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 .
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-… 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.
The term “about” in claims 4, 5, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention When used individually, it is indefinite as to when values are deemed to be about the recited value. When used in a range, i.e. about 20 mm to about 50 mm, the range is thus provided with 2 upper values and two lower values, depending on the variability of about the recited value. Thus the use provides a narrower range, when the about is greater than the lower value and lower than the upper value, and a broader range, when the about is less than the lower value and higher than the upper value.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham et al (US 2018/02058546 A1).
As to claim 1, Graham discloses an edge shield for reducing electrical current crowding of a wafer, having a first side and a second side, during jet array electroplating, comprising:
one or more rings disposed below the second side of the wafer and configured to restrict current flow to an edge of the wafer (#1810 Fig. 18C where the second side is the bottom side of the wafer facing 1804); and
at least one opening configured to allow electrolyte flow to pass through (openings in 1810 [0213] “passages”).
As to claim 2, Graham further discloses wherein the at least one opening is configured between an edge of the wafer and the one or more rings (See annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Graham further discloses wherein the one or more rings are disposed vertically away from each other (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Graham further discloses wherein the edge shield has a height of les than about 15 mm ([0228] “In certain implementations, an edge flow element may have a height that is between about 0.1-5 mm, or between about 1-2 mm.”).
As to claim 6, Graham further discloses wherein the at least one opening is a plurality of openings (see image above Fig. 18C each space being an opening).
As to claim7, Graham further discloses the edge shield comprises an edge block, wherein the second sides of the wafer contacts the edge block (See annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
398
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Graham discloses system for reducing electrical current crowding of a wafer during jet array electroplating ([0134] “electrolyte jet or inner jet”) comprising:
a chamber configured to hold the wafer, wherein, when the wafer is placed inside the chamber, there is a first gap between a wall of the chamber and an edge of the wafer and a second gap between a jet array and a second side of the wafer (Fig. 1D #155);
an edge shield (#1810) for reducing electrical current crowding of a wafer, having a first side and a second side, during jet array electroplating, comprising:
one or more rings disposed below the second side of the wafer and configured to restrict current flow to an edge of the wafer (#1810 Fig. 18C where the second side is the bottom side of the wafer facing 1804); and
at least one opening configured to allow electrolyte flow to pass through (openings in 1810 [0213] “passages”).
As to claim 9, Graham further discloses wherein the at least one opening is configured between an edge of the wafer and the one or more rings (See annotation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, Graham discloses the at least one opening is a radial pass through in the ring (See passages above which are open radially).
As to claim 12, Graham discloses wherein the ring is configured for filling the second gap (See figure above where the ring is within the gap.).
As to claim 13, Graham further discloses wherein the at least one opening is a plurality of openings (see image above Fig. 18C each space being an opening).
As to claim 15, Graham further discloses wherein the plurality of rings is disposed below the wafer (See figure above).
As to claim 17, Graham further discloses wherein the edge shield has a height of about 1mm to 3 mm ([0228] “In certain implementations, an edge flow element may have a height that is between about 0.1-5 mm, or between about 1-2 mm.”).
As to claim 18, Graham further discloses wherein the at least one opening is a plurality of openings (see image above Fig. 18C each space being an opening).
As to claim 19, Graham further discloses the edge shield comprises an edge block, wherein the wafer has a first side and second side, wherein the second sides of the wafer contacts the edge block (See annotation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
398
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al.
As to claim 4, 11, and 14, Graham further discloses wherein the one or more rings have a radial thickness ranging from about 20 mm to about 50 mm ([0228] “…the edge flow element has a width (measured as the difference between the outer radius and the inner radius) between about 0.1-50 mm” which overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious to provide a radial thickness within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.)
As to claim 16, Graham further discloses wherein the one or more rings have a radial thickness ranging from about 20 mm to about 50 mm, of which 21 mm falls within said range and thus prima facie obvious to use the different values within said range absent criticality ([0228] “…the edge flow element has a width (measured as the difference between the outer radius and the inner radius) between about 0.1-50 mm” which overlaps the instantly claimed range and thus prima facie obvious to provide a radial thickness within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 I.)
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. in view of Nagai et al (US 2021/0040641 A1).
As to claim 20, Graham disclose wherein the wafer overlaps the edge block (See Fig. 1C and 14a) but fails to disclose 1 to 3 mm of an overlap.
Nagai discloses a suitable overlap between the substrate holder and the wafer to be 1 – 2 mm ([0166] where the seal contacts the wafer).
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 overlap of 1-2 mm as taught by Nagain with the apparatus of Graham because such a value is recognize suitable for the holding of a wafer within a substrate holder to enable electroplating. See MPEP 2144.07
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
Prosecution Insights