before and during immersion by controlling the entry profile. Stowell discloses that this control of entry allows faster substrate entry into the electroplating solution and consequently a higher quality and more uniform electroplating/fill over the entire plating surface of the substrate. Stowell additionally discloses that the elimination of oxygen in the plating environment reduces the deleterious effects of metal corrosion at the wafer face [0027].
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 angling the substrate during immersion because Stowell discloses tilting a wafer to a non-horizontal angle upon immersion into an electroplating bath to eliminate gasses at the substrate/fluid interface before and during immersion by controlling the entry profile [0027].
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol et al. (US 2004/0198190), in view of Hongo (US 6,428,661) and in further view of Xie et al. (WO 2008/137951).
Regarding claim 25, Basol in view of Hongo fails to disclose a controller that controls at least one of an amplitude and frequency of the acoustic wave generated within the plating solution.
Xie discloses a plating method comprising applying a certain range of vibrating frequency, amplitude and hardware configuration which can optimize mass and energy transfer. Xie discloses that the agitation disrupts the boundary layer stratification, inducing micron scale turbulent mixing by driving multiple sonic frequencies through the plating electrolyte and across the boundary layer interface. Xie discloses that air molecules directly at the wafer surface are generally displaced to achieve strong and uniformed plating results. Xie discloses that waves can be introduced into the system from any direction and can be original generated, amplified, direct, pulsing with/without the same amplitude, etc. Xie discloses varying the frequency which can be controlled individually. Xie discloses a control system (171) for controlling various features and processes of the plating computer (page 10 lines 7-12; page 12 line 13- page 13 line 14).
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 controller for controlling the amplitude or frequency of acoustic wave because Xie discloses controlled process parameters including frequency and amplitude of the applied waves which displace the air at the wafer/electrolyte interface. It would have been obvious to control parameters such as frequency and amplitude in order to optimize the process parameters as described by Xie to provide uniform electroplating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered. The previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment. On page 6 the remarks state that the prior art does not disclose the detecting and generated acoustic waves present in the plating cell. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Basol discloses that the detector may be located in any number of positions including 100 and 200 and optionally in the processing stations [0056]. Hongo discloses that the ultrasonic oscillation elements (26) are positioned within the plating apparatus as described above.
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
Prosecution Insights