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 with traverse of Species B, encompassing claims 8-22, in the reply filed on February 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all species is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any of the species would encompass a search for the remaining species. This is not found persuasive because the species are divergent subject matter as shown by their different embodiments and search strategies. Additionally, different inventive concepts require different search queries and considerations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(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.
Claims 8-13, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2024/0183059).
Regarding claim 8, Masuda teaches a uniform flow control agitation device for electroplating (paragraphs 5-6, 38), comprising:
an electroplating tank (400; figure 3);
a first/head (403) and a second/paddle (412) flow-uniformization plates horizontally arranged in the electroplating tank (400), with the first plate/head (403) positioned directly above the second plate/paddle (412 – lifting mechanisms 451, 452 move the head 403 and the paddle 412, respectively, in a vertical direction into the plating solution; paragraph 59);
a driving unit that can rotate the first (403) and second (412) flow-uniformization plates in the electroplating tank at different speeds (the head 403 and the paddle 412 are rotated at different speeds by a motor 411 and a driving mechanism 413. A control module 800 controls their rotation and speed – paragraphs 33; 38).
Regarding claim 9, Masuda further teaches wherein the driving unit rotates the first (403) and second (412) flow-uniformization plates in opposite directions (the head 403 and the paddle 412 are rotated at different speeds by a motor 411 and a driving mechanism 413. A control module 800 individually controls their rotation and speed – paragraphs 33; 38). It has been held by the courts that apparatus claims must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the device is capable of performing a claimed function. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 10, the driving unit of Masuda rotates the first (403) and second (412) flow-uniformization plates in the same direction, but with different rotation speeds (the head 403 and the paddle 412 are rotated at different speeds by a motor 411 and a driving mechanism 413. A control module 800 individually controls their rotation and speed – paragraphs 33; 38).
Regarding claim 11, Masuda discloses wherein the driving unit rotates the first (403) and second (412) flow-uniformization plates at a fixed speed difference (the head 403 and the paddle 412 are rotated at different speeds by a motor 411 and a driving mechanism 413. A control module 800 individually controls their rotation and speed – paragraphs 33; 38).
Regarding claim 12, the device of Masuda further comprises a control unit (800), which can adjust the rotation speed difference between the first (403) and the second (412) flow-uniformization plates according to the electroplating thickness of the wafer (paragraphs 33, 38).
Regarding claim 13, Masuda teaches wherein the driving unit includes a driving source that simultaneously rotates the first and the second flow-uniformization plates (paragraphs 33, 38, 57-58).
Regarding claim 16, Masuda discloses wherein the driving unit comprises a first driving source and a second driving source, which respectively rotate the first (403) and second (412) flow-uniformization plates (the head 403 and the paddle 412 are rotated at different speeds by a motor 411 and a driving mechanism 413. A control module 800 controls their rotation and speed – paragraphs 33; 38).
Regarding claim 22, Masuda teaches wherein the first flow-uniformization plate (403) and the second flow-uniformization plate (412) have a circular shape, and their rotation centers are located on a vertical axis (paragraphs 33; 38; figure 3).
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.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sharbono et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2023/0092346).
Regarding claim 17, Masuda teaches all the features discussed above, but fails to disclose wherein the first flow-uniformization plate is provided with multiple flow-guiding regions, each flow-guiding region has one or more flow-guiding openings in its length direction, and both sides of each flow-guiding region extend upward to form a first flow-guiding wall and a second flow-guiding wall.
Sharbono discloses a flow-uniformization plate/paddle is provided with multiple flow-guiding regions, each flow-guiding region has one or more flow-guiding openings in its length direction, and both sides of each flow-guiding region extend upward to form a first flow-guiding wall and a second flow-guiding wall in order to provide some electric shielding within an electroplating system which improves co-planarity of substrates during electroplating operations (figures 6-7; paragraphs 37-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a paddle with multiple flow-guiding regions in the system of Masuda because as taught by Sharbono, this provides some electric shielding within an electroplating system which improves co-planarity of substrates during electroplating operations.
Regarding claim 18, the height of the first flow-guiding wall and the second flow-guiding wall of Sharbono may be selected as desired (paragraph 53). It has been held by courts that limitations relating to the size of an element is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, if the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04. IV.A.
Regarding claim 19, the first flow-guiding wall and the second flow-guiding wall of Sharbono have an inclination (the walls can be tapered; paragraph 38; figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 20, it has been held by courts that limitations relating to the size of an element is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art, if the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04. IV.A.
Regarding claim 21, the flow-uniformization plate of Sharbono is provided with multiple radially distributed flow-guiding openings (paragraphs 37, 38, 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art made of record fails to teach a uniform flow control agitation device for electroplating further comprising a first drive gear and a second drive gear set on a transmission shaft, with the first drive gear
meshing with a tumbler gear; a first driven gear in meshing engagement with the tumbler gear and coupled to the first flow-uniformization plate; and a second driven
gear in meshing engagement with the second drive gear and coupled to the second
flow-uniformization plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZULMARIAM MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9805. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30p.
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.
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.
/ZULMARIAM MENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794