DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn.
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 II, claims 9-15 in the reply filed on 13 August 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9-15 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.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “electrically neutral and conductive sieve” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the phrasing. It is unclear what “electrically neutral” means in regards to the material, electrical properties, etc. It is unclear if the phrase as a whole is both electrically neutral and conductive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otzlinger et al. (US 2023/0313407).
Regarding claim 9, Otzlinger discloses an electrolytic treatment device (title) (= an electrochemical deposition apparatus) comprising:
A shield body (2) optionally having a circular shape and formed of a material such as plastic positioned in the electrolytic treatment device spaced from a rotating substrate [0015], [0018], [0030] (= a disk-shaped electrically neutral sieve configured to be mounted within an electrochemical reactor in a spaced relationship from a rotating substrate associated with the electrochemical reactor),
The shield body having a plurality of openings allowing for a well-controlled current distribution and a uniform electroplating of substrates (abstract, [0008]) (= and defining a plurality of perforations configured to direct jets of electrolyte toward the rotating substrate).
Regarding the claimed “electrically neutral and conductive sieve”, the phrasing is indefinite as described above. Otzlinger discloses the shield body may be formed of glass, quartz, metal or plastic materials [0030]. Regarding the claimed “configured to be mounted”, Otzlinger discloses that the shield body is positioned with the device and therefore is configured to be mounted. Regarding the claimed “semiconductor wafer”, the material worked upon does not further limit an apparatus claim. The claimed “that disrupts a boundary layer of electrolyte at a surface of the rotating semiconductor wafer”, since Otzlinger discloses all claimed structural elements of the claimed apparatus, Otzlinger intrinsically discloses the claimed phrasing.
Regarding claim 13, Otzlinger discloses wherein the shield body is arranged parallel to and spaced away from the rotating substrate (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McHugh et al. (US 2005/0006241).
Regarding claim 9, McHugh discloses an electrolytic device [0008] (= an electrolytic deposition apparatus) comprising:
An electrochemical reactor (110) comprising a titanium porous paddle [0031] mounted with paddle system (142) [0027] and configured to jet (e.g. 448 jet apertures, [0030]) the processing fluid toward a workpiece (W) that is configured to rotate [0024] (= an electrically neutral and conductive sieve configured to be mounted within an electrochemical reactor in a spaced relationship from a rotating substrate). The Examiner takes the position that titanium is electrically neutral and conductive. The instant specification does not provide further guidance regarding the chemical composition of “electrically neutral and conductive”. Regarding the phrasing “that disrupts a boundary layer of electrolyte at a surface of the rotating semiconductor wafer”, since McHugh discloses the same sieve as described above, the disclosure of McHugh discloses the claimed phrasing. The claimed “semiconductor wafer” does not further limit the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, McHugh discloses the titanium paddle having apertures (= perforated) and passing of the processing fluid which includes ions (= ionic membrane) [0030]. The instant specification does not indicate any further requirements to “perforated membrane”.
Regarding claims 11-12, McHugh discloses wherein the apertures (448), pores (450f) through-holes or other openings of the paddles have different sizes and shapes (Figures 4A-4G).
Regarding claim 14, McHugh discloses a chamber seal (737) (= support) mounted within the vessel between the workpiece and paddle and has areal contact with the paddle (Figure 7, [0044]).
Claim(s) 9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dinneen et al. (US 2015/0122638).
Regarding claim 9, Dinneen discloses an electroplating cell (title) (= an electrochemical deposition apparatus) comprising:
An electroplating cell (200) [0056] comprising a Nafion membrane (247) [0056], [0102] mounted with chamber frame (249) [0056] configured to flow plating solution [0056] toward a wafer (not pictured) which is configured to rotate [0133], [0137] (= an electrically neutral and conductive sieve configured to be mounted within an electrochemical reactor in a spaced relationship from a rotating substrate; Nafion has proton conductivity and is electrically neutral). The membrane (247) of Dinneen is disk-shaped. Regarding the phrase of claim 9 including “that disrupts a boundary layer of electrolyte at a surface of the rotating semiconductor wafer” the claim language is directed towards the functional result of directing jets and does not further structurally limit the claimed apparatus. Since Dinneen discloses the claimed structural limitations of the apparatus, the apparatus of Dinneen necessarily provides disruption of a boundary layer.
Regarding claims 14-15, Dinneen discloses the claimed invention as applied above. Dinneen discloses chamber frame (249) (= support grate, Figures 2A-2B) which supports the membrane.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2005/0155865
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
Prosecution Insights