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 .
Response to Amendments
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on
06/18/2026.
Status of Rejections
The rejections of claims 3-9 have been updated in response to the new limitations added by the Application.
All other rejections are maintained.
Claims 1-24 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 14-16, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 11469134 B2) in view of Ghongadi et al (US 20090107835 A1).
Claim 1: Wang discloses a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract), comprising:
an inner pressure ring (see e.g. #101 on Fig 4 and Fig 5);
a middle frame (see e.g. #1014 on Fig 5),
wherein the inner pressure ring is locked on an inner peripheral surface of the middle frame (via a screw, see e.g. #114 on Fig 4 and Fig 5);
a sealing element (see e.g. #1111 on Fig 5), wherein the sealing element has an outer end part, a bottom part and an inner end part, wherein the outer end part of the sealing element wraps an outer peripheral surface of at least part of the middle frame (see e.g. #1014 and #1111 on Fig 5), and the bottom part of the sealing element wraps the bottom of the middle frame and is exposed to the outside of the cup-shaped chuck (see e.g. #1111 on Fig 5), and the inner end part of the sealing element wraps an inner peripheral surface of at least part of the middle frame (see e.g. #1111 on Fig 5), wherein the inner end part of the sealing element is pressed between the inner pressure ring and the middle frame by the inner pressure ring (see e.g. #1111, #1014 and #101 on Fig 5);
an outer pressure ring (see e.g. #109 on Fig 4; #2041 on Fig 24),
wherein the outer pressure ring made of insulating material (see e.g. col 8, lines 28-29) and is locked on the outer peripheral surface of the middle frame (via screw, see e.g. #110 on Fig 4),
wherein the outer end part of the sealing element is pressed between the outer pressure ring and the middle frame through the outer pressure ring (see e.g. #1113, #109, and #1011 on Fig 4); and
a contact ring, comprising a mounting part (see e.g. #1121 on Fig 5) and a finger part (see e.g. #1122 on Fig 5), and the mounting part is located above the sealing element and pressed between the inner pressure ring and the middle frame (see e.g. #1121 on Fig 5).
Wang does not explicitly teach a sealing ring is disposed between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring. Ghongadi teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 1), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The device of Ghongadi includes an o-ring between a contact structure (“bus bar”) and a pressure ring (“shield structure”) to seal the space between the two (see e.g. [0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include an o-ring between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring because Ghongadi teaches o-rings can be included to provide sealing between structures like this.
Claim 2: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the bottom of the middle frame forms a horizontal support part radially and horizontally inward (see e.g. Wang - #1014 on Fig 5), and the bottom part of the sealing element wraps the horizontal support part (see e.g. Wang - #1111 on Fig 5), wherein the end of the horizontal support part protrudes upwards to form a sealing lip part (see e.g. Wang - #1115 on Fig 5), and the number of sealing lip part is one (see e.g. Wang - #1115 on Fig 10), and the sealing lip part is configured for sealing contact with the edge of the substrate (see e.g. Wang - col 6, lines 30-35).
Claim 10: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the sealing element as a separate accessory is detachable from the middle frame (see e.g. Wang - connecting paragraph of col 5 and col 6).
Claim 14: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the sealing element has hydrophobicity properties (see e.g. Wang - col 4, lines 60-64).
Claim 15: The term “blocking part” is not explicitly defined in the instant specification and there is no art understood definition for the term. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term is any part of the outer pressure ring. Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the outer surface of the outer pressure ring has a blocking part (see e.g. Wang - left side of #109 on Fig 4).
Claim 16: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the blocking part comprises at least an upper blocking, wherein the number of upper blocking parts is one (see e.g. Wang - left side of #109 on Fig 4), and wherein the upper blocking part is a downward annular protrusion (see e.g. Wang - shape of the left side of #109 on Fig 4).
Claim 20: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the material of the inner pressure ring is a conductive and corrosion-resistant metal, and the contact ring is electrically connected to an electroplating power supply through the inner pressure ring (see e.g. Wang - col 5, lines 41-60).
Claim 22: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses substrate holding device (see e.g. Wang - abstract), comprising:
a cup-shaped chuck as claimed in claim 1 for holding a substrate (see rejection of claim 1 above);
a chuck plate, wherein the chuck plate presses against the backside of the substrate so that the substrate is in pressing contact with the sealing element of the cup-shaped chuck (see e.g. Wang - #102 on Fig 4);
a chuck plate driving device configured for driving the chuck plate against or away from the backside of the substrate (see e.g. Wang - col 3, lines 64-67);
an angle driving device configured for adjusting the angle of the substrate clamped by the cup-shaped chuck and the chuck plate (see e.g. Wang - col 4, lines 2-12);
a rotation driving device configured for driving the substrate clamped by the cup- shaped chuck and the chuck plate to rotate (see e.g. Wang - col 4, lines 2-12); and
a vertical driving device configured for driving the substrate clamped by the cup- shaped chuck and the chuck plate to ascend or descend (see e.g. Wang - col 3, lines 38-46).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ghongadi as applied to claim 2 and 10 above, and in further view of Berke et al (US 10982346 B2)
Claim 3: Wang does not explicitly teach that the radial width of the one sealing lip part is not more than 1 mm. Wang does not specify what the radial width is and a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated to find suitable radial widths. Berke teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 1A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The sealing element of Berke has one sealing lip part with a radial width of ~0.7mm (0.028 inches, see e.g. Fig 9D). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang so that the radial width of the one sealing lip part is ~0.7mm as taught in Berke because Berke teaches this is a suitable radial width for sealing lip parts used in cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate.
Claim 4: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Berke teaches that the radial width of the one sealing lip part is ~0.7mm (0.028 inches, see e.g. Berke - Fig 9D).
Claim 11: Wang does not explicitly teach that the sealing element is bonded to the middle frame by an adhesive. Berke teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 1A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The seal of Berke has enhanced adhesion to a frame of the chuck by using an adhesive between the seal and frame (see e.g. [0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang so that the sealing element is bonded to the middle frame by an adhesive based on the teachings of Berke to enhance the adhesion between the sealing element and the frame.
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ghongadi as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Ostrowski et al (US 20160201212 A1).
Claim 5: Wang in view of Ghongadi discloses that the bottom of the middle frame forms a horizontal support part radially and horizontally inward (see e.g. Wang - #1014 on Fig 5), and the bottom part of the sealing element wraps the horizontal support part (see e.g. Wang - #1111 on Fig 5), wherein the end of the horizontal support part protrudes upwards to form a sealing lip part (see e.g. Wang - #1115 on Fig 5) and the sealing lip part is configured for sealing contact with the edge of the substrate (see e.g. Wang - col 6, lines 30-35).
Wang does not explicitly teach that the number of sealing lip part is two or more. Ostrowski teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 1A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The sealing element of Ostrowski has at least two sealing lip parts (see e.g. #820 and #830 on Fig 8A-2; [0143]) which eliminates issues with wafer sticking that sing lip seals have and improves leak prevention (see e.g. [0147]; [0149]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang the number of sealing lip part is two or more as taught in Ostrowski because this configuration eliminates issues with wafer sticking that sing lip seals have and improves leak prevention.
Claim 6: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Ostrowski teaches that the heights of the two or more sealing lip parts are the same (see e.g. Ostrowski - Fig 8B-2).
Claim 7: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Ostrowski teaches that the number of sealing lip parts is two or more, there is a height difference between at least two of the sealing lip parts (see e.g. Ostrowski - Fig 10).
Claim 8: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Ostrowski teaches that the total radial width of the two or more sealing lip parts is less than 0.2 inches (see e.g. Ostrowski - [0122]), which overlaps with the claimed range of not more than 1mm.
Claim 9: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Ostrowski teaches that the total radial width of the two or more sealing lip parts is less than 0.2 inches (see e.g. Ostrowski - [0122]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.4mm-0.8mm.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ghongadi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of He et al (US 20130062197 A1).
Claim 12: Wang does not explicitly teach that several inner sealing protrusions are formed on the contact surface of the sealing element and the middle frame, and correspondingly, the surface of the middle frame has several sealing grooves that match the inner sealing protrusions. He teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 3A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The device of He include an inner sealing protrusion (“ridge”, see e.g. #212A on Fig 3B). “A combination of the ridge and the groove may help positioning the seal 212 in a correct location during installation and replacement of the seal 212 and may help to resist displacement of the seal 212 during normal use and cleaning Other suitable keying (engagement) features may be used.” (see e.g. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include the inner sealing protrusions formed on the contact surface of the sealing element and the middle frame, and correspondingly, the surface of the middle frame has several sealing grooves that match the inner sealing protrusions as taught in He to help position the seal and resist displacement of the seal during normal use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use several sealing protrusions because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Claim 13: Wang in view of Ghongadi and He teaches that several outer sealing protrusions are formed on the contact surface of the sealing element and the outer pressure ring (He shows that the protrusions extend from both the top and bottom surfaces of sealing element, see e.g. Fig 3B).
Claim 18: Wang does not explicitly teach that are several bumps formed on the contact surface of the outer pressure ring and the sealing element, and several bumps are formed on the contact surface of the inner pressure ring and the sealing element. He teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 3A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The device of He includes bumps (combination of “ridges” and “grooves” on the top and bottom surfaces of sealing element and corresponding pressure rings creating bumpy surfaces, see e.g. #212A on Fig 3B). “A combination of the ridge and the groove may help positioning the seal 212 in a correct location during installation and replacement of the seal 212 and may help to resist displacement of the seal 212 during normal use and cleaning Other suitable keying (engagement) features may be used.” (see e.g. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include at least one bump formed on the contact surface of the outer pressure ring and the sealing element, and at least one bump formed on the contact surface of the inner pressure ring and the sealing element as taught in He to help position the seal and resist displacement of the seal during normal use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use several bumps because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Claim 19: Wang does not explicitly teach that the bottom of the outer pressure ring has several bumps. He teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 3A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The device of He includes bumps (combination of “ridges” and “grooves” on the top and bottom surfaces of sealing element and corresponding pressure rings creating bumpy surfaces, see e.g. #212A on Fig 3B). “A combination of the ridge and the groove may help positioning the seal 212 in a correct location during installation and replacement of the seal 212 and may help to resist displacement of the seal 212 during normal use and cleaning Other suitable keying (engagement) features may be used.” (see e.g. [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include at least one bump formed on the contact surface of the outer pressure ring and the sealing element, and at least one bump formed on the contact surface of the inner pressure ring and the sealing element as taught in He to help position the seal and resist displacement of the seal during normal use. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use several bumps because “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI B).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ghongadi as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Prabhakar et al (US 20120181170 A1).
Claim 17: Wang does not explicitly teach that the surface of the outer pressure ring has hydrophobicity properties. Prabhakar teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract and Fig 3A), making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). Prabhakar teaches that parts of the device can be coated with a hydrophobic coating to prevent corrosion and plating of the holding parts (see e.g. [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to include hydrophobic coating of Prabhakar to protect different parts of the device, including the outer pressure ring, from corrosion and plating.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ghongadi as applied to claim 22 above, and in further view of Stevens et al (US 7138014 B2).
Claim 23: Wang discloses that the chuck plate comprises a base, the base has a lower surface contacting with the backside of the substrate (see e.g. #102 on Fig 4).
Wang does not explicitly teach that the lower surface of the base has several exhaust grooves and the periphery of the base has several exhaust holes communicating with the exhaust grooves. However, Wang does teach using a gas pipe with N2 in communication with base (see e.g. col 3, lines 59-63). Wang does not provide specifics on how this is done so a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would be motivated for finding suitable ways of delivering the gas. Stevens teaches a cup-shaped chuck of a substrate holding device for holding a substrate (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)I). The device of Stevens includes several exhaust grooves and the periphery of the base has several exhaust holes communicating with the exhaust grooves in base plate (see e.g. #130, #132, and #50 on Fig 3B) for delivering nitrogen gas to the back of the substate and draining fluids (see e.g. col 10, lines 31-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Wang to several exhaust grooves and the periphery of the base has several exhaust holes communicating with the exhaust grooves as taught in Stevens to deliver the nitrogen gas.
Claim 24: Wang in view of Ghongadi and Stevens teaches that the lower surface of the base has contact parts protruding toward the substrate, so as to reduce the contact area between the chuck plate and the substrate (see e.g. Wang - #102 on Fig 4).
Relevant Prior Art
Davis et al (US 20030085119 A1): A substrate holder (see e.g. abstract) having 2 or more sealing lip parts (see e.g. Fig 3).
Rauenbusch et al (US 9222192 B2): A substrate holder (see e.g. abstract; Fig 4) having sealing arrangements on either side of the contact ring (see e.g. #13 and #30 on Fig 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Claim 21: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative
limitations of claim(s) 21 with special attention given to the limitation claiming “that the middle frame is made of conductive metal and the inner pressure ring is made of insulating material”. This closest prior art is Wang. Wang teaches the reverse configuration wherein the inner pressure ring is made of conductive metal and the middle frame is made of insulating material (The chuck cup 101 is made of conductive material for electrical current conduction …conductive materials, such as stainless steel, Cu , Ti , Ir , Ta , Au , Ag , Pt and alloys like that”, see e.g. col 5, lines 41-60). #101 is what gets the current delivered to the contact ring. Therefore, changing #101 to be insulating and the middle frame to be conducting would deliver power from the power supply to the contact ring without a substantial change to the principal design of Wang. MPEP § 2143.01 V states “If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page(s) 10-12, the Applicant argues that Ghongadi does not render the limitation claiming “a sealing ring is disposed between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring” obvious because “the components connected to both O-ring 209 and O-ring 211 have no direct connection or association with the contract structure 206 whatsoever”. This is not considered persuasive. #206 is an extension of #208. As stated in the Office Action, the device of Ghongadi includes an o-ring between a contact structure (“bus bar”) and a pressure ring (“shield structure”) to seal the space between the two (see e.g. [0023]). Essentially, Ghongadi teaches that sealing rings can be disclosed between conductive parts, like the bus, and other parts of the holder like a pressure ring to seal them from the plating bath. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include an o-ring between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring because Ghongadi teaches o-rings can be included to provide sealing between structures like this.
On page(s) 12, the Applicant argues that even if Wang were combined with Ghongadi, a person having ordinary skill in the art would “likely” provide a sealing ring between the chuck cup 101 and the supporting portion 1014 or between the supporting portion 1014 and the fixing ring 109/bottom wall 2041. This is not considered persuasive. It is clear from the disclosure of Ghongadi that the seals are used between parts that interface with each other to prevent plating solution from between in between. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include an o-ring between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring to seal from the plating solution.
On page(s) 15, the Applicant argues that the “issue of further sealing at the contact ring is generally not considered”. This is not considered persuasive. As discussed above, Ghongadi teaches that sealing rings can be disclosed between conductive parts, like the bus, and other parts of the holder like a pressure ring to seal them from the plating bath. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to include an o-ring between the inner pressure ring and the contact ring because Ghongadi teaches o-rings can be included to provide sealing between structures like this.
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 ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is (571)272-9961. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM. 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.
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights