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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20160362809 A1) in view of Chang (JP 6901646 B1, machine translation).
Considering claim 1, Graham discloses a plating method comprising: a lowering step of lowering (positioning at a distance D1) a substrate holder (503) holding a substrate (501) with a surface to be plated facing downward in a plating tank [0056]; a plating step of performing a plating process on the surface to be plated of the substrate lowered in the plating tank (Fig. 9); a first rotating step of rotating the substrate holder in a first direction [0070]; a second rotating step of rotating the substrate holder in a second direction opposite to the first direction (bidirectional rotation) [0070].
Graham does not disclose a shielding step of moving a shielding member into between an anode and a substrate depending on a rotation angle of the substrate holder.
However, Chang discloses a shielding mechanism for moving a shielding member between the anode and the substrate according to a rotation angle of the substrate holder [0007], in order to form a uniform thickness film at a specific region of the substrate [0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have shielding mechanism in the method of Graham, to be a moveable shielding member moving between the anode and the substrate according to a rotation angle of the substrate holder, because Chang discloses that such shielding mechanism provides a greater control over uniformity of the thickness of the plating film formed at a specific region of the substrate.
Considering claims 2 and 3, in Graham as modified by Chang, Chang discloses the shielding step is configured to move the shielding member into between the anode and a portion of the substrate when a rotation angle of a specific portion of the substrate held by the substrate holder is within a predetermined range [0031]. With respect to the limitation of switching a rotation direction of the substrate holder between the first direction and the second direction when the rotation angle of the specific portion of the substrate is within a predetermined range, the step of Graham is inherently met lacking any definition of specific portion and a predetermined range. Note that the scope of the limitations a predetermine range may be the whole the substrate. Furthermore, Graham discloses clockwise and counterclockwise rotation to adjust dwell time of a selected portion of the substrate at a selected azimuthal position in a shielded area, such that this dwell time is different from a dwell time of an analogous portion of a substrate at a different azimuthal position and the speed can be varied during a single rotation or in multiple rotations ([0070] and [0071]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wojciech Haske whose telephone number is (571)272-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 am - 6:00 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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/WOJCIECH HASKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1794