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 .
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 02 December 2025 fails to place the application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are currently pending and under examination.
Status of Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is herein maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-19 under Double Patenting is herein maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-19 of copending Application No. 17/754097 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Claims 1 and 20 and claim 1 App ‘097 are identical except the instant claim required the polyalkyleneimine backbone has an average molecular weight from 600 g/mol to 100,000 g/mol and requires N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit where claim 1 requires a molecular weight of 900 g/mol to 100,000 g/mol and the substitution is provided by a C2 to C6 oxyalkylene unit. This, the instant claim is generic with respect to the molecular weight while providing a more specific substitution of the N-hydrogen unit. Thus, the instant claim overlaps significantly in scope in providing a specific formulation of the additive of App’097.
The following instant dependent claims correspond to App’097 Instant claims:
Instant claim 2 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 2.
Instant claim 7 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 7.
Instant claim 8 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 8.
Instant claim 9 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 9.
Instant claim 10 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 10.
Instant claim 11 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 11.
Instant claim 12 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 12.
Instant claim 13 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 13.
Instant claim 14 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 14.
Instant claim 15 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 15.
Instant claim 16 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 16.
Instant claim 17 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 17.
Instant claim 18 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 18.
Instant claim 19 is identical to App ‘097 Claim 19.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeger-Goepfert et al (US 2013/0020203 A1) in view of Kao et al (US 2014/0262800 A1) and Boeckh et al (US 6,300,304 B1).
As to claims 1-2, 5, 6-12, and 16-20, Roeger-Goepfert discloses a composition comprising
copper ions ([0032], [0101] “copper sulfate”, [0103], claim 11) and
at least one additive comprising a polyalkyleneimine backbone comprising N-hydrogen atoms ([0018] formula L1 generically), wherein
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol ([0043], [0048] with a specific example of 2000 g/mol which overlaps and falls within the instantly claimed range of instant claims 1 and 20 in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 I and thus prima facie obvious),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit ([0045] “mixture thereof” [0055]) particularly propylene oxide (as required by instant claim 6 [0055]
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ([0048] “polyethyleneimine backbone”, [0050] “…polymerizing ethyleneimine in the presence of a catalyst…”).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses the polyalkyleneimine backbone has to formula of
PNG
media_image1.png
199
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0018]) where XL1 is an ethanediyl ([0019],[0027]), AL1 is a continuation by branching ([0020]), RL1 is a polyoxyalkylene unit formula ([0022]) with unit r and s to be defined as p as instantly claimed and addressed with respect to the N-hydrogen atom units below, RL2 is RL1 ([0022] and seen in formula L1), XL11 is ethanediyl ([0023] R1), XL12 ([0023] the C3-C6 alkanediyls R1 which is a C3 reads on instant claim 16 and “Preferably, R.sup.1 is selected from ethanediyl or a combination of ethanediyl and 1,2-propanediyl” thus requiring s and r to be 1 or more as required by instant claim 1), RL11 is a hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkylnyl, alkaryl, aryl, ([0024], and where q+n+m+o is 10-24000 ([0026] as required by instant claim 1), 1-10000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 8), 25-65 or 1000-1800 ([0031] as required by instant claim 9), 20-5000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 18), where preferable o = 0 (as required by instant claim 10 [0031]).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses one or more accelerating agents and suppressing agents (as required by instant claim 12 [0065], [0067], [0080]).
Regarding the limitation “(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine.”, Roeger-Goepfert discloses “wherein the average number of oxyalkylene units in said polyoxyalkylene radical is from 1.5 to 10 per N--H unit.” ([0007]) to reduce the nitrogen content in the leveler in order to prevent defects such as voids ([0015]).
The instantly claimed range is sufficiently close to further be deemed to be prima facie obvious as although they do not overlap. See MPEP 2144.05 I “Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”
Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the composition is advantageous in plating vias of several micrometers, up 100 micrometers for TSV applications ([0010]), 50-100 micrometers for copper pillar manufacturing ([0011]), as well as with substrates with features of less than 30 nanometers ([0006]]), or substrates with features on the nanometer scale ([0038], [0156]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular degree of alkoxylation (i.e. the number of oxyalkylene units per N-hydrogen atom of 1.5-10) is particularly useful for features in the sub 100 nm range ([0015]-[0016]).
Kao discloses reducing the amount of nitrogen to carbon (referred to as the TN/TOC ratio in the Abstract) of leveling agents in electroplating baths (Abstract) and to optimize the amount of carbon to nitrogen ratio for use in recesses and via openings in order to not displace the suppressor compounds to prevent the formation of voids ([0018]-[0019]).
Boeckh discloses alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines (title) for use as dispersants (Abstract) comprising
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol (col. 2 formula, col. 4 lines 32-46),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit (col. 2 lines 30-44),
(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine (col. 2 lines 40-44, particularly “at least 12.”, col./ 4 lines 1-31).
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ( “polyethyleneimine backbone” col. 4 lines 63-66).
Boeckh further discloses the relative amount of oxyalkylene units to be from 7 to 50% (as required by instant claim 5 col. 2 lines 39-44, col. 4 lines 1-30).
The teaching of the prior art Roeger-Goepfert discloses an identical polyalkyleimine backbone formed from ethyleneimine with an identically disclosed backbone structure which the difference being the number of oxyethylene units per N-hydrogen atom. The difference amounts to compounds which differ by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, i.e. the oxyalkylene units, which are deemed to be homologs that are sufficiently close in structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that the additive as claimed would have similar properties and thus prima facie obvious to use an average number of oxyalkylene units between 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19). See MPEP 2144.09
Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular number of units is advantages in sub 100nm vias and that the number of units can be optimized to provide sufficient leveling effect with the least amount of nitrogen to prevent deleterious effects. Kao discloses optimizing the amount of nitrogen to carbon ratios of the levelers used in copper electroplating bath to provide a lower content of nitrogen and preventing voids. Thus, providing more oxyalkylene units provides more units containing carbon repeating units while not adding any nitrogen atoms as is obvious from the chemical formula of Roeger-Goepfert. Thus, it further would have been obvious to optimize the number of oxyalkylene units within the ranges of 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) to lower the nitrogen to carbon ration in the leveler as taught by Kao for the leveler in Roeger-Goepfert because the oxyalkylene units affect the ratio which is recognized as a result effective variable in order to optimize the void prevention from the nitrogen with the leveling affects. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Lastly, the use of different types of polyalkyleneimines are known in the art in various fields, i.e. in Roeger-Goepfert and Boeckh, where their function is recognized for the use as additives in electroplating bath as discloses in Roeger-Goepfert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polyalkylenimine with oxyalkylene units 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), 13-25 (as required by instant claim 17)or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) as taught by Boeckh for the polyalkyleneimine with oxyalkylene units in Roeger-Goepfert because the chemicals are close structural homologs which differ only by the number of oxyalkylene units and are known in the prior art thus obvious to try the polyalkyleneimine’s of Boeckh with a reasonable expectation of success due to their chemical similarity, where the higher number of oxyalkylene units provides the benefit of lowering the nitrogen ratio in the plating baths which leads to the prevention of defects in the plating deposits as disclosed by Kao. See MPEP 2143 B and E.
As to claims 13, Roeger-Goepfert discloses a method comprising using the composition according to claim 1, the method comprising using the composition for depositing copper on a substrate comprising a recessed ([0036]) feature comprising a conductive feature bottom and a dielectric feature side wall ([0110], wherein the recessed feature has an aperture size from 500 nm to 500 µm (([0010]), 50-100 micrometers for copper pillar manufacturing ([0011]), as well as with substrates with features of less than 30 nanometers ([0006]]), or substrates with features on the nanometer scale ([0038], [0156]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular degree of alkoxylation (i.e. the number of oxyalkylene units per N-hydrogen atom of 1.5-10) is particularly useful for features in the sub 100 nm range ([0015]-[0016]).
a composition comprising
copper ions ([0032], [0101] “copper sulfate”, [0103], claim 11) and
at least one additive comprising a polyalkyleneimine backbone comprising N-hydrogen atoms ([0018] formula L1 generically), wherein
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol ([0043], [0048] which overlaps and falls within the instantly claimed range in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 I and thus prima facie obvious),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit ([0045] “mixture thereof” [0055]) particularly propylene oxide (as required by instant claim 6 [0055]
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ([0048] “polyethyleneimine backbone”, [0050] “…polymerizing ethyleneimine in the presence of a catalyst…”).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses the polyalkyleneimine backbone has to formula of instant claim 3
PNG
media_image1.png
199
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0018]) where XL1 is an ethanediyl ([0019],[0027]), AL1 is a continuation by branching ([0020]), RL1 is a polyoxyalkylene unit formula ([0022]) with unit r and s to be defined as p as instantly claimed and addressed with respect to the N-hydrogen atom units below, RL2 is RL1 ([0022] and seen in formula L1), XL11 is ethanediyl ([0023] R1), XL12 ([0023] the C3-C6 alkanediyls R1 which is a C3 reads on instant claim 16 “Preferably, R.sup.1 is selected from ethanediyl or a combination of ethanediyl and 1,2-propanediyl” thus requiring s and r to be 1 or more as required by instant claim 1), RL11 is a hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkylnyl, alkaryl, aryl, ([0024], and where q+n+m+o is 10-24000 ([0026] as required by instant claim 1), 1-10000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 8), 25-65 or 1000-1800 ([0031] as required by instant claim 9), 20-5000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 18), where preferable o = 0 (as required by instant claim 10 [0031]).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses one or more accelerating agents and suppressing agents (as required by instant claim 12 [0065], [0067], [0080]).
Regarding the limitation “(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine.”, Roeger-Goepfert discloses “wherein the average number of oxyalkylene units in said polyoxyalkylene radical is from 1.5 to 10 per N--H unit.” ([0007]) to reduce the nitrogen content in the leveler in order to prevent defects such as voids ([0015]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the composition is advantageous in plating vias of several micrometers, up 100 micrometers for TSV applications ([0010]), 50-100 micrometers for copper pillar manufacturing ([0011]), as well as with substrates with features of less than 30 nanometers ([0006]]), or substrates with features on the nanometer scale ([0038], [0156]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular degree of alkoxylation (i.e. the number of oxyalkylene units per N-hydrogen atom of 1.5-10) is particularly useful for features in the sub 100 nm range ([0015]-[0016]).
Kao discloses reducing the amount of nitrogen to carbon (referred to as the TN/TOC ratio in the Abstract) of leveling agents in electroplating baths (Abstract) and to optimize the amount of carbon to nitrogen ratio for use in recesses and via openings in order to not displace the suppressor compounds to prevent the formation of voids ([0018]-[0019]).
Boeckh discloses alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines (title) comprising
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol (col. 2 formula, col. 4 lines 32-46),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit (col. 2 lines 30-44),
(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine (col. 2 lines 40-44, particularly “at least 12.”, col./ 4 lines 1-31).
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ( “polyethyleneimine backbone” col. 4 lines 63-66).
The teaching of the prior art Roeger-Goepfert discloses an identical polyalkyleimine backbone formed from ethyleneimine with an identically disclosed backbone structure which the difference being the number of oxyethylene units per N-hydrogen atom. The difference amounts to compounds which differ by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, i.e. the oxyalkylene units, which are deemed to be homologs that are sufficiently close in structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that the additive as claimed would have similar properties and thus prima facie obvious to use an average number of oxyalkylene units between 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19). See MPEP 2144.09
Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular number of units is advantages in sub 100nm vias and that the number of units can be optimized to provide sufficient leveling effect with the least amount of nitrogen to prevent deleterious effects. Kao discloses optimizing the amount of nitrogen to carbon ratios of the levelers used in copper electroplating bath to provide a lower content of nitrogen and preventing voids. Thus, providing more oxyalkylene units provides more units containing carbon repeating units while not adding any nitrogen atoms as is obvious from the chemical formula of Roeger-Goepfert. Thus, it further would have been obvious to optimize the number of oxyalkylene units within the ranges of 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) to lower the nitrogen to carbon ration in the leveler as taught by Kao for the leveler in Roeger-Goepfert because the oxyalkylene units affect the ratio which is recognized as a result effective variable in order to optimize the void prevention from the nitrogen with the leveling affects. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Lastly, the use of different types of polyalkyleneimines are known in the art in various fields, i.e. in Roeger-Goepfert and Boeckh, where their function is recognized for the use as additives in electroplating bath as discloses in Roeger-Goepfert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polyalkylenimine with oxyalkylene units 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), 13-25 (as required by instant claim 17)or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) through routine optimization using similar ranges as taught by Boeckh for the polyalkyleneimine with oxyalkylene units in Roeger-Goepfert because the chemicals are close structural homologs which differ only by the number of oxyalkylene units and are known in the prior art thus obvious to try the polyalkyleneimine’s of Boeckh with a reasonable expectation of success due to their chemical similarity, where the higher number of oxyalkylene units provides the benefit of lowering the nitrogen ratio in the plating baths which leads to the prevention of defects in the plating deposits as disclosed by Kao. See MPEP 2143 B, E, and F.
As to claims 14 and 15, Roeger-Goepfert discloses a method comprising using the composition according to claim 1, the method comprising using the composition for depositing copper on a substrate comprising a recessed ([0036]) feature comprising a conductive feature bottom and a dielectric feature side wall ([0110], wherein the recessed feature has an aperture size from 500 nm to 500 µm (([0010]), 50-100 micrometers for copper pillar manufacturing ([0011]), as well as with substrates with features of less than 30 nanometers ([0006]]), or substrates with features on the nanometer scale ([0038], [0156]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular degree of alkoxylation (i.e. the number of oxyalkylene units per N-hydrogen atom of 1.5-10) is particularly useful for features in the sub 100 nm range ([0015]-[0016]) contacting a composition with the substrate ([0115]) and applying a current to the substrate for a time sufficient to deposit a copper layer into the recessed feature ([0115]) wherein the composition comprises:
copper ions ([0032], [0101] “copper sulfate”, [0103], claim 11) and
at least one additive comprising a polyalkyleneimine backbone comprising N-hydrogen atoms ([0018] formula L1 generically), wherein
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol ([0043], [0048] which overlaps and falls within the instantly claimed range in accordance with MPEP 2144.05 I and thus prima facie obvious),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit ([0045] “mixture thereof” [0055]) particularly propylene oxide (as required by instant claim 6 [0055]
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ([0048] “polyethyleneimine backbone”, [0050] “…polymerizing ethyleneimine in the presence of a catalyst…”).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses the polyalkyleneimine backbone has to formula of instant claim 3
PNG
media_image1.png
199
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0018]) where XL1 is an ethanediyl ([0019],[0027]), AL1 is a continuation by branching ([0020]), RL1 is a polyoxyalkylene unit formula ([0022]) with unit r and s to be defined as p as instantly claimed and addressed with respect to the N-hydrogen atom units below, RL2 is RL1 ([0022] and seen in formula L1), XL11 is ethanediyl ([0023] R1), XL12 ([0023] the C3-C6 alkanediyls R1 which is a C3 reads on instant claim 16 “Preferably, R.sup.1 is selected from ethanediyl or a combination of ethanediyl and 1,2-propanediyl” thus requiring s and r to be 1 or more as required by instant claim 1), RL11 is a hydrogen, alkyl, alkenyl, alkylnyl, alkaryl, aryl, ([0024], and where q+n+m+o is 10-24000 ([0026] as required by instant claim 1), 1-10000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 8), 25-65 or 1000-1800 ([0031] as required by instant claim 9), 20-5000 ([0031] as required by instant claim 18), where preferable o = 0 (as required by instant claim 10 [0031]).
Roeger-Goepfert discloses one or more accelerating agents and suppressing agents (as required by instant claim 12 [0065], [0067], [0080]).
Regarding the limitation “(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine.”, Roeger-Goepfert discloses “wherein the average number of oxyalkylene units in said polyoxyalkylene radical is from 1.5 to 10 per N--H unit.” ([0007]) to reduce the nitrogen content in the leveler in order to prevent defects such as voids ([0015]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the composition is advantageous in plating vias of several micrometers, up 100 micrometers for TSV applications ([0010]), 50-100 micrometers for copper pillar manufacturing ([0011]), as well as with substrates with features of less than 30 nanometers ([0006]]), or substrates with features on the nanometer scale ([0038], [0156]). Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular degree of alkoxylation (i.e. the number of oxyalkylene units per N-hydrogen atom of 1.5-10) is particularly useful for features in the sub 100 nm range ([0015]-[0016]).
Kao discloses reducing the amount of nitrogen to carbon (referred to as the TN/TOC ratio in the Abstract) of leveling agents in electroplating baths (Abstract) and to optimize the amount of carbon to nitrogen ratio for use in recesses and via openings in order to not displace the suppressor compounds to prevent the formation of voids ([0018]-[0019]).
Boeckh discloses alkoxylated polyalkyleneimines (title) comprising
(a) the polyalkyleneimine backbone has a mass average molecular weight Mw of from 600 g/mol to 100 000 g/mol (col. 2 formula, col. 4 lines 32-46),
(b) the N-hydrogen atoms are each substituted by a polyoxyalkylene group comprising an oxyethylene and a C3 to C6 oxyalkylene unit (col. 2 lines 30-44),
(c) the average number of oxyalkylene units in the polyoxyalkylene groups is of from more than 10 to less than 30 per N-hydrogen atom in the polyalkyleneimine (col. 2 lines 40-44, particularly “at least 12.”, col./ 4 lines 1-31).
wherein the alkyleneimine is an ethyleneimine ( “polyethyleneimine backbone” col. 4 lines 63-66).
The teaching of the prior art Roeger-Goepfert discloses an identical polyalkyleimine backbone formed from ethyleneimine with an identically disclosed backbone structure which the difference being the number of oxyethylene units per N-hydrogen atom. The difference amounts to compounds which differ by the successive addition of the same chemical groups, i.e. the oxyalkylene units, which are deemed to be homologs that are sufficiently close in structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that the additive as claimed would have similar properties and thus prima facie obvious to use an average number of oxyalkylene units between 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19). See MPEP 2144.09
Roeger-Goepfert further discloses the particular number of units is advantages in sub 100nm vias and that the number of units can be optimized to provide sufficient leveling effect with the least amount of nitrogen to prevent deleterious effects. Kao discloses optimizing the amount of nitrogen to carbon ratios of the levelers used in copper electroplating bath to provide a lower content of nitrogen and preventing voids. Thus, providing more oxyalkylene units provides more units containing carbon repeating units while not adding any nitrogen atoms as is obvious from the chemical formula of Roeger-Goepfert. Thus, it further would have been obvious to optimize the number of oxyalkylene units within the ranges of 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) to lower the nitrogen to carbon ration in the leveler as taught by Kao for the leveler in Roeger-Goepfert because the oxyalkylene units affect the ratio which is recognized as a result effective variable in order to optimize the void prevention from the nitrogen with the leveling affects. See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Lastly, the use of different types of polyalkyleneimines are known in the art in various fields, i.e. in Roeger-Goepfert and Boeckh, where their function is recognized for the use as additives in electroplating bath as discloses in Roeger-Goepfert.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the polyalkylenimine with oxyalkylene units 10-30, 11-28 (as required by instant claim 2 and 7), 12-25 (as required by instant claim 11), 13-25 (as required by instant claim 17)or 13-23 (as required by instant claim 19) as taught by Boeckh for the polyalkyleneimine with oxyalkylene units in Roeger-Goepfert because the chemicals are close structural homologs which differ only by the number of oxyalkylene units and are known in the prior art thus obvious to try the polyalkyleneimine’s of Boeckh with a reasonable expectation of success due to their chemical similarity, where the higher number of oxyalkylene units provides the benefit of lowering the nitrogen ratio in the plating baths which leads to the prevention of defects in the plating deposits as disclosed by Kao. See MPEP 2143 B and E.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments againstRoeger-Goepfert individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s arguments towards the maximum of the range in Roeger-Goepfert that a “sufficiently high” nitrogen content is responsible for good leveling performance, this argument is not persuasive because no evidence is presented within Roeger-Goepfert of higher alkoxylation ranges being disadvantageous. The prior art merely recites a range, without any accompanying evidence presented as to the criticality of that range. “Sufficiently high” is not defined by Roeger-Goepfert as to what degree of alkoxylation is sufficient. Rather, Roeger-Goepfert discloses why one would want higher degrees of alkoxylation to lower the nitrogen content, thereby preventing defects. Roeger-Goepfert does not dissuade from using higher degrees above 10 by merely reciting a preferential range of 1.5-10.
In response to Applicant’s argument towards the reference “as a whole” with respect to the homology on pg. 8, this argument is not persuasive because Applicant does not provide any rebuttable evidence that the homologs would not have the same properties. For example, no evidence is presented that when 11 units of the oxyalkylene are used, i.e. more than 10, then properties change or are suddenly less advantageous. The rejections does not rely in homology alone in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, i.e. as a standalone reference without further sufficient motivation. Rather, the combined findings of Roeger-Goepfert in view of Kao and Boeckh provide the explicit motivation to further optimize the amount of nitrogen in the levelers, which is explicitly done through the addition of oxyalkylene units as already established.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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