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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
As to the recitation of “the controller controls…”, for examination on the merits, as drafted the controller controls the driving mechanism which enables the paddles move periodically according to the cycle described in each of the claims. The controller does not decide or execute the cycle as claimed. In other words, the controller controls the movement but is not necessarily the structure which determines the movement.
The cycle as claimed does not execute a stopping of the movement, but rather requires a positively recited movement to a particular point. The claims do not preclude movement past that point in a particular direction before reversal of movement in the opposite direction to achieve periodicity. The variables a and b, of which c is dependent upon, identified corresponds to a size of the paddle or gap between paddles do determine the amount of movement in each direction. Thus, prior art devices which perform a full periodic movement in both directions in multiple cycles necessarily move in the cycle as claimed, even if not explicitly identified, the cycle as claimed merely being a description of a portion of the prior art movements in which the paddles necessarily perform the movements described in the claimed cycle, with additional movement steps interleaved in between the steps as claimed – i.e. further movement past a coordinate point or the like.
Furthermore, the claim also does not require the identified steps of the cycle to execute in any particular order. In other words, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims allows for the movement to go right to Δ, then Δ+c, all the way to Δ+N*c before reversing course to coordinate c, then 2c, then N*c, etc.
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.
As to claim 1, the recitation “the controller controls…” is indefinite because the phrase “controls” is merely repetitive of the obvious statement of a controller. The claim goes on to recite a particular cycle sequence of the movement of the paddle, yet the controller merely provides the driving, and NOT the particular cycle as claimed. In other words, as drafted, the entire recitation of the particular cycle movements do not limit the controller as claimed because the controller as claimed controls the driving mechanism “to make…”. The controller does not need the particulars of the cycle to enable movement of the paddles. The Examiner suggest explicitly tying the particular programmed process to the controller using language such as “…wherein the controller is programmed to control the driving mechanism to perform a cycle which makes the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal; taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddle within the cycle comprising:…” or similar language.
As to claim 1, the recitation of the “…” at line 14 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 1, the recitation “N is an integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to indicate a point at which the cycle comes to completion. However, since the scope is unbound by both positive and negative integers, the actual cycle is unbound as well in scope.
As to claim 1, the term Δ is undefined. Line 19 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coordinate axis" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the coordinate origin" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 5, the recitation “the controller controls…” is indefinite because the phrase “controls” is merely repetitive of the obvious statement of a controller. The claim goes on to recite a particular cycle sequence of the movement of the paddle, yet the controller merely provides the driving, and NOT the particular cycle as claimed. In other words, as drafted, the entire recitation of the particular cycle movements do not limit the controller as claimed because the controller as claimed controls the driving mechanism “to make…”. The controller does not need the particulars of the cycle to enable movement of the paddles. The Examiner suggest explicitly tying the particular programmed process to the controller using language such as “…wherein the controller is programmed to control the driving mechanism to perform a cycle which makes the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal; taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddle within the cycle comprising:…” or similar language.
As to claim 5, the recitation of the “…” at lines 15 and 21 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 5, the recitation “N is an integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to indicate a point at which the cycle comes to completion. However, since the scope is unbound by both positive and negative integers, the actual cycle is unbound as well in scope.
As to claim 5, the term Δ is undefined. Line 19 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 9, the recitation “the controller controls…” is indefinite because the phrase “controls” is merely repetitive of the obvious statement of a controller. The claim goes on to recite a particular cycle sequence of the movement of the paddle, yet the controller merely provides the driving, and NOT the particular cycle as claimed. In other words, as drafted, the entire recitation of the particular cycle movements do not limit the controller as claimed because the controller as claimed controls the driving mechanism “to make…”. The controller does not need the particulars of the cycle to enable movement of the paddles. The Examiner suggest explicitly tying the particular programmed process to the controller using language such as “…wherein the controller is programmed to control the driving mechanism to perform a cycle which makes the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal; taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddle within the cycle comprising:…” or similar language.
As to claim 9, the recitation of the “…” at line 27 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 9, the recitation “N is a non-integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to assist in defining a term y which indicates a multiple of c to move. It is unbound, thus the scope of the claim unbound in the intervals required to move the paddles.
As to claim 9, the term Δ is undefined. Line 7 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 9, the “y” term is deemed to be indefinite because it is only defined via the mathematical calculation of x*(N+1) where x is a value that makes x*N an integer. However, if this is the case, because N is a non-integer, y may be defines as any value integer or non-integer.
As to claim 10, the recitation “the controller controls…” is indefinite because the phrase “controls” is merely repetitive of the obvious statement of a controller. The claim goes on to recite a particular cycle sequence of the movement of the paddle, yet the controller merely provides the driving, and NOT the particular cycle as claimed. In other words, as drafted, the entire recitation of the particular cycle movements do not limit the controller as claimed because the controller as claimed controls the driving mechanism “to make…”. The controller does not need the particulars of the cycle to enable movement of the paddles. The Examiner suggest explicitly tying the particular programmed process to the controller using language such as “…wherein the controller is programmed to control the driving mechanism to perform a cycle which makes the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal; taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddle within the cycle comprising:…” or similar language.
As to claim 10, the recitation of the “…” at line 27 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 10, the recitation “N is a non-integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to assist in defining a term y which indicates a multiple of c to move. It is unbound, thus the scope of the claim unbound in the intervals required to move the paddles.
As to claim 10, the term Δ is undefined. Line 7 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 10, the “y” term is deemed to be indefinite because it is only defined via the mathematical calculation of x*(N+1) where x is a value that makes x*N an integer. However, if this is the case, because N is a non-integer, y may be defines as any value integer or non-integer.
As to claim 11, the recitation of the “…” at line 14 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 11, the recitation “N is an integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to indicate a point at which the cycle comes to completion. However, since the scope is unbound by both positive and negative integers, the actual cycle is unbound as well in scope.
As to claim 11, the term Δ is undefined. Line 19 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 12, the recitation of the “…” at lines 15 and 21 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 12, the recitation “N is an integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to indicate a point at which the cycle comes to completion. However, since the scope is unbound by both positive and negative integers, the actual cycle is unbound as well in scope.
As to claim 12, the term Δ is undefined. Line 19 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 13, the recitation of the “…” at line 27 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 13, the recitation “N is a non-integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to assist in defining a term y which indicates a multiple of c to move. It is unbound, thus the scope of the claim unbound in the intervals required to move the paddles.
As to claim 13, the term Δ is undefined. Line 7 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 13, the “y” term is deemed to be indefinite because it is only defined via the mathematical calculation of x*(N+1) where x is a value that makes x*N an integer. However, if this is the case, because N is a non-integer, y may be defines as any value integer or non-integer.
As to claim 14, the recitation of the “…” at line 27 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how such a recitation is either further limiting of the claimed cycle or further refines the cycle as claimed. For example, it is unclear if it represents intermediate steps of the cycle, stopping of a cycle, or any number of other possibilities.
As to claim 14, the recitation “N is a non-integer” is indefinite because it is completely unbounded. The term “N” appears to assist in defining a term y which indicates a multiple of c to move. It is unbound, thus the scope of the claim unbound in the intervals required to move the paddles.
As to claim 14, the term Δ is undefined. Line 7 recites that Δ is greater than or equal to a+b without bound. It appears to define an arbitrary interval to move to the right in addition to the “c” term.
As to claim 14, the “y” term is deemed to be indefinite because it is only defined via the mathematical calculation of x*(N+1) where x is a value that makes x*N an integer. However, if this is the case, because N is a non-integer, y may be defined as any value integer or non-integer.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McHugh et al (US 2005/0006241 A1).
As to claim 1, McHugh discloses an electroplating apparatus (Title), comprising: multiple parallel paddles (#141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 1 [0025]), wherein the electroplating apparatus further comprises a controller (#152 Fig. 3) and a driving mechanism (#143 Fig. 3), the driving mechanism being connected to the controller and the paddles respectively, and the controller controls the driving mechanism to make the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal (See Fig. 3 [0027 “A controller 152 directs the motion of the paddle device 140”) .
As to the instant claim limitations “…taking the arrangement of direction of the paddles…N is an integer” (as claimed cycle), McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 5, McHugh discloses an electroplating apparatus (Title), comprising: multiple parallel paddles (#141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 1 [0025]), wherein the electroplating apparatus further comprises a controller (#152 Fig. 3) and a driving mechanism (#143 Fig. 3), the driving mechanism being connected to the controller and the paddles respectively, and the controller controls the driving mechanism to make the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal (See Fig. 3 [0027 “A controller 152 directs the motion of the paddle device 140”) .
As to the instant claim limitations “…taking the arrangement of direction of the paddles…N is an integer” (as claimed cycle), McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 9, McHugh discloses an electroplating apparatus (Title), comprising: multiple parallel paddles (#141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 1 [0025]), wherein the electroplating apparatus further comprises a controller (#152 Fig. 3) and a driving mechanism (#143 Fig. 3), the driving mechanism being connected to the controller and the paddles respectively, and the controller controls the driving mechanism to make the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal (See Fig. 3 [0027 “A controller 152 directs the motion of the paddle device 140”) .
As to the instant claim limitations “…taking the arrangement of direction of the paddles…x*N be an integer” (as claimed cycle), McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 10, McHugh discloses an electroplating apparatus (Title), comprising: multiple parallel paddles (#141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 1 [0025]), wherein the electroplating apparatus further comprises a controller (#152 Fig. 3) and a driving mechanism (#143 Fig. 3), the driving mechanism being connected to the controller and the paddles respectively, and the controller controls the driving mechanism to make the paddles move periodically so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal (See Fig. 3 [0027 “A controller 152 directs the motion of the paddle device 140”) .
As to the instant claim limitations “…taking the arrangement of direction of the paddles…x*N be an integer” (as claimed cycle), McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 11, McHugh discloses an electroplating method, comprising:
setting multiple parallel paddles (Fig. 11A #141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 11 relative to W 109, [0025]), and controlling the paddles movement so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal ([0055] “Shifting the point about which the paddle device 140 reciprocates reduces the likelihood for forming shadows or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece W”;
As to the limitations “taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddles within one cycle comprising…N is an integer”, the limitation describe the motion of the paddles through moving their position back and forth, mathematically defining the points at which the paddle passes through. McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, although McHugh does not readily identify the points by with width of the paddle or gaps therebetween, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant method cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 12, McHugh discloses an electroplating method, comprising:
setting multiple parallel paddles (Fig. 11A #141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 11 relative to W 109, [0025]), and controlling the paddles movement so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal ([0055] “Shifting the point about which the paddle device 140 reciprocates reduces the likelihood for forming shadows or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece W”;
As to the limitations “taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddles within one cycle comprising…N is an integer”, the limitation describe the motion of the paddles through moving their position back and forth, mathematically defining the points at which the paddle passes through. McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, although McHugh does not readily identify the points by with width of the paddle or gaps therebetween, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant method cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 13, McHugh discloses an electroplating method, comprising:
setting multiple parallel paddles (Fig. 11A #141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 11 relative to W 109, [0025]), and controlling the paddles movement so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal ([0055] “Shifting the point about which the paddle device 140 reciprocates reduces the likelihood for forming shadows or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece W”)
As to the limitations “taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddles within one cycle comprising…x*N be an integer”, the limitation describe the motion of the paddles through moving their position back and forth, mathematically defining the points at which the paddle passes through. McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, although McHugh does not readily identify the points by with width of the paddle or gaps therebetween, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant method cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
As to claim 14, McHugh discloses an electroplating method, comprising:
setting multiple parallel paddles (Fig. 11A #141), the paddles being arranged parallel to a substrate and moving to stir electroplating solution (See Fig. 11 relative to W 109, [0025]), and controlling the paddles movement so that each corresponding point on the substrate accumulated time blocked by the paddles is equal ([0055] “Shifting the point about which the paddle device 140 reciprocates reduces the likelihood for forming shadows or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece W”)
As to the limitations “taking the arrangement direction of the paddles as the coordinate axis direction, the movement steps of the paddles within one cycle comprising…x*N be an integer”, the limitation describe the motion of the paddles through moving their position back and forth, mathematically defining the points at which the paddle passes through. McHugh discloses the cycle starting from center (Fig. 11A) and moving right in several steps (Fig. 11B/C) and left in several steps (Fig. 11C-E) before moving right again ( Fig. 11F) and discloses the shifting of the central position reduces shadowing or other undesirable patterns on the workpiece ([0055]). Thus, although McHugh does not readily identify the points by with width of the paddle or gaps therebetween, since the paddle necessarily passes through each point, in which each point may be arbitrarily defined by a width of the paddle because the paddle necessarily possesses a width, the motion of the prior art inherently satisfies the instant method cycle limitations because the cycle limitations redefine the points at which the paddle moved. See MPEP 2112.01 I and 2112.02 I.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of Jia et al (WO 2019/041154 A1)
As to claims 2 and 6, McHugh fails to explicitly disclose wherein a diffusion plate is provided between the paddles and the substrate, and the diffusion plate has multiple through-holes.
Jia discloses including a diffusion plate with multiple through holes (Fig. 5, Fig. 13, and 14 #60 ([0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a diffusion plate as taught by Jia in the apparatus of McHugh in order to ensure a more uniform control in the plating apparatus (Jia [0046]). As to the location of the diffusion plate being between the paddle and the substrate, Jia discloses the diffusion plate being adjacent to the workpiece ([0046] “The first diffusion plate is close to the substrate…”), it would have been obvious to place the diffusion plate between the paddle and the substrate from a routine selection of positions of the diffusion plate between the substrate and the paddles in McHugh because the options are either between or not between the substrate and the paddles. See MPEP 2143 E.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh in view of Okuda et al (US 2021/0102295 A1)
As to claims 3 and 7, McHugh discloses a guide rail (Fig. 3 connection of 140 to 144) and the paddles are formed by opening strip-shaped through-holes on a paddle plate (See Fig. 3 #s 141 with holes between each), one side of which is connected to a driving mechanism and the other side is slidably connected to the guide rail (See Fig. 3), bnut fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electroplating apparatus is provided with an eccentric bearing.
Okuda discloses connecting a paddle (#50 Fig. 2) to a guide rail (#41) one side connected to a driving mechanism (#60) and the other side is connected to a guide rail via an eccentric bearing (#70).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used an eccentric bearing as taught by Okuda to support guide rails connected to the paddle of McHugh because they are a recognized support structure for use with the guide rails to support the paddle at both ends. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh, as modified by Okuda, as applied to claims 3 and 7, respectively, in further view of Heller et al (US 2004/0256219 A1).
As to claims 4 and 8, McHugh, as modified by Okuda, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the driving mechanism, eccentric bearing, and guide rail are surrounded by a nitrogen protection box, and the nitrogen protection box is provided with a nitrogen inlet and a nitrogen outlet.
Heller discloses a nitrogen protection box, and the nitrogen protection box is provided with a nitrogen inlet and a nitrogen outlet in order to protect driving mechanisms of an electroplating device ([0009], [0011] with inlets and outlets 7 and 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used a nitrogen protection box as taught by Heller to protect the movement components of McHugh, as modified by Okuda, in order to protect those components (Okuda [0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS J RUFO whose telephone number is (571)270-7716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 am to 5 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.
/LOUIS J RUFO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795