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 .
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-14 and 16-20 are pending
Claims 7, 9 and 15 have been canceled
Claims 1, 8, 10, 12 and 20 have been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to require “directing the acid precursors through a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix the acid precursors into a homogenous acid” this process is describe in the specification as an alternative mixing method to the static mixer and the injection mixer, discussed in the filed specification in para. 46-51 and shown in fig. 6A-C where each mixing method on its own is described as forming a homogenous acid mixture. Therefore, it appears that these mixing methods are not contemplated by applicant to be combined but rather always alternatives to one another. However, claims 8, 10, 14 and 16 recite a combination of mixing methods, which does not appear to be supported by the specification.
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) 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman et al. US 2020/0399779 (US’779) in view of Kim et al. US 2017/0062242 (US’242).
Regarding claim 1, US’779 teaches a method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer (methods and apparatus for reducing or eliminating the formation of deposits such as insoluble conductive deposits on surfaces in electrochemical plating equipment, semiconductor electrochemical plating equipment includes the wafer 100, including semiconductor wafer or other type substrate or workpiece, para. 2-3, 20, 30, 33, 39), the method comprising: removing the wafer from an electroplating solution (step 502 includes removing the electrochemical plating equipment including the wafer 100 from an electroplating solution, para. 31-33 and 39); mixing acid precursors (MSA may include 1M MSA, and may be diluted in water 50:1, para. 34); rinsing the wafer with an acid, wherein the acid contacts a residual electroplating solution on the wafer (the electrochemical plating equipment or one or more surfaces thereof, such as those shown in wafer 100, are removed from the electroplating solution and rinsed by contacting with a rinse agent having a pH between 2 and 4.5, acidic, para. 32-33 and 39) and forms a rinsate (a rinsate or mixture is formed including the rinse agent and any residual electroplating solution disposed atop the electrochemical plating equipment or a surface thereof, including wafer 100, para. 33 and 39); and removing the rinsate from the wafer (in block 506, removing the rinsate from the electrochemical plating equipment or a surface thereof.).
US’779 does not teach the mixing includes directing the acid precursors through a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix the acid precursors into a homogenous acid.
US’242 teaches a chemical liquid supply apparatus where two or more chemical liquids flowing in the length extending type pipe 142 (a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix) may make a rotational movement rather than a linear movement, and thus, the two or more chemical liquids may be smoothly mixed with each other, so that a concentration of a chemical element in the process fluid injected by the injection nozzle 132 is not substantially changed over time (homogenous) (abstract, para. 71-78, see fig. 3). Therefore, the mixing of the MSA water mixture in the method of US’779 can include a length extending type pipe to mix the MSA mixture to homogenize the flow so that a concentration of the mixture in the process fluid is not substantially changed over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’779 to include wherein mixing the acid comprises: directing the acid precursors through a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix the acid precursors into a homogenous acid because US’242 teaches it homogenize the flow so that a concentration of the mixture in the process fluid is not substantially changed over time and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claims 2-4, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 1. US’779 further teaches wherein the acid has a pH ranging from about 0 to about 5.5, with regard to claim 2, wherein the acid has a pH of 4 or lower, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the acid has a pH of 2 or lower, with regard to claim 4 (the pH can be about 2, para. 34-35).
Regarding claims 5, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 1. US’779 further teaches wherein the acid comprises carbonic acid (para. 36).
Regarding claims 6, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 1. US’779 further teaches wherein the acid comprises methane sulfonic acid (MSA) (para. 34-35).
Regarding claims 11, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 1. US’779 further teaches wherein the acid is applied under conditions sufficient to prevent precipitation of organometallic or metallic precursors (para. 20-21 and 39-40).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’779 in view of US’242 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2005/0252547 (US’547).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 7.
US’779 does not teach wherein mixing the acid further comprises: using a static mixer to mix the acid precursors in a separate container, with regard to claim 8 and wherein mixing the acid precursors further comprises: injection mixing the acid precursors, with regard to claim 10.
US’547 teaches a method of chemical delivery including liquid delivery module 117 of FIG. 2 the liquid delivery module 117 being adapted to reduce and/or eliminate wide variation in the chemistry dilution factor during liquid dispensing. The liquid delivery module 117 includes a mixing element 139. The mixing element 139 may be adapted to mix and/or homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery. The mixing element 139 may be one of any suitable type of mixing element, such as a static mixer, a dynamic mixer, an inductive mixer, a diffuser, a blender, etc. The liquid delivery module 117 may further include one or more check valves 141 between at least one of the inputs 121, 123 and the first joint 125. The check valves 141 may also contribute to good blending and/or mixing of the DI water and liquid chemistry (injection mixing). For example, the check valves 141 may induce rotation in at least one of the respective input flows, which may be beneficial for blending purposes upon confluence of the input flows (abstract, para. 19-21). Therefore, the mixing of the MSA water mixture in the modified method of US’779 can further include the static mixing and/or the injection mixing of US’547 to homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’779 to include mixing the acid further comprises: using a static mixer to mix the acid precursors in a separate container, with regard to claim 8 and wherein mixing the acid precursors further comprises: injection mixing the acid precursors, with regard to claim 10 because US’547 teaches it homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery and it is prima facie obvious to combine two methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third method to be used for the very same purpose the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art, see MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 12-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman et al. US 2020/0399779 (US’779) in view of Kim et al. US 2017/0062242 (US’242).
Regarding claim 12, US’779 teaches a method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer (methods and apparatus for reducing or eliminating the formation of deposits such as insoluble conductive deposits on surfaces in electrochemical plating equipment, semiconductor electrochemical plating equipment includes the wafer 100, including semiconductor wafer or other type substrate or workpiece, para. 2-3, 20, 30, 33, 39), the method comprising: directing a methane sulfonic acid (MSA) mixture (MSA may include 1M MSA, and may be diluted in water 50:1, para. 34); rinsing the wafer with the MSA mixture, wherein the MSA mixture contacts residual electroplating solution on the wafer (the electrochemical plating equipment or one or more surfaces thereof, such as those shown in wafer 100, are removed from the electroplating solution and rinsed by contacting with a rinse agent including diluted methane sulfonic acid (MSA), para. 31-35 and 39) and forms a rinsate (a rinsate or mixture is formed including the rinse agent and any residual electroplating solution disposed atop the electrochemical plating equipment or a surface thereof, including wafer 100, para. 33 and 39); and removing the rinsate from the wafer (in block 506, removing the rinsate from the electrochemical plating equipment or a surface thereof).
US’779 does not teach the directing includes directing the MSA mixture through a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix the acid into a homogenous mixture.
US’242 teaches a chemical liquid supply apparatus where two or more chemical liquids flowing in the length extending type pipe 142 (a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix) may make a rotational movement rather than a linear movement, and thus, the two or more chemical liquids may be smoothly mixed with each other, so that a concentration of a chemical element in the process fluid injected by the injection nozzle 132 is not substantially changed over time (homogenous) (abstract, para. 71-78, see fig. 3). Therefore, the mixing of the MSA water mixture in the method of US’779 can include a length extending type pipe to mix the MSA mixture to homogenize the flow so that a concentration of the mixture in the process fluid is not substantially changed over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’779 to include wherein mixing the MSA mixture comprises: directing the MSA mixture through a rinse line of a length sufficient to mix the acid into a homogenous mixture because US’242 teaches it homogenize the flow so that a concentration of the mixture in the process fluid is not substantially changed over time and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 12. US’779 further teaches mixing the MSA mixture before rinsing the wafer (MSA may include 1M MSA, and may be diluted in water 50:1, para. 34)
Regarding claims 17, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 12. US’779 further teaches herein the MSA mixture is applied under conditions sufficient to prevent precipitation of organometallic or metallic precursors (para. 20-21 and 34-40).
Regarding claims 18-20, the modified method of US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 12. US’779 further teaches wherein the MSA mixture has a pH ranging from about 0 to about 5.5, with regard to claim 18, wherein the MSA mixture has a pH of 4 or lower, with regard to claim 19 and wherein the MSA mixture has a pH of 2 or lower, with regard to claim 20 (the pH of the methane sulfonic acid can be about 2, para. 34-35).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’779 in view of US’242 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2005/0252547 (US’547).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, US’779 teaches the method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer of claim 12.
US’779 does not teach wherein mixing the MSA comprises: using a static mixer to mix the MSA mixture in a separate container, with regard to claim 14 and wherein mixing the MSA mixture comprises: injection mixing the MSA mixture, with regard to claim 16.
US’547 teaches a method of chemical delivery including liquid delivery module 117 of FIG. 2 he liquid delivery module 117 being adapted to reduce and/or eliminate wide variation in the chemistry dilution factor during liquid dispensing. The liquid delivery module 117 includes a mixing element 139. The mixing element 139 may be adapted to mix and/or homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery. The mixing element 139 may be one of any suitable type of mixing element, such as a static mixer, a dynamic mixer, an inductive mixer, a diffuser, a blender, etc. The liquid delivery module 117 may further include one or more check valves 141 between at least one of the inputs 121, 123 and the first joint 125. The check valves 141 may also contribute to good blending and/or mixing of the DI water and liquid chemistry (injection mixing). For example, the check valves 141 may induce rotation in at least one of the respective input flows, which may be beneficial for blending purposes upon confluence of the input flows (abstract, para. 19-21). Therefore, the mixing of the MSA water mixture in the modified method of US’779 can further include the static mixing and/or the injection mixing of US’547 to homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US’779 to include wherein mixing the MSA comprises: using a static mixer to mix the MSA mixture in a separate container, with regard to claim 14 and wherein mixing the MSA mixture comprises: injection mixing the MSA mixture, with regard to claim 16 because US’547 teaches it homogenize the flow of dilute liquid chemistry prior to delivery and it is prima facie obvious to combine two methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third method to be used for the very same purpose the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art, see MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 12 to incorporate subject matter of claims 9 and 15 into claims 1 and 12 and include subject matter regarding the mixing step has changed the scope of claims 1 and 12. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection of claims 1 and 12 is made under 103 as obvious over US’779 in view of US’242 which includes both the rejection of claims 1 and 12 as stated in the non-final office action mailed 5-1-25 and the rejection of claims 9 and 15 as stated in the non-final office action relevant to subject matter incorporated into claims 1 and 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8-29-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments that, Kim fails to disclose reduction of cross-contamination in entirety, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The preamble “A method of reducing cross-contamination on a wafer” recited the intended purpose of the claimed method, however, it does not limit to the recited steps. The operative steps recited after the preamble fully define the method and the resulting reduction in cross-contamination occurs naturally as a result of performing the steps. Therefore, it is not required that the mixing step on its own explicitly must reduce cross-contamination. It is sufficient for kim to teach that the mixing results in a homogeneous mixture. As discussed above, Bergman teaches a methods and apparatus for reducing or eliminating the formation of deposits such as insoluble conductive deposits on surfaces in electrochemical plating equipment. The mixing step of Kim would not impact the cleaning steps performed in Bergman, and therefore performing the recited steps of claims 1 and 12, as taught by Bergman in view of Kim, would inherently result in the claims reduction of cross-contamination.
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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713