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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 June 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 June 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Restriction/Election Requirement on 23 April 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As claimed, it is unclear if the “concentration of the electroplating solution” of claim 9 is referring to the concentration of the ionic species of the electroplating solution, the concentration of dissolved gases, or another component of the electroplating solution. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, which refers to the concentration of the dissolved gas in the electroplating solution. The indefinite limitation will be interpreted consistent with the specification at [0062] and [0072] as filed, where the positive correlation refers to the pressure within the contactor and the dissolved gas concentration.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell (US 2014/0097088 A1) in view of Parekh et al. (WO 02/062446, as previously attached), and as evidenced by Khan (“Henry’s Law,” 2023).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 14, Stowell teaches a method of controlling a concentration of dissolved gas in the electroplating solution of an electroplating system with an electroplating cell ([0048]: as “vacuum plating cell;” fig. 3, element 301). The electroplating system further comprises a contactor (308, as “degasser”) connected to a vacuum source (310) which applies a vacuum to the contactor. The fluid for electroplating flows through the contactor and electroplating cell (302). The concentration of dissolved gas is controlled by removing substantially all dissolved gases with the contactor and vacuum ([0042]). The concentration of dissolved gases is kept above zero with the use of a gas control loop ([0048]: 312 loop, 314 gas sensor, 350 controller, 355 injection unit). The dissolved gas is oxygen, injected to a concentration of about 10 ppm or less ([0007]). In one embodiment, the concentration is about 2 ppm ([0073]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Stowell does not teach that the contactor has a membrane with a shell and lumen side. However, Parekh teaches that degassing devices for removing dissolved gases from an electroplating solution include membrane contact degassers having a shell and lumen side (p. 2, lines 15-26). A vacuum is applied to the contactor to effect degassing of the solution (p. 6, lines 16-19; Fig. 1, elements 42: degasser, 44: vacuum through a conduit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the degasser taught by Parekh in the electroplating apparatus taught by Stowell and its method of operation. One would have been motivated to do so, because the degasser/contactors of both inventions are taught to be useful in the removal of dissolved gases from electroplating solutions.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 15-16, modified Stowell further teaches that vacuum control of the cell and associated components in the fluid loop, e.g. the contactor, may be used to effect a change in concentration of dissolved gas, including by opening and closing different valves in the system ([0041], [0056]: maintaining vacuum on cell and associated components; [0085]: pressure control with opening and closing of certain valves). Feedback and control algorithms may maintain the target pressure in different components of the system, e.g. the contactor, using a pressure sensor ([0088]) or gas sensor such as for oxygen ([0072], Fig. 6: element 614). Repeated opening and closing of the valve during operation reads on the claims of opening and closing the valves at a first or second frequency, and as part of the overall logic, may depend on the presence/absence of a wafer and/or whether the plating process is active or not ([0078]: substrate immersion; [0082]).
While not explicitly stated in any particular embodiment, it is obvious to one skilled in the art in view of the teachings of Stowell that a valve may be located between the vacuum source and the contactor, in order to achieve the same end result of effective pressure control in the contactor. The opening and closing of this valve are reasonably expected to result in the application and removal of vacuum force on the contactor, respectively.
It is furthermore obvious that the concentration of dissolved gas be affected by the pressure in the contactor, in accordance with the scientific principles of Henry’s law. An increase in pressure in the system will be associated with greater dissolved gas concentration and vice versa, as the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid such as the electrolyte is substantially positively correlated to its partial pressure above the gas, even in non-ideal systems (Khan Fig. 1). See MPEP § 2144.02. It is not inventive to associate pressure ranges with concentration ranges as the relationship between these is well understood in the art.
Regarding claim 13, modified Stowell further teaches that electroplating should occur above at least 20 Torr due to undesirable solution boiling at lower pressures ([0005], [0077]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). The claimed range of about 0.2 to about 1 atmosphere is therefore obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Colton B. Forry whose telephone number is (571)272-8873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/CBF/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights