DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-14 in the reply filed on 13 January 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the combination of the control relationship" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what combination is being referred to and it is also unclear what control relationship is being referred to. It is unclear what is required by the phrase as a whole including “by selecting the combination of the control relationship between each second electrode and the main electrode”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the control interfaces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states “a control interface” which refers to a single interface.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 states “the second electrode”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 states “at least two second electrodes”. It is therefore unclear which second electrode is being referred to in claim 3.
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 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0145499).
Regarding claim 1, Kovarsky discloses a plating apparatus (abstract) (= a plating apparatus), comprising an anode assembly (422) or anode segments (422a-422c) ([0056], Figure 4) that are configured to be used as the anodes for plating having various anode configurations ([0066], Figures 7a-7e) (= comprising multiple electrodes, the multiple electrode and the at least two second electrodes respectively generating an electric field in a corresponding area on the surface of a wafer), the anode segments’ electrical flux is controlled by applying the same or different electrical power to the respective anode segments and the anode segments may be individually powered to control and/or optimize plating parameters [0066] (any one anode being considered the main, second electrodes) (= the main electrode and the at least two second electrodes respectively having a control interface, by selecting the combination of the control relationship between each second electrode and the main electrode), the respective parameters may be modified to perform for different substrate sizes [0079] (= wafers with different sizes or different notch shapes are plated, and the control relationship is independent control or joint control). Kovarsky discloses the device comprising two or more independently controlled power supplies [0069]. Regarding “wafers with different sizes or different notch shapes” the claim language is directed towards the article or material worked upon and does not limit the apparatus claim (MPEP § 2115). Moreover, Kovarsky recognizes that process parameters may be modified to perform for different substrate sizes [0079]. Regarding the claimed “control interface” although Kovarsky does not explicitly disclose a control interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and/or find obvious that an anode assembly of Kovarsky having multiple power supplies that independently control anode segments in multiple stages for example would have a control interface to control the sequence of electroplating.
Regarding claim 3, the instant claim language is directed towards the manner of operating the claimed device. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus (MPEP § 2114 II). The instant claim language is directed towards the control of the multiple electrodes. Kovarsky discloses individual control of the anode segments utilizing multiple power supplies. Kovarsky teaches control of the geometry of the electrical field [0051]. Kovarsky further discloses that the electrical flux above the anode segments may be controlled by applying the same or different electrical power to the respective anode segments [0066].
Regarding claim 4, Kovarsky discloses an anode segment located in the central area of the wafer to be treated (e.g. main anode segment, Figure 5, Figures 7a-7e). The electric field generated is directed towards the magnitude of current density for example which falls under the manner of operating the claimed device, which does not structurally limit the claimed device. Moreover, anode segments located on opposing sides of the wafer would not necessarily overlap given their distance apart.
Regarding claim 5, Kovarsky discloses a number of arrangements of anode segments (Figures 7a-7e). The number of second electrodes for example is two in Figures 7a, 7b. The instant claim does not specify which axis is being referred to. As depicted in Figure 7B, the angle of axis of the c anode segments is 180 degrees.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0145499) in view of Lien et al. (US 2012/0234683).
Regarding claim 2, Kovarsky discloses two or more power supplies connected to two or more anode segments with individual control [0019], [0066]. Although one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily expect a power interface to be present in the device of Kovarsky the teachings of Lien are herein cited for explicitly disclosing an electroplating device comprising a power supply interface (606) connected with a processor (602) to perform method and processing steps [0036], [0039]. 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 device comprising a power interface because Kovarsky discloses individual control and anode segments with the use of multiple power supplies and Lien discloses the use of power supply interface to control the power supplies through a processor. It would have been obvious to control the multiple power supplies with a power interface of Lien for controlling the process parameters through the various stages.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0145499) in view of Reid et al. (US 2010/0032310).
Regarding claim 6, it is noted that the claimed language is directed towards the material worked upon (e.g. notch of wafer). Kovarsky discloses a number of arrangements of anode segments as depicted in Figures 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would select the appropriate anode segment arrangement according to the optimized and controlled parameters [0066].
To further address the concept of a notch present the disclosure of Reid is herein cited for disclosing an electroplating device comprising a plurality of anodes [0154] and wherein notches or flat regions which are irregularities of wafers are present. Reid discloses that compensating adjustments can be made to the system to address the irregularities of the wafer [0059]. Reid discloses using control of the inner versus outer anodes to control the electric field [0157]. Reid discloses that the use of segmented anodes with other elements of the electroplating device allows for better control over plating uniformity [0159].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the arrangement of the anode segments of Kovarsky in view of the teachings of Reid in order to produce a uniform deposit when irregularities in the wafer are present.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0145499) in view of Mayer et al. (US 2002/0195352).
Regarding claim 7, Kovarsky fails to disclose each second electrode is set in a first bounding wall.
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Mayer discloses an electrochemical treatment device (title) comprising a plurality of anodes (130, 131, 132, 133) [0066] that are separated by insulating shield walls (200) to function to focus the current flux from inner concentric anode towards the center of the wafer substrate (142) during electroplating operations [0074]-[0075].
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 device comprising a first bounding wall because Mayer discloses that walls positioned between anode segments may be present to control the current flux such that the current focuses on the center of the wafer. Mayer teaches that the device provides a more uniform thickness profile of the deposit [0005]-[0006].
Regarding claim 8, Kovarsky discloses an ionic membrane (e.g. 416, Figure 5) positioned between an anolyte solution compartment and a catholyte solution compartment [0019], [0059]. Mayer discloses a membrane (220) that is positioned with the end of the wall (201) (Figure 1). Mayer discloses that the height of the wall (201) to control the focusing of the current flux [0075]. Mayer indicates that the wall height may be slightly lower (2-3 mm) than the membrane (220) and therefore are connected by being brought together in the anode chamber and/or associated or related in some respect. Mayer discloses the membrane is supported by a chamber wall (120 = membrane frame) [0076].
Regarding claim 9, Mayer discloses a porous flow distribution membrane (230) located between the membrane (220) and wafer (143) (Figure 1, [0077]) and wherein an inlet manifold (210) functions as a wall having nozzle (216) between the membrane (220) and distributor (230). The connection of the ends of the inlet manifold being connected by being associated with the membrane and distributor in the subchamber (232). Regarding the shape and location of the second wall matching with the shape and location of the first wall, the inlet manifold is vertically positioned like the wall (220) and located within the subchamber.
Regarding claim 10, making the distribution member (230) detachable would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to performed routine maintenance [0077].
Regarding claim 11, Kovarsky in view of Mayer disclose the claimed invention as applied above. There are multiple diffusion plates in Mayer including distributor membrane (230) and flutes (212, 214) [0077]. Regarding any claim language directed towards a notch area of the wafer, the claim language is directed towards the material worked upon and therefore does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus. The inlet (210) is set on the membrane frame (120). Regarding the claimed “after the main diffusion plate is mounted…area of the main diffusion plate” is directed towards the method of assembling the claimed apparatus. The member (220) and flutes (212, 214) have openings (e.g. pores, inlets) forming openings that form a circular shape within the chamber wall (120) [0066]. Moreover, selection of the openings area would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to control the flow of electrolyte and current flow, in particular to a circular wafer [0071], [0077].
Regarding claim 12, making the distribution member (230) and/or flutes (212, 214) detachable would have been an obvious engineering design choice in order to performed routine maintenance [0077].
Regarding claim 13, the device of Mayer further includes diffuser shield (190) mounted between the distributor membrane (230) and wafer (143) which covers a periphery annular region [0072]. Regarding the phrase “in order to fit for the plating of wafers with different sizes” does not appear to further limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. Kovarsky discloses the device for treating different size wafers as described above.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovarsky et al. (US 2005/0145499), in view of Mayer et al. (US 2002/0195352) and in view of Jia et al. (WO 2019/041154).
Regarding claim 14, Kovarsky in view of Mayer fails to disclose a difference in density or diameter of the openings of the membranes and flutes.
In the same or similar field of a plating apparatus [0035], Jia discloses the apparatus comprising a diffusion plate (60) having a plurality of apertures (61) having a density of apertures distributed uniformly. Jia discloses that the diameter of the apertures may vary to enhance the electric field intensity at the center region thereby raising the plating rate of the substrate center area. Jia additionally discloses a second diffusion plate (70) having a plurality of apertures (71) having different aperture diameters [0046]. Jia discloses that the first and second diffusion plates can be the same or different including different by having a different density of apertures. Jia discloses that given the distance between the diffusion plate(s) and wafer the density and/or diameter may vary in order to solve the problem of an edge effect.
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 perforation areas with different density or different diameters because Jia discloses that a plating apparatus is fitted with multiple diffusion plates with varying aperture density to control the electric field in order to solve an edge effect issue.
Conclusion
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