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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 08 January 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s further election without traverse of Species A (Claims 2-4) and Species X of Claim 14 is acknowledged.
As a result of the restriction and election made by the applicant, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are currently pending and under examination. Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, and 18 are withdrawn as a result of the election/restriction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al.
Minami et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0249325 A1) is directed toward a plating method and a plating apparatus (title). Wilson et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0058424 A1) is directed toward an electroplating processor with a current thief electrode (title).
Regarding Claim 1, Minami et al. discloses a substrate holder (element 18 depicted in FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6) configured to hold a substrate (element W) such that the substrate (W) is exposed to and is brought into contact with the plating solution to be plated (¶109-110), the substrate holder (18) comprising:
a contact (element 88 depicted in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6) that comes into contact with a seed layer formed on the surface of the substrate to feed electricity (¶74 and ¶110);
a holder main body provided with an internal space (element R depicted in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6) enclosing the substrate margins and the electrical contacts. The internal space is configured on the outer circumferential portion of the substrate as depicted in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6.
The internal space of Minami et al. is configured to contain the plating solution, other liquids, or detect the presence of plating solution in said area. The presence of plating solution in unwanted areas (i.e.: near electrical contacts) is known to cause corrosion of the electrical contact (¶13) and damage the seed layer on the periphery of the substrate (i.e.: dissolve the seed layer). However, Minami et al. does not disclose the use of a protective electrode.
Wilson et al. is directed toward an electroplating processer with a wafer holder (analogous to the substrate holder of the instant application) having an electrolyte (analogous to the plating solution of the instant application) as per the abstract and ¶7. Therefore, Wilson et al. and Minami et al. are analogous art.
Wilson et al. further discloses a seed layer on the periphery of the substrate using a thief electrode with high electrical conductivity electrolyte baths (¶2). The thief electrode is designed to control the applied current at the periphery of the substrate leading to higher quality and more consistent metal films. The thief electrode further prevents the degradation or corrosion of the seed layer (i.e.: Cu0seed [Wingdings font/0xE0] Cu2+aq + 2e-). Wilson et al. also indicates that the thief electrode (analogous to the protective electrode of the instant application) is at least partially submerged in a liquid, i.e.: the thiefolyte 104, and the thiefolyte is present in a channel (analogous to the internal space of the instant application) as discussed in ¶20-24 (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4). Finally, Wilson et al. discusses the electrical connection arrangement within the thief electrode in ¶24.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate holder with an internal space by integrating the thief electrode of Wilson et al. into the internal space with the reasonable expectation of precisely controlling the film thickness applied near the edge of the substrate resulting in a more uniform plated substrate and preventing the degradation of the seed layer on the periphery of the substrate to be plated.
Regarding Claim 2, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1, wherein the protective electrode (i.e.: thief electrode in Wilson et al.) is an insoluble electrode as evidenced by the platinum (wire) in ¶26 of Wilson et al. as the thief electrode material. The electrolytes (i.e.: the thiefolyte or isolyte) that contact the thief electrode can be aqueous sulfuric acid based material (¶5, 23, 28, and 31 in Wilson et al.) which will not dissolve platinum (i.e.: an insoluble electrode of the instant application). The protective electrode is biased to the higher potential side as indicated in ¶5 as the thief electrode generally produced hydrogen (Wilson et al.) and prevents the degrading or corroding the seed layer (i.e.: Cu0seed [Wingdings font/0xE0] Cu2+aq + 2e-).
Regarding Claim 3, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 2, wherein a voltage larger than a difference between the spontaneous potential of the protective electrode and the spontaneous potential of the seed layer is applied between the protective electrode and the seed layer. The use of a thief electrode inherently meets the limitation of Claim 3 as the purpose of the thief electrode is to prevent the inherent potential difference between the protective electrode material (i.e.: Pt) and the seed layer (i.e. metallic copper) from degrading or corroding the seed layer (i.e.: Cu0seed [Wingdings font/0xE0] Cu2+aq + 2e-) so that the seed layer remains intact. Consequently, a voltage larger than the potential difference between the spontaneous potential of the protective electrode and the spontaneous potential of the seed layer is applied between the protective electrode and the seed layer is applied.
Regarding Claim 4, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 2, wherein the protective electrode is fixed to the contact via a spacer as indicated in ¶24 and depicted in FIG. 4 as the thief plate 90.
Regarding Claim 9, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1, wherein the protective electrode is provided continuously in a location surround the outer circumference of the substrate, when the substrate is held by the substrate holder as evidenced by FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 of Minami et al. which shows the internal space R is located on the periphery is the substrate in which the thief electrode of Wilson would be found as explained in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1, wherein the protective electrode is arranged circumferentially such as to have a distance from the edge of that substrate such that is not longer than a predetermined distance, when the substrate is held by the substrate holder in ¶20 of Wilson et al. where the apparent diameter of the thief is discussed.
Regarding Claim 11, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1, but does not disclose the electrical conductivity of the solution in which the protective electrode is submerged. However, the protective electrode is configured to prevent the inherent potential difference between the protective electrode material (i.e.: Pt) and the seed layer (i.e. metallic copper) from degrading or corroding the seed layer (i.e.: Cu0seed [Wingdings font/0xE0] Cu2+aq + 2e-) meaning that a reduction of the liquid’s electrical conductivity will suppress charge migration or electron transfer. As a result, the electrical conductivity of the liquid covering the protective electrode should be minimized. As part of routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the electrical conductivity of the liquid covering the protective electrode, including those values within the claimed range (i.e.: less than 1000 microSiemens/cm) in order to suppress the oxidation of the seed layer. See MPEP 2144.05(II) - Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1, but does not disclose the electrical conductivity of the solution in which the protective electrode is submerged. However, the protective electrode is configured to prevent the inherent potential difference between the protective electrode material (i.e.: Pt) and the seed layer (i.e. metallic copper) from degrading or corroding the seed layer (i.e.: Cu0seed [Wingdings font/0xE0] Cu2+aq + 2e-) so that lowering liquid’s electrical conductivity will suppress charge migration and electron transfer. As a result, the electrical conductivity of the liquid covering the protective electrode should be minimized. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the part prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid covering the protective electrode by using of pure water with the reasonable expectation of suppressing the oxidation of the seed layer due to poor electron transfer within the solution (i.e.: high electrical resistance) resulting in a stable seed layer.
Regarding Claim 14, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according Claim 1, the substrate holder being applied for a horizontal plating module configured to hold the substrate position in a horizontal direction as explained in ¶106 of Minami et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses an apparatus for plating comprising: the substrate holder according to Claim 1:
a liquid supply module configured to supply a liquid to the internal space of the substrate holder as explained in Wilson et al. in ¶24-25 and ¶33-34 in the discussion of the thiefolyte channels that are supplied by the plumbing line in ¶28 and
a plating module configured to cause the substrate held by the substrate holder to be exposed and brought into contact with a plating solution and thereby be plated as explained in ¶109-110 of Minami et al.
Regarding Claim 16, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. disclose the apparatus for plating according to Claim 15, wherein the liquid supply module comprises a cleaning nozzle configured to clean the internal space of the substrate holder and replace the liquid present in the internal space as explained in ¶104-¶112 of Minami et al.
Regarding Claim 17, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the apparatus for plating according to Claim 15, further comprising: a pre-wet module configured to process the substrate by a pre-wet process, wherein the plating module causes the substrate in a wet state to be held by the substrate holder as described in ¶104-106 in Minami et al.
7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nyberg et al.
Minami et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0249325 A1) is directed toward a plating method and a plating apparatus (title). Wilson et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0058424 A1) is directed toward an electroplating processor with a current thief electrode (title). Nyberg et al. (US Pub. No. 5049247A) is directed toward method for detecting and locating an electrolyte (title).
Regarding Claim 13, Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. discloses the substrate holder according to Claim 1. Minami et al. discloses a method of detection of electrolyte infiltration into the internal space R, but this process is dependent on pressure changes as explained in ¶79-80. Therefore, the combination of Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. does not disclose the limitations of Claim 13 pertaining to the protective electrode serving as a detector.
Wilson et al. describes a membrane between the Cu-containing catholyte and the thiefolyte whose purpose to prevent the migration of copper into the thiefolyte ¶38. Nyberg et al. is directed toward a method of detecting and locating an electrolyte (title). In particular, Nyberg et al. discloses the system requires an electrode (analogous to the protective electrode of the instant application), an ion-exchange material (analogous to the membrane of Wilson et al.), and a physical contact with the electrode (analogous to the wiring or contact of Claim 13 of the instant application). Nyberg et al. explains that a circuit is constructed as per the abstract. The ion exchange material has a known resistance and said resistance changes based on the presence of the electrolyte concentration (abstract). Nyberg et al. further explains that an electrochemical reaction takes place at that first point at interface of the ion exchange material and the electrode contacted thereby (abstract). This reaction generates an ionic species (i.e.: Cu ions from the catholyte in the instant application) which passes through the exchange membrane. The abstract of Nyberg et al. further explains the making of the connection enables the formation of a test circuit which comprises (a) the connection, (b) that part of the locating member which lies between the first point and a second point on the locating member, and (c) a power source which causes a current of known size to be transmitted between the first and second points on the locating member. Finally, Nyberg et al. indicates the current and locating member are such that, by measuring the voltage drop between the first and second points, the spatial relationship between the first and second points can be determined (abstract). By measuring the voltage drop between the first and second points associated with a change in the ionic resistance of the ion exchange material, the location of the electrolyte can be determined. Since Nyberg et al. and Wilson et al. both have the same structure, that is, an electrode, an (ion exchange) membrane, and an electrolyte, the electrolyte detection system would be capable of being used in the substrate holder according to Claim 1 described by the combination of Minami et al. and Wilson et al.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective electrode (i.e.: thief electrode) of Minami et al. in view of Wilson et al. for use a detector of electrolyte infiltration system as taught by Nyberg et al. with the reasonable expectation being able to easily detect the presence of catholyte inside of the internal space which houses the protective electrode.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mayer et al. (US Patent No. 8,540,857) is directed toward a plating method and apparatus with multiple internally irrigated chambers (title). Ang et al. (US Patent No. 5,620,581) is directed toward an apparatus for electroplating having a thief ring (title). Ogata et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0246567 A1) is directed toward a method of plating (title).
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SYLVESTER whose telephone number is 703-756-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:15 AM to 4:30 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
10. 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.
/KEVIN SYLVESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights